Tag Archives: Pope Francis

Attack Fr Byers, or yourself…

POPE FRANCIS AUTISTIC BOY

Condemned for everything he does, without exception.

There are bullies who damn you if you don’t hate Pope Francis as much as they do.

So, here’s a comment that came in after I didn’t let a comment that was rife with criticism (but not about the translation of the Lord’s Prayer) through the moderation queue on On condemning Pope Francis and his desire to translate the Lord’s prayer:

Come come. Why take so long to consider my comment? Is it not to your liking? Do you think the Pope should be protected from all criticism? Surely you must have read The Dictator Pope by now?

It sounds like someone who went to Oxford. It sounds like a friend of mine. But it’s not. At any rate, it just proves my point. No one is above criticism. But I don’t think that people are to be forbidden to do something good if they have ever – in the opinion of whomsoever – done something less than good in the eyes of that beholder. Ooooo! The Dictator Pope! So what?

I’ll tell you this: I’ve crucified the Son of the Living God with my participation in original sin and by whatever rubbish I’ve come up with on my own in my life. That’s all worse than whatever is listed off in The Dictator Pope. So, therefore, also I can never be allowed by this and other bullies like him to do anything good whatever because I’ve also done those horrible things. But I’ll tell you this as well: Christ Jesus has forgiven me. And I can, in His goodness and kindness and grace, do good things despite all the bad that I’ve also done in my life. And so can Pope Francis.

But if there are those who are so unforgiving that they hold that other people are absolutely hopeless and can never do anything good, that there is no forgiveness for them, that they are never to be encouraged, well, it seems to me that those very people are on the fast track to hell, for they have also crucified the Son of the living God with their own participation in original sin and by whatever of their own rubbish in their own lives. When they pray the Lord’s prayer that they are so snooty about, insisting that it NOT have a more precise translation because they don’t like Pope Francis, they are praying NOT to be forgiven because they have zero forgiveness for others, particularly Pope Francis. Damn him, they say. They are praying that they themselves be damned.

And that’s just really very sad.

Go to confession.

I do.

5 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

On condemning Pope Francis and his desire to translate the Lord’s prayer

PIB

Translating the Sacred Scriptures does take quite a bit of study. There are many processes of the historical criticism to wade through, many processes of historical philology and historical linguistics to thoroughly understand, not to mention the semantics as understood by the speakers and inspired authors and listeners back in the day. There is that, but that’s not all.

There is also faith as distinct from theology, as distinct from our own assent to the faith (the most basic form of theology). We also call that theology faith, but that kind of faith, really just our theology and our assent to it, is not revealed. It is a human work. Theology is based on revealed data, but theology a human understanding of that which is revealed. Faith which is supernatural (that is, apart from our human assent that we also call faith but is different from the supernaturally infused virtue of faith), if that supernatural faith is enjoyed with supernatural charity and supernatural hope, well, it purifies much of the limitation we would otherwise put on our own theology, our own understanding of the faith. For then we have no fear of understanding the truth more fully, for we are in love, and love casts out such fear. Faith, then, frees reason to be applied to the data of revelation to come up with a more robust theology, and, therefore, a more robust and faithful, as it were, translation of the Scriptures.

If our hearts are full of hate and we are hopeless, darkly congratulating ourselves for knowing the faith, even what we think we have will be taken away. Our hearts and minds and souls will be full of the worst fear and we will not for second want to actually more robustly understand the faith by way of a faithful theology. We will not only settle for that which is lesser, but will insist on it with all cynicism and hatred for all those who would make an attempt to bring us closer to the truth. Damn them all we would say.

If Pope Francis would like to do something in good faith, why make ad hominem attacks against him as if he absolutely could do nothing except in bad faith? Why? Because those doing this have zero training in Biblical criticism. They have nothing else but ad hominem attacks. Damn the damn Pope, they say. We don’t like what he’s done with other things, so we damn him no matter what, even if he attacks Satan, promotes Eucharistic adoration and promotes prayer. Damn him anyway and always. He can never do anything right.

What are such people afraid of? Why such dark congratulations for themselves?

It reminds me of those non-Catholic fundamentalist Christians who hold that The King James Bible is inspired and is the only Bible ever to have existed, even while they ignore that there are almost uncountable versions and retranslations of the King James Bible itself.

Just. Wow.

Lord, have mercy on us all.

Those with foot in mouth disease should read DaS (Divino afflante Spiritu), for a start, not to mention PD (Providentissimus Deus), and, yes, DV (Dei Verbum).

From Pius XII:

13. We also, by this Encyclical Letter, desire to insure that the work may not only proceed without interruption, but may also daily become more perfect and fruitful; and to that end We are specially intent on pointing out to all what yet remains to be done, with what spirit the Catholic exegete should undertake, at the present day, so great and noble a work, and to give new incentive and fresh courage to the laborers who toil so strenuously in the vineyard of the Lord.

14. The Fathers of the Church in their time, especially Augustine, warmly recommended to the Catholic scholar, who undertook the investigation and explanation of the Sacred Scriptures, the study of the ancient languages and recourse to the original texts.[22] However, such was the state of letters in those times, that not many – and these few but imperfectly – knew the Hebrew language. In the middle ages, when Scholastic Theology was at the height of its vigor, the knowledge of even the Greek language had long since become so rare in the West, that even the greatest Doctors of that time, in their exposition of the Sacred Text, had recourse only to the Latin version, known as the Vulgate.

15. On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of their oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men. Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning.

16. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted…

/// But today what we hear is that those who follow the venerable Pope’s directions are to be likewise condemned with bitter cynicism and fear…

Leave a comment

Filed under Pope Francis

Pope Francis attacks the Evil One: Retranslating the Lord’s Prayer

JESUS JUDAS

Judas, possessed by the Evil One, betrays Jesus in the Battle

I think it’s great to see the Holy Father, Pope Francis, wonderfully micro-manage the translation of the Lord’s prayer in English, which isn’t his first language, acting with the immediacy of his pastoral mandate anywhere and everywhere in the Church. Some denigrate this as his being a dictator, but I think we should praise this where we can. This is one of those instances. I’ve been wanting this retranslation ever since I was a little kid. But, oh no, everyone is afraid of not being politically correct. If we changed the translation, people might actually come to acknowledge that the Evil One, Satan, exists, and hates us because he hates God (and God loves us). So, here’s my comments on the story from SKYNews (just to be ecumenical), with more comments at the end. My final translation is actually much more pedantically accurate, so much so, I’m sure no one would ever take it up. I mean, after all, it puts us into humble thanksgiving mode before the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception.

*****

SKYNews – Pope Francis wants to change the Lord’s Prayer [[No, he doesn’t, just the English translation.]]

The pontiff says a line in the current version implies that God pushes people toward sin. By Bethan Staton

He said the line “lead us not into temptation”, memorized by hundreds of millions of Christians for centuries, is based on a flawed translation. [[All true!]]

“It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation,” the Pope said. The implication is awkward for Christians, who believe it is Satan who tempts people to sin. “I am the one who falls. It’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen,” the Pope explained. “A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department.”
The Pope’s comments, made in an interview with Italian television, could lead to a change in the prayer [[No, just the translation]], which is taken from the Bible [[The translation is from the weird mind an inept translator]] and is considered by some to encapsulate the core messages of Christianity. [[The real Lord’s prayer, yes.]] It also weighs in on a long-running liturgical debate over the nature of evil and the relationship between religion and language, explained Church of England theologian Reverend Dr Ian Paul. [[Yes, well, for the Anglicans. This is SKYNews after all. But also for Catholics, which is why this translation was picked up, as it erases Satan and merely speaks of some sort of generic “evil.”]]

The current version has been used by the Catholic Church since 1966, when the Second Vatican Council decided modern vernacular should be used in services instead of Latin. [[That’s not entirely accurate, not at all.]]

*** My other comments:

The very Creator, YHWH Elohim, said He Himself, as the Incarnate Son of the Woman of Genesis 3:15, would put enmity between ourselves and the Evil One, that is, changing us with friendship with Himself, grace, which He could provide to us in his own justice because of taking the initiative to stand in our stead, taking on the death we deserve, stomping on the head, the power, of the Evil One, but He Himself being crushed for us in doing this. In laying down His life, He lays down ours as well, for we become one with Him, and this throughout the centuries. He carries us as little children into the battle with the Evil One, He Himself doing the fighting for us, but we are with Him. In the Lord’s prayer, the final phrases are more accurately translated:

“Do not let us go into the battle alone [but rather go into battle with us and do the battle for us], and deliver us from the Evil One [Satan].” Amen.

18 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis, Prayer

The Holy See trolling who says what: Amoris laetitia & Argentinian bishops

World Youth Day 2016 Pope Francis and Jesus

For those of you paying attention, there are those who are upset with what Pope Francis and some of his Argentinian friends have been up to in the AAA (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), and, of course, part of the process of whatever maneuvers is for the Holy See to see who says what about whatever. One of my more visited posts, with heavily renewed interest, is this one, including today from the Holy See:

Amoris laetitia officially published in Latin in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) – Still a dialogue, not any kind of teaching

By the way, if it’s still a dialogue and not any kind of teaching, if some Argentinian bishops and the Bishop of Rome in these last few days want to raise all this to some form of Apostolic letter, well, whatever, it simply means nothing as a dialogue is not ever any kind of teaching. That’s like saying that black is white and apples are oranges and 2+2=5. Dialogue is simply dialogue, not any kind of teaching. Period.

However super officially you say it, it just means that it really super officially means absolutely nothing. So, big deal. It doesn’t disturb my peace. I am in anguish that so many are thrown into anguish and so many will likely go to hell because of all this. But, hey, I don’t want to go to hell so I don’t want to lose my peace. I’m still one little happy back ridges mountain priest already in the back sides of the darkest of existential peripheries, and I’m a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. I can’t be hurt. I don’t have any sycophantic fear. I follow Jesus, and any authentic teaching of the hierarchy. If anyone wants to kick me in the face for following Jesus, that just makes me rejoice.

And if the Holy See wants to know what I really think about it, those interested should read this, and pass it on to Pope Francis:

Papal Infallibility: The Gospel Truth (Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18)

As it is, I hold myself to be a faithful son of the Church and a faithful son of Papa Francesco. I stand in solidarity with him not necessarily meaning that I agree with everything he says, but by praying for him and getting others to do so: Hail Mary…

3 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis

Father Thomas Weinandy: Thank you! Hoping Pope Francis reinstates you.

pope francis asperges

Dear Father Weinandy, I’m hoping that Pope Francis will reject the sycophants at the USCCB and reinstate you for your honestly trying your best to lay self-referential interests aside in favor of the Church and indeed the whole world. We all need such honest friendship. The Holy Father can take or leave what you say, but one should treasure any sincere words that you offer just because first of all they are offered in good faith. The USCCB has made it all about bullying. That’s so sad. I thank you for making it all about Jesus and His Immaculate Bride, the Church. May Mary’s Son strengthen you.

6 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

To sign the correctio filialis or not…(making everyone mad at you)

lightning vatican holy see st peter

It is said in summary of text of the correctio filialis:

It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.

The words “effectively upheld” constitute a new level of teaching, I guess, below an ex-Cathedra statement, I guess, but effectively, I guess, on par, I guess, with the Ordinary and therefore also infallible Magisterium of the Church… I guess.

Too much guesswork for me. That’s too exhausting. Here’s the deal: all this time, for years now, it seems to me that I’m the only one in the world who happens to notice that in the first paragraphs of Amoris laetitia that what the Holy Father has proffered is merely a volley in dialogue. Period. Nothing more. He actually uses the word. And while that dialogue is not nothing in itself, it actually doesn’t amount to something. Clear? No? And so, therefore, what does it all mean? Well, it all just means nothing. So, whatever.

Am I not upset that ambiguity taken up by bullies, say, in Malta, or Argentina, or Chicago is destroying the salvation of souls? Yes, I’m upset.

But I also think it’s even hurtful effectively to say that the Holy Father has effectively propagated heresies, effectively on the level of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. That kind of language effectively leads to a mistaken ecclesiology which effectively is itself heretical.

Again, does that mean that I think that the Holy Father effectively backing rubbish in Malta and Argentina, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. [and I could go on…], isn’t hurtful? No, it doesn’t mean that. I do in fact think it’s extremely damaging to souls and to the very person of the Successor of Saint Peter. I grieve.

But we have to take great care in the ecclesiological language we use. Right? So, I will not sign. Meanwhile, another priest, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and who has given his life in the “priesthood exclusively for the salvation of souls,” the great Father Pinsent has this interview with LifeSiteNews. Here’s a snippet:

“The contradictions now being introduced deny reason, which is contrary to the heart of Catholic theology, the examples of great saint scholars like St. Thomas Aquinas, and the consistent teaching of our two most recent popes. Such divisions of faith and reason are catastrophic for the Church’s mission of the salvation to souls.”

I agree with all that wholeheartedly. And I entirely understand where the framers and signers are coming from. It’s just that “effectively upholds” and “propagates” seems effectively to say that this is all effectively part of the Ordinary Magisterium, when instead a dialogue is not that at all. One must be exact in these things, you know, to be filial about it, and so as not to cancel the very correctio that one attempts to make.

8 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis

Now THAT’S accounting! Pope Francis and the tiniest parish in North America

secretariat of state

I’ve seen accounting offices throughout my life which cannot do anything but obfuscate and offer ambiguity and obstructionism, all defensive when surely there’s no need to be.

I have a history of dealing with those who were falsely or otherwise implicated in rather shady financial ops connected however remotely or directly with the Holy See (now in the distant past) and am well aware that encouragement has been offered to the Holy See to clean things up a bit. Great! If the letter pictured above is any indication, things have changed for the better. I love that. Now, having said all that…

I admit it. We are the smallest parish in North America and we can’t afford very much for the collection for Peter’s Pence. But, hey! We take the collection with joy and we send it along directly to the Elemosineria Apostolica, the tiny Office for the Charitable Works of the Holy Father, which, the last time I visited it (years ago) was off to the right when entering Vatican City at Saint Ann’s gate. I love that our tiniest of all contributions is acknowledged not just by that Office, not just by the First Section of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, but by the Holy Father himself. This is so very humble of the Holy See. We are humbled by that humility. Thanks go to all in the Holy See. Their accounting practices are out of this world.

1 Comment

Filed under Pope Francis

Pope Francis’ Missionaries of Mercy preaching hell: “age inappropriate”?

fatima children hell

It’s July in the Fatima Century. On July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima said:

“Make sacrifices for sinners, and say often, especially while making a sacrifice: O Jesus, this is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” Lucia continues the account: As Our Lady spoke these words she opened her hands once more, as had during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now following back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear.

hell is real

It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me do. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. Terrified and as if to plead for succor, we looked up at Our Lady, who said to us, so kindly and so sadly: “You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. It is to save them that God wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If you do what I tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace.”

*     *     *

pope francis fatima

There are those who think that it is not only lacking in mercy but a downright aggression to mention hell in preaching especially if any children are present. Of course, kids are able to take in a great deal of reality of how things really are, and adults merely use children (that’s an offense) to attack any mention of hell that they, the adults, don’t want to hear, knowing themselves to be guilty of that which may well bring them to hell unless they go to Confession.

Our Lady doesn’t pull any punches, but for the benefit of all tells it and shows it like it is. Great. That helps us to say: “O Jesus, this is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

I often say that kids often save their parents as parents should want for themselves what they want for their kids, eternal life. I think we will also be surprised in heaven (please God we make it!) to see that it is the prayers of the little ones which saved so many adults.

When preaching about any topic whatsoever, it’s all about how you do it. If the scene, if you will, included the love and security provided by the Holy Family, that makes all the difference. Jesus and Mary love us so very much. There is bad stuff around, but Jesus and His good mom want us in heaven!

By the way, as it is said, there is perhaps no other Roman Pontiff in the history of the Church who has mentioned hell and the devil and exorcism more than Pope Francis. So, what’s a Missionary of Mercy of Pope Francis to do?

Look: Jesus in the Gospel pulled no punches about telling people about hell. Jesus was extremely blunt in telling people that they WILL go to hell unless they change their ways. Telling people the way things actually are is the greatest mercy.

6 Comments

Filed under heaven, Hell, Missionaries of Mercy

(1) Missionaries of Mercy reconfirmed: New list of faculties…

pope francis confession

The decree itself is spectacularly elegant with raised seal and all. The accompanying letter lists the particular sins reserved to the Holy See but which may be absolved by the Missionary of Mercy. These differ slightly but importantly from the original list.

Here’s the original list:

  1. profaning the Eucharistic species by taking them away or keeping them for a sacrilegious purpose;
  2. use of physical force against the Roman Pontiff;
  3. absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue;
  4. a direct violation against the sacramental seal by a confessor.

The second list, valid now and into the future indefinitely is as follows. It repeats more or less verbatim the list of four, but then adds a fifth, expanding on the fourth:

  1. Profanation of the Eucharistic species by taking them away or keeping them for a sacrilegious purpose.
  2. Use of physical force against the Roman Pontiff.
  3. Absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the Sixth Commandment.
  4. Direct violation against the sacramental seal by a confessor.
  5. [1] The recording by means of a technical device of what the priest or the penitent says in a Sacramental Confession (whether real or simulated), or [2] the divulgation of such a recording through the means of social communication. (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decretum de sacramenti Paenitentiae dignitate tuenda, 23 September 1988 (AAS 80 [1988] 1367).

This last, new addition, is double-barreled. The conjunction “or” is rather significant. The mere recording without any divulgation is already enough to commit a sin reserved to the Holy See for absolution (and now the Missionaries of Mercy). A person who comes across such a recording but did not make it, but does make the divulgation is also committing a sin reserved for absolution to the Holy See or to a Missionary of Mercy. Of course, these two actions usually go hand in hand, committing the first so as to commit the second. Thus:

I could easily see a bitter Catholic media personality with an ax to grind against the Church going to real Sacramental Confession and confessing real sins which everyone knows about but which are considered and proclaimed to the whole world not to be sins by the impenitent “penitent” journalist, so that he is just baiting the priest to say whatever, so that he, the journalist, has something to rant about on the radio or on television or in the newspapers or internet, using the confession, whatever direction it goes, as fodder making the Church the butt of jokes during the morning commute. This is actually a problem in France, where such nauseating cowardice is a national pass time. Of course, the sins need not be real to incur the wrath of God and the need for absolution lest one risk going straight to hell. Fake sins don’t make the mockery any less incisive.

But what of the case of someone who is just a bit slow in understanding, and makes a real recording of a real confession to a priest who is his hero as that priest has helped him so very much, making the recording for his poor memory and only for his own edification, not divulging it? Take that same recording of that same person and say that he then put it up online because he wants to share his joy with the world for the edification of all? Actually, he needs to confession for the first and then also the second if he does that too.

And then what about the person who fakes like he has a recording of what was, in fact, a Sacramental Confession? He lies about it, saying that he has a real recording, and makes up content, using it for blackmail and extortion. That’s falls under this rubric as well. I can see it now, lawyers and accusers looking for easy settlements from bishops who just might throw money at anyone and everyone who says that they don’t like the advice they got in confession. The bishop or anyone connected with him cannot ask to hear the recording and so don’t know if it’s real or not. The priest can’t defend himself in any way. It would never make it to court, but this would basically re-bankrupt the Church, with the lawyers and accusers saying that the church is mocking the victims by excommunicating them with their evidence, bullying them. They would then get settlement money, you know, to make it go away even while priests are once again thrown out of ministry for life.

2 Comments

Filed under Confession, Missionaries of Mercy

Amoris laetitia officially published in Latin in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) – Still a dialogue, not any kind of teaching

From paragraph 4:

Quapropter aequum iudicavimus Adhortationem apostolicam post-synodalem conscribere,quae sententias colligeret duarum proximarum de familia Synodorum, aliis additis considerationibus quae cogitationes, dialogum vel pastoralem actionem dirigere, et eadem opera animum erigere, concitare familiasque iuvare earum in muneribus ac difficultatibus possint.

Since it is all as ambiguous as ever and I have absolutely no idea what it means in the least, I will continue to adhere to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the authentic interventions of the Magisterium of the Church throughout the centuries, such as we find in the Sacred Council of Trent. Period.

And that’s all the thought I’ll give to this. As it is, I’m late for my “day-off” and much, much more important things than unhelpful confusion. To those who are upset with mere vacuousness, listen up:

  • We know the absolutely clear teaching of Jesus, who is God.
  • We know the absolutely clear teaching of Sacred Scripture, both old and new Testaments.
  • We know the absolutely clear teaching of Sacred Tradition spoken to us by the Holy Spirit and to which we listen as if it were given to us by hand (quasi per manus as the Council of Trent put it in its first dogmatic decree of April 8, 1546).
  • We know the absolutely clear teaching of the authentic interventions of the Magisterium of the Church, including, for instance, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and the great Councils throughout the history of the Church.

At the judgment, we won’t be able to blame anyone’s “dialogue” for our moral failure if we go ahead and use “dialogue” as an excuse to reject Jesus, Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Period.

1 Comment

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Excommunication of Mafia by secular courts? What’s this about? Anecdotes…

MAFIA OMERTA

“Hello Fr. George: I had a doubt if excommunication of mafia is also extended to those co- cooperating directly or indirectly by running  illicit businesses like gambling dens and bootlegging. — With prayers [Priest friend from India]”

We’ll have to see the language, which I imagine will be quite filled with legalese. As it is, more than fifty prosecutors, bishops, United Nations representatives and victims of organized crime have just tried to come up with a new legal doctrine concerning “the question of excommunication for corruption and mafia association.” “New” is right.

The novelty in this is that Pope Francis is seriously thinking of moving forward on entirely handing the Church’s own judicial processes of imposing excommunication over to the State regarding the Mafia, so that the opinion of the State as to the guilt of someone in, say, racketeering (a conviction), is what effectively imposes and declares the excommunication. Or is there to be an “administrative process” in some Vatican “Pontifical Council for the Excommunication of the Mafia” whereby the poor fellow has his State conviction rubber stamped by some Vatican office worker? What a sick joke against both justice and mercy. This seems to be insanity, real evil, putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

mafia

The State is often the enemy of the Church in various countries. What do you do if you are a kind of Henry VIII and you have a troublesome cleric like John Fisher or a troublesome Chancellor like Thomas More? Just trump up charges of racketeering and the poor fellows will be not only be convicted by the State but also excommunicated by the Church based solely on that secular conviction. It’s no longer Saint John Fisher but damned John Fisher. It’s no longer Saint Thomas More but damned Thomas More. The Church would no longer has any voice in the public square with this kind of pressure for ecclesiastics to be sycophants of the State. The U.S. Department of State is having a celebration, along with so many governments in other countries.

But there are so many insurmountable problems that I doubt Pope Francis will be successful in moving forward with this kind of legislation for State sponsored Catholic excommunication, this delegation of investigation, prosecution, conviction and sentencing to the State. If he is successful, I can only imagine the immediate wholesale convictions of racketeering followed by death sentences for church leaders in countries that are terribly annoyed with the Catholic Church (and there are many which are just that violent). And what’s the Church to do if all those church leaders are also said to be excommunicated?

Some important personal anecdotes:

(1) For quite a long time I lived in the same house as the head legal liaison between the Italian Department of Defense (Ministero della difesa) and the Holy See. He approached me with the request that I agree that he might arrange an assignment for me as pastor in a parish in Southern Italy so that he might better deal with the Mafia in that region, my anti-Mafia activities apparently being known to some. I knew exactly where he was going in the conversation and got him to admit easily enough that his purpose was to go ahead and put listening devices in my confessional box so that they might have evidence to convict whatever mafia went to confession. The Mafia do go to confession, but not with the purpose of being forgiven, but so as to shut the priest up, for the priest would then feel obliged by the seal of confession even if he otherwise heard the information outside of confession as well. This liaison was quite blunt about this, quite open, even telling me the procedures they use to set this already well established policy into practice. This happens all the time. In these USA the FBI has done this numerous times in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. I asked him what would happen if I actually did my bit as a priest and did not give the mafia guy absolution, but told him to get his wife and kids and skip the country taking nothing with him so as to get out of the mafia altogether and then get absolution elsewhere. The response was that I would, of course, be shot right through the confessional screen. Of course. I declined. He was upset as he had revealed much about the level of respect Italy has for the Church (and me): none whatsoever.

(2) A good “friend”, one of the very top anti-Mafia investigators in Italy for DIA (Direzione Investigativa Antimafia) wanted me to spy for him on who else but the Cardinals who are resident in Rome. He was offering me all sorts of favors toward this end, even putting local law enforcement at my beck and call, regardless of how long I might take them away from their duties. The thing is, I did know very well and have been in the houses and various main offices and back offices and off to the side offices of many of the Cardinals. I declined. He was upset as he had revealed much about the level of respect Italy has for the Church (and me): None whatsoever.

(3) A bishop in southern Italy, a close friend with no fear in publicly and continuously denouncing the mafia in his diocese, was threatened with death numerous times to no effect. Finally the mafia, in this case the ‘Ndrangheta, got a hold of the Pontifical Family to pass along the message that if the bishop was not moved by the next morning he would certainly be found dead. He was moved to another diocese that very night. In other words, the church revealed that it will not back up the pastoral initiatives of those who stand up against the mafia, but will just do the expedient thing, showing what respect there is for actual courage: none whatsoever.

(4) A mafia priest, a pastor in a large parish in the western region of Rome, has constant contacts with the Pontifical Family, making personal visits. He’s got many of the big political mafia bosses in his parish. They are taken care of very well by the parish, favored members of the parish. What does that say? (I did try to do something about this at one time. Response? None whatsoever that I know about.)

(5) My own case worker (let’s call him J.J. for short) in the U.S. Department of State surely has everything to do with this legal conference of Pope Francis and is likely the instigator and provider of legal language for much of it. He has everything to do with the law, with the United Nations, with the Hague, with this kind of legal maneuvering by teams for or against individuals on an international level in such manner that international relations between countries are affected. I smell a rat in all this. There is a difference between the Holy See and the Vatican, a difference which, if not protected, will bring damage to Vatican City State fairly quickly. This conflation of prosecution of the Mafia by Church and State could well be a precedent. This effort has been going on for many years in many ways also by way of powerful ecclesiastical figures who bow down to those at the United Nations and other diplomatic / legal organs… Maybe the legalese will provide a way out of this conflation. Maybe not. We will see. What are the tangible benefits? None whatsoever that I can figure out. Everything can go wrong; nothing and no one is better off with this sort of action. Quite literally this would set up the Holy See / Vatican City State for extortion by the U.S. State Department, forcing what the DoS would call “policy” decisions, or assignments of bishops, or whatever. Not a good position to be in.

(6) A little test of all this before any promulgation of any decree by Pope Francis might well be in order. What I have in mind is to […].

(7)  I should mention the Archdiocese of Malta, where C.S. resides, and also the little town of Salem, New Hampshire, USA, where E.A., “thick as thieves” with C.S., is continuing to serve out his prison sentence…

Et cetera

2 Comments

Filed under Holy See, Mafia, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Excommunicating the Mafia – part 2 – Missionaries of Mercy to absolve?

You have heard that it was said that Pope Francis is intent on excommunicating the mafia, you know, more officially than did Pope John Paul II back in 1982. You can see how scared Marini was in back of him, surely thinking they were going to get shot on the spot. As it is, the mafia was killing priests, threatening the Cardinal of Palermo, executing judges, and doing all their horrible protection rackets, prostitution, drugs. At the time, at least in the Archdiocese of New York, it was forbidden to provide the sacraments or funerals to the mafia. Now, I don’t know. Perhaps it wasn’t “officially” done by JPII and Francis wants to make it more “official.” There are plenty of mafia priests around, especially in Italy, but elsewhere as well, certainly in these USA.

Maybe Pope Francis will make the excommunication something only the Holy See or Missionaries of Mercy can take away. We will see. I have some stories to tell along those lines which involve the Italian Military and the Holy See, with me right in the middle of the whole thing. Perhaps this is what inspired the brain-stormers, you know: “Let the Missionaries of Mercy be put on the spot.” Fine. Whatever.

It is imperative that a bit of thought goes into advice for those absolving such things. I would not recommend that any priest be allowed to do this. I recommend that the possibilities for absolution are made known at the same time as the excommunication, which is supposed to be medicinal, right?

Unless things have radically changed in Rome over the past number of years in regard to the mafia, I would guess that no one has a clue what the political maneuvering is really like. I will try to write more on this, also to Archbishop Fisichella (my boss in this matter) and Pope Francis.

Perhaps it might be thought that my little parish is out of the way and inconsequential in this matter, but, in fact, it is because it is perhaps the most remote place in these USA that the mafia is to be found in abundance, along with, unknown to each other, those in witness protection.

6 Comments

Filed under Confession, John Paul II, Mafia, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Flowers for the Immaculate Conception (Requesting Martyrdom edition)

flores papist

Jesus said to his disciples:
“This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.
No one has greater love than this,
to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
You are my friends if you do what I command you.
I no longer call you slaves,
because a slave does not know what his master is doing.
I have called you friends,
because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.
It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you
and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain,
so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.
This I command you: love one another.”

That’s today’s Gospel. Jesus is commanding us to ask for the grace of martyrdom, laying down one’s life for one’s friends, the greatest love, how He loved us. That’s the logic of that passage. Inescapable. Totally. This is what we are to ask of our Heavenly Father. I’m guessing that that request would make our dear Mother Mary most happy.

The flowers I put up for this post are in front of the statue of the Immaculate Conception at the rectory. They are yellow and white, the colors of the Holy See, a tad bit Papist of me. Yes. This really makes people angry. It makes Islamists upset. It makes ultra-traditional-ism-ists upset. It makes the filthy liberals upset.

It is most Catholic to support not only the idea of the office of Peter (which support, cut off from Peter himself as so many do, is a heresy for the reason that the Church is founded on Peter and not on a mere idea of an office), but it is also most Catholic to support Peter himself, his very person, which filthy liberals, ultra-traditional-ism-ists, Islamists, etc., are loathe to do. I take a lot of heat for supporting the very person of Pope Francis. And that’s just fine with me.

Just because one is supporting Peter himself doesn’t mean that one is supporting everything that Peter says. That would be absurd. Peter himself wouldn’t stand for it. I couldn’t care less if Peter bets on a certain horse for the Kentucky Derby. I’ll bet on my own horse, or actually not bet at all. But I will pay attention when the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ speaks not just for himself but as the head of the Catholic Church, and not just to some group or another or as part of some dialogue (such as is the case with Amoris laetitia), but when he is speaking to the universal Church, to everyone, and as a teacher, not a mere participant in ongoing dialogue, and also, conjoined to this, when he speaks on a matter of faith or morals as found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (or in the natural law for that matter), especially when this is deciding a controverted point.

But not only. I will also pray and stand in solidarity with Peter to the point where I feel that it is true that he who insults Peter insults me. Indeed, he who insults Peter insults Jesus who established Peter as the Rock upon which the Church is built. He who insults Jesus insults me. Why? Because Jesus did the same for the likes of horrible, sinful me. Thank you, Jesus.

But Father George! You don’t understand! Pope Francis blah blah blah blah blah. Yes, I’m aware of that and about a million other things you haven’t even thought about. I know. And so I ask: “So? Does that mean I shouldn’t pray for him? That I shouldn’t be a good son of the Church? Does it mean I can’t do my best to be the best priest I can be, teaching the best I can, praying the best I can, encouraging the best I can? I stand with Peter. I’m Catholic. I’m a priest.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Flores, Holy See, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis, Priesthood, Vocations

Medjugorje: Malum ex defectu

pope francis return from fatima

There’s an old saying: “Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocumque defectu” — (It is good because it is integrally good, but it is evil by way of any defect).

Those officially examining Medjugorje went into their work already knowing that they would find plenty lacking in integrity, plenty by way of defects. But, ideologically desiring to say that Medjugorje is just fine, they placed arbitrary and self-serving limitations on their judgments so as to come up with something good to say, you know, the old “I’ll take the good and throw out the bad” methodology, which, to apply that way of going about things in this case one has to be willing to swallow that 99.99% is evil so that one can go ahead and gleefully jump up and down and say that 00.01% looks like it’s not fully contradictory to the teaching and morality and praxis (on every level) of the Church. Yay! We did it! We get to say that Medjugorje is… um… what it is… right?

The Commission voted on just the first seven “apparitions”, saying the rest are trash, but hey, maybe we can say the first seven are, like, apparently not like the rest. That’s like taking one drop out of the ocean and saying the ocean is bad but maybe that one drop is kind of, you know, maybe, like, O.K. But that drop came from that ocean, right?

Then, whether or not the behavior of the seers and spiritual fruits is included, the judgement is confused and divided. That’s really telling.

Amazingly, it is said that the seers have always lacked spiritual guidance and are now scattered to the winds, meaning that in their opinion organized pilgrimages can be made and the parish church should be made into a pontifical sanctuary. In other words, so much damage has been done to the faithful with the imposition of such chaos that, for pastoral reasons this should be done. They insist that this is to avoid “parallel churches”, meaning that such diabolical division is the extortion that Medjugorje uses to get approved even while insisting that such moves as organized pilgimages and a pontifical sanctuary status is not a recognition of the supernatural nature of the apparitions. Uh-huh. And I’m absolutely certain that that’s the way it will be perceived as well (sarcasm). They say that this will provide clarity of economic issues, but the perception – excuse me – is that one should check the bank accounts of those involved for ongoing kickbacks.

At least Cardinal Müller is doubtful about the “apparitions” and the “report.” We will see what happens by Summer of 2017 for any “pastoral initiatives.”

By the way: The “Commission” has no power to do anything whatsoever. They might have an intramural vote among themselves that is as important as any intramural balloon volleyball in Kindergarten, but it has no effect. They are merely consultative, just to say you did it. Remember the politics of this: many commissions are chosen for their contrary value. Once they are done, the Church makes it’s own decision, often flying in the face of whatever commission. Case in point: Humanae vitae commission.

5 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Questions for + Charles Scicluna

scicluna

Your Grace: Why did the Malta Times take down their article about you? Were they wrong? Did they misrepresent you? Really? Since you invite dialogue, as a Missionary of Mercy I will put some questions before you for the sake of, you know, promoting justice, for the good of the Church, pro bono ecclesiae. So…

  • Your Grace: You say that the teaching of the Church — let’s just call it by the name of the encyclical Humanae vitae — is only for married couples which you say can be constituted only of one man and one woman, but that you don’t judge other couples, though you insist that extramarital sex is sinful but at the same time insist that adulterous couples can receive Holy Communion if they are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Jesus’ teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: does this mean that you are making a sacrament of sinful behavior?
  • Your Grace: Lest anyone think that is a sarcastic question, let’s provide an analogous question regarding your longstanding promotion of the civil celebrations of homosexual love in civilly recognized homosexual unions, as long as there is no sexy hanky panky going on, though all love including homosexual love, you say, is given by God and is good and holy: are you saying with your recent statements about peaceful consciences for adulterous couples that homosexual acts are also a kind of sacrament, objectively sinful as they may be, as long as the homosexuals involved are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Saint Paul’s teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church?
  • Your Grace: You seem to be throwing a tantrum that the Malta Times got it wrong, but would you say that — you know, in being honest here — that they had a good instinct about your utter hypocrisy regarding sexual morality, so that anything whatsoever is just fine, including contraception also in marriage as long as those involved are at peace with their consciences?
  • Your Grace: Do you put condom dispensers in your Catholic parochial school bathrooms for those who judge their consciences to be at peace? Or do you put those dispensers out, say, in the lunchroom along with free copies of the Qur’an which you let be taught in your parochial schools?
  • Your Grace: Jesus warned those who teach people to break the commandments, so are you going to spit on Jesus while you continue to teach people to break the commandments?
  • Your Grace: You slit the throats of those seminarians who wish to follow the teaching of Jesus and Paul, that is, those seminarians who do not reject Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: so do you think that Jesus, who is calling them to His priesthood, is happy with your violence against them?
  • Your Grace: Your close friend (Monsignor) Edward Arsenault, at the epicenter in so many ways of the abuse crisis, just got out of prison and is in home confinement, where he just received the news that he has been dismissed from the clerical state (laicized): is what you are doing with your not so ambiguous and inconsistent but really very clear statements related somehow to demands of his, you know, because he could spill the beans about how things have actually gone in these USA, over in Europe, and at the Holy See?

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Eucharist, Holy See, homosexuality, Marriage, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Pope Francis’ Fundamental Theology

World Youth Day 2016 Pope Francis and Jesus

Have you heard the hearsay that it was heard from Pope Francis himself that Pope Francis thinks that there cannot possibly be anything any more utterly boring than Fundamental Theology? If he truly said something along those lines, it’s not that that’s a lie, though I would say that it is disingenuous, which is how Pope Francis once described himself.

On the one hand, he might well think that studying Fundamental Theology is utterly boring. On the other hand, he might well think that steering the course of Fundamental Theology is entirely enthralling, an adrenaline rush even. So, that leaves us with two questions: (1) What exactly is Fundamental Theology; (2) Is it legitimate to steer the course of any theology apart from the expected sources of theology, to wit: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the infallible Magisterial interventions of the Church (this apart from the added help of the Fathers when they agree)?

(1) What exactly is Fundamental Theology?

Good question. It seems to me that Fundamental Theology is an illegitimate however popular tract of theology effectively created by the progressivist liberal minded almost sarcastic manualist Father Adolphe-Alfred Tanquerey (1854-1932), a Sulpician “Thomist” [not in my opinion] and Canon Lawyer [who combines a bit too nonchalantly morality and law perhaps that there might be an opening for a loophole for anything…]. People think he’s ultra conservative and therefore “right” because he wrote in Latin and before Vatican Council II. A very famous canon lawyer once insisted that that is in fact the case about everything written in Latin before the Council…

Because his not simply distilled but actually reductionist manuals with their wild innovations were easily used as a kind of collection of cheat-sheets for exams in the seminary, he was treated as a kind of god who was always right and could not possibly ever be critiqued (an attitude betraying a weak mind that is afraid of thinking, at attitude utterly un-Thomistic). I’m hoping Tanquerey is not among the ossified manualists held up by some. That would simply be wrong. He’s not ossified (how very un-Thomistic!), but rather slimey, goopy, yucky. Although Tanquerey taught in these USA, surely laying the foundations for making Saint Mary’s in Baltimore the horror that it later became, he also influenced seminaries right around the world, including that of Jesuit scholastic efforts. Even Jesuits like progressivist liberal cheat-sheets.

The Common Doctor, that is, Saint Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican mind you), not Tanquerey the Sulpician, did in fact brilliantly contrast divinely given faith as opposed to our assent to the faith, that is, by way of Theology. In this clarity, Sacred Tradition is manifest for what it is, the univocal supernatural revelation of the articles of faith to the soul by the Holy Spirit such that in consequence the content of the faith to which we assent by way of the conscience seems to be handed on almost as if by hand, but it is not, as this is indeed the work of the Holy Spirit. That conscience is free to decide is a total misunderstanding of how the conscience operates.

At any rate, for Tanquerey, merely exterior and historically occasioned manifestations of this Sacred Tradition (which is a distinction which must be kept [see the Council of Trent’s reference to quasi per manus]), such as with doctrinal Conciliar decrees, are seized upon by Tanquerey and then equated with the much more fundamental, if you will, work of the Holy Spirit, so that the mere listing of Magisterial interventions throughout the centuries is somehow equated with Sacred Tradition (which is absurd) and then rejected altogether by the lockstep consequence brought to bear by the likes of Father Bernard Lonergan, S.J. (a Jesuit of course), who trumpeted the psychological and otherwise historically conditioned circumstances in which the now presumed merely human handing on of the faith occur, making it seem quite impossible that divine revelation is not over time morphed by political correctness and the general weakness of mankind. Lonergan is another of the gods of the liberals, whereby no truth is possible as no truth is personal (an irony of relativism if there ever was one). By the way, Lonergan had a kind of think-tank, shrine even, at the Casa Santa Maria, where I once lived (the post-grad priest residence in Rome of the USCCB. It was under lock and key, kind of like a tabernacle, you know, because there is no absolute truth other than the absolute truth of Lonergan that there is no absolute truth.

(2) Is it legitimate to steer the course of any theology apart from the expected sources of theology, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the infallible Magisterial interventions of the Church?

I’m opining that Pope Francis loves his attempt to steer the course of Fundamental Theology, so that the historically conditioned circumstances even within sinful “structures (in that view)” can manifest God’s love regardless of whatever is said in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the infallible Magisterial interventions of the Church.

I’m guessing that this manipulation of Fundamental Theology by Pope Francis by way of exercises in the field hospital that is Church is not seen by him as adding something to the sources of theology in that what he trying to pay attention to is the love of God that would be crucified for us, that would enter the hospital, as it were, for us. The last thing I would want to say is that Pope Francis is insincere, however much he calls himself disingenuous.

Yet, it must be said that this appreciation of Jesus in those who have suffered the malfeasance of recalcitrant catechists (clerical or religious or lay) so that they suffer from having no formation in the faith, is an appreciation of Jesus which is off the mark, forcing that imaginary Jesus (the “Jesus of Faith” utterly cut off from the “Historical Jesus”) upon patients in the field hospital instead of Him who is right now both the Historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith, right now the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Rejecting free will and grace makes for a Fundamental Theology which, however adrenaline pumping, is simply an expression of that which is, for all intents, constructions and purposes, none other than Pharisaical casuistry that is Promethean, Neo-Pelagian, and, inasmuch as this depends on oneself as an overriding source, also self-absorbed and self-referential and that which ensures that instead of sharing the joy which is the Person of the Lord who IS Truth, one instead keeps others cast into the darkest of existential peripheries, picking them up from their stretcher at the Triage center of the field hospital and throwing them right back into the violence and smoke and fire and darkness of the peripheries. I say this in all peacefulness and charity as a son to a father. Is that permitted?

In the end, after the adrenaline has worn off, and the faith is no more, what’s left except perhaps some illegitimate sexual experiences for example, you know, the kind spoken about in Amoris laetitia, the kind pushed in Malta and Germany and…

Error is what is boring especially after popularity wears off. And sex out of place also becomes boring, which is why it leads, as Saint Paul says in Romans 1, to violence and yet more violence.

I could well be wrong. On the one hand, Pope Francis lets Amoris laetitia slide along with truly anti-Catholic guidance by Charles Scicluna and others. On the other hand, he holds their conclusions to be wrong in other circumstances with other people. What does Pope Francis really think? I don’t know. He promised on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Synods of Bishops to make a kind of ex-Cathedra conclusion about the controversies. He certainly has not done this to date. Why not? Good question. Here’s what I wrote about that, what I think is all we can know, and that’s not much:

An important article: Correcting Pope Francis’ Correctors

2 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis

Forcing Vatican regime changes and…

assange

The rather well connected Thomas D Williams (son in law of an acquaintance of mine) wrote the other day about a conspiracy to force Benedict out and to replace him with someone a bit more malleable[!], hinting at this, among other things, by way of tidbits from Julian Paul Assange’s Wikileaks about John David Podesta, and from hints from Archbishop Luigi Negri, close friend of Pope Benedict XVI: HERE.

edward arsenault

But hey! What do I know? All I know is that the little tidbits that keep coming in are consonant with and answer the most questions about various developments, including the double-murder of Pope Francis’ pregnant “Front of House” “Receptionist” at the time of the gay-marriage referendum in Italy, when enormous pressure was put on the Catholic Hierarchy not to say anything about it, or else. I mean, really, the repeated tantrum like public protestations of the porporati that they didn’t say anything were apoplectic. Some pieces haven’t yet come into the spotlight, and need to be aired. The pressure isn’t just about moral topics and the manipulation of voters’ consciences.

I think I should go have a chat with Julian. I do, after all, have a number of ulterior motives to go to London. The Embassy of Ecuador is just a stroll away from where I would stay, which is just on the other side of Hyde Park (with some 40 volumes of materials to analyse there…), and a bit closer to the American Embassy [!], and a stone’s throw from Tony Blair’s back yard. I’ve been waiting to have a certain chat with Tony since early 2010 about a certain televised debate I would like to set up. He would be the moderator. It’s on a topic he’s spent his retirement facilitating one way or the other. A best friend of mine who is also a best friend of his would boil the billy for the encounter. I don’t think it’s illegal to speak to Assange, or slip a message to him, since he hasn’t been formally charged with anything as far as I know. If you know differently, let me know.

3 Comments

Filed under Holy See, Intelligence Community, Military, Politics, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Terrorism

Removing Pope Francis by civil force: ultratraditionalismists and machetes

eucharist pope francis

So, those who have been ultra-traditional-ism-ist-icized (not with Tradition) are at it again. Not content to be heretics in claiming that the papacy is merely an abstract office instead of the Church being founded on the very person of Simon-Peter, they have now gone the next step to encourage ruminations about physically, forcefully removing the person of the successor of Saint Peter.

The papacy is a sine-qua-non, without which the Church is no longer. I’m not talking about the time between the death/abdication of one pope and the election of another, but rather the heresy that the Roman Pontiff answers even as regards the faith to civil power.

Usually, those who are ultra-traditional-ism-ist-icized claim that there is no real civil power, as the Pope is all about being the immediate power regarding minutiae of mere political matters such as whether firstly to fill in a pothole in whatever secondary road or firstly to fix whatever broken down school bus. But then, twisting their britches in a knot, they condemn such ultramontanism in an effort to say how reasonable they are. But now, they want to put the papacy under civil pressure and do violence to the Holy Father.

As their head spins around like that of William Roper before he married Meg, so does the interpretation they put on Dignitatis Humanae. It is to laugh. Or cry. How sad. I’ve opined previously that some of these commentators seem to be communists, or supported by George Soros. Clever little things. While I was not of that opinion in the more remote past, and was even willing to write for them at one point, their possible depth of nefariousness is being confirmed for me day by day with the articles that are published by them, articles which, for instance, claim that the abuse crisis was about pedophilia instead of homosexuality and that pretty much all clerics are clericalists and participate in the same. This seems to be a SNAP concept which flies in the face of the John Jay report. I should note that some of the most strident ultra-traditional-ism-ists snapped up a certain blog writer who, with her all time favorite post, claimed that traditionalist priests put their elbows on the altar at the consecration so as to have gay sex with a transgendered version of Him who is being sacrificed on the Altar. The blasphemy is, for them, to be reverenced. But they are not of Tradition, but merely belong to a politicized ultra-traditional-ism-ist-icized point of view for the sake of destroying the faith of the faithful. No? I think Pope Francis was correct to speak the truth bluntly to them, as they do seem to be all wrapped up in κοπροφιλία and κοπροφαγία. Tender snowflakes that they are, they were offended, apoplectic.

My question is, why do they have so very many followers? Why do people, otherwise believers, so fiercely support them?

I’m getting to think that Archbishop Fisichella was correct to opine that the canon law against violence against the Holy Father also includes incitement to violence against the Holy Father, that this also brings with it an excommunication. Ed Peters argues against this, and I’m sure he’s correct regarding the strict interpretation of the law. But the way things work out in practice, with boots on the ground, is that violence can sure enough come about. For instance, a radio talk show in Rwanda turned out to be responsible for the genocide in the war crimes tribunal even though perhaps the people and guests on the radio never lifted a machete themselves.

I mentioned to Father Gordon J MacRae that I might be writing about this today, and he reminded me that today is the fourth anniversary of the election of Pope Francis. He said that readers might do well to revisit his post written at the time: Pope Francis and the Lost Sheep of a Lonely Revolution.

For myself I say this: I will continue to profess the faith, including faith in the Papacy of the Church, which remains One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

For the ultratraditionalismisticized I say this: Don’t be so bitter that you lose your peace and lose your faith and turn to heresy for comfort. Help to bring clarity and the love which is truth and joy in the Holy Spirit to those who are confused. Don’t be part of the problem. Evangelization is not about being a tender snowflake in this Church militant. Evangelization is all about Jesus, Divine Son of the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God. It is He who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Let yourself be salted with the fire of His ardent love. Bitterness without love, that is, finding refuge in heresy, is not the bitterness of true love found with her of whom it is written:

“Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by? Look around and see. Is there any bitter grief like my bitter grief that was inflicted on me, that the LORD brought on me in the day of His fierce anger?”

pieta

Don’t be heretics. Remain in solidarity with Jesus and Mary as they are in solidarity with us. Don’t run away. Did all the Apostles run? Yes. Judas ran into hell. But the others finally returned, were forgiven, became great saints. What about you?

4 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy

A day in the death at the Holy See. Chilling chat with a string puller.

It’s well over a year now that 34 year old Miriam Woldu of Eritrea, “Front of House” receptionist at the Pope’s residence of Santa Marta, was assassinated with her baby in her womb. Intense culpable homicide investigations began after the autopsy and examination of her medical supplies. After. The deaths were a shot over the bow. All never to be heard from again.

Hey! “The Vote” in Italy went as planned with highly publicized negligence on the part of the Holy See and Italian hierarchy to provide any direction. There were plenty of sycophantic exclamations like: “We never said anything and so we are nice and so be nice to us, please!” We pray for her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed.

I have to wonder if she’s the (at the time) young lady our intelligence community bragged to me about finding (to see if I knew her?), someone who could remember every face years later even though only glimpsed once, able to give accurate descriptions about associated times and places. You don’t get “Front of House” for the leader of 1.3 billion people without being a most extraordinary individual. And yet some of the media conjectured she was just a stupid girl from a third world country and couldn’t possibly know how to manage her medical supplies. One of our readers, whose comment I did not publish, but who has a (malicious?) penchant for mocking anything but extreme naivete cleverly agreed with that bit of racism if I recall correctly. Anyway…

This comes to mind again after a chat I had the other day with someone all too interested in everything to do with replacing the one I think facilitated, set up the assassination. The facilitator, who I knew very well, was there for years, under orders, and had personal motives, ample opportunity and all logistics clicking into place, and exactly the right time with the message all too clear. I mean, I knew who trained him, who assigned him, and all his daily activities. He’s now “dead” and entirely removed from Italy. The fellow I had a chat with the other day has the string-pulling ability to replace the now removed facilitator guy with another like minded fellow, regardless of who took his place some few years ago. It was a bit of a chilling conversation. The perception is that it’s just all too easy as so many of the people in place in the Holy See are so entirely able to be manipulated.

Some higher-ups in our DoD well understand that I am rightly concerned for the safety of the Holy Father even while they correctly acknowledge my patriotism regarding these USA and my support of the CIA and State Department generally speaking. Many of them, who have spent lifetimes in the Military at the Pentagon and loaned out to the CIA (high ranking guys) warn me about my interfering to the point of my outing an agent, speaking of the usual penalty for doing so, and yet at the same time again praise my loyalty to the Holy Father and my patriotism of these USA as being understandable.

So, O.K. I’ll run some interference already this morning.

Leave a comment

Filed under Holy See, Intelligence Community, Pope Francis

Tender snowflakes melting down want to validly, forcibly depose Pope Francis precisely as Bishop of Rome

dung snow

It ain’t gonna happen. It can’t happen. That’s not how it works. Anyone who thinks the contrary, anathema sit, as that’s straight out and out heresy. Traditional-ism-ists, that is, as personifiers of ideology, can be heretics like any others. I remember a certain seminary back in the day citing Hans Küng of all people to justify their irregular situation in the Church. Sometimes opposites attract, right?

If a Pope can be deposed for what he himself says is a non-Magisterial contribution to a dialogue, a contribution held by some to be outrageous (whether it is or not being beside the point), that means that any Pope for any reason can also be deposed by people who make up the rules as they go along (what they call constitutionalism: note the “-ism). Thus, in that view, a Pope such as Pius V or Pius X could also be deposed for personally being saints and for speaking clearly and rightly to the whole Church.

Also, in that case, and this is the point, such is the Protestant mis-exegesis of Matthew 16. The Rebels say that Jesus founded the papacy on Peter’s faith, not on his person. The Catholic doctrine is that Jesus founded the papacy on Peter.

I suggest to the tender snowflakes that they stop cowering before their own hurt emotions, grow up, and do something helpful to bring about a good situation for the salvation of souls. But this bit about deposing the Pope because their feelings are hurt is not helpful. It just reveals something under the snow.

2 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Pope Francis