Rorate Caeli

Ongoing Event: the General Chapter of the SSPX

The Third Ordinary General Chapter of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX) starts today in Switzerland. The first item in the order of business of the Chapter is the election of the new Superior-General of the Fraternity. We will try to convey urgent news of the Chapter when possible.

For more information on the General Chapter, read this.

40 comments:

MacK said...

Let us all pray for the sake of The Apostolic Roman Catholic Faith - that this chapter will allow SSPX and the whole of Sacred Tradition to propagate The True Faith throughout the world and speed the demise of the modernistic masonic pagan abberation that is contemporary Rome.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus - Have mercy on us;
St Pius X - Pray for us, intercede for us;
St Pio da Pietrelcina - Pray for us, intercede for us.

Sixtus V said...

"The True Faith throughout the world and speed the demise of the modernistic masonic pagan abberation that is contemporary Rome."

St. Pius V pray for those who hold that misguided and heretical view.

Augustine said...

Hopefully the SSPX will not elect a hard-liner, but rather someone who is willing to talk to Rome.

Screwtape said...

Well, two losers out of three.

I guess them are about the odds the sane can expect.

Nice going, Mac.

S.H. said...

Sixtus

You love to throw that "heresy" charge around don't you?

Daniel Pinheiro said...

And he loves to throw this one around:

"The True Faith throughout the world and speed the demise of the modernistic masonic pagan abberation that is contemporary Rome."

MacK said...

I repeat my petition

Let us all pray for the sake of The Apostolic Roman Catholic Faith - that this chapter will allow SSPX and the whole of Sacred Tradition to propagate The True Faith throughout the world and speed the demise of the modernistic masonic pagan abberation that is contemporary Rome.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus - Have mercy on us;
St Pius X - Pray for us, intercede for us;
St Pio da Pietrelcina - Pray for us, intercede for us.

MacK said...

I hope the SSPX and its elected leaders will make every endeavour to spread the Mass of All Times throughout Catholic Christendom as it used to be. I pray that the protestant masonic and pagan Bugnini service which is the liturgical flagship of contemporary Rome will disintegrate on the sands of doctrinal confusion and pluralistic obfuscation.

Screwtape said...

DanPin:

You talk as though you've been thrown around a few too many times - cauliflower brains.

Have you ever met an argument you couldn't avoid?

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

The most demeritorious of all sins, is an uncharitable rebuke.

I beg one another to speak of the truh in charity, and to omit personal attacks, insults and rhetorical exaggerations.

If we value the Communion with Christ in the Mystical Body of His Church, which cannot be had without unity in Faith and Discipline with the Apostolic See, in continuity and adherence to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, then we should all strive to practice such charity among us: why even the saints, through charity sought the conversion of others, not worthy of charity.

And if we recally, we all were born sons of wrath, and are not ourselves deserving of the salvation Christ is offering us within the Church.

MacK said...

Dear Brother Alexis,

Thank you for your timely reminder about charity. My wish is a charitable one - that tradition may restore the true light of faith in the church which is completely disorientated at present.

This is reflected in the very inappropriate behaviour we witness in articles such as those on the modern liturgy on this and other websites. Additionally, there is terrible disobedience towards the orthodox doctrinal perspectives of the Roman Catholic Church. Transient novelty has replaced sound, solid norms, values and mores. Hierarchs of the modern church are at odds with each other over these issues. They are very often at odds with customary teachings of the apostolic faith and contradict The Christ's teachings. Several even contradict The Holy Father himself openly. We cannot use sounder argument than this.

Therefore, what use is it for the lamb of sacred tradition and authentic interpretation of Sacred Scripture to negotiate with the wolves of modernism, amply condemned by St Pius X himself and other great doctors and fathers of the church? It will avail nothing.
What have God and Mammon in common? The modern church has overtly given itself over to the authority of the world in most senses and its liturgy mirrors this in its very anthropentrism.

I could continue a grand while and objectively illustrate how and why Rome hardly represents the Roman Catholic Faith in the contemporary world. Rather, it has abdicated its role to the UN and other organisations. Its authority has been diluted by collegiality, pluralistic obfuscation (ecumenism & interfaithism) and by a plethora of movements within which are frequently mutually antipathetic and sometimes at variance with the Catholic Faith itself (charismaticism and Neo-Catechumenism, for example).

This is objective argument to which there is no real answer but to accuse traditionalists of "schism". "heresy" and "disobedience". This is frequently intimated without proper understanding of the terms themselves. We have even been called the "taleban" of the church such is the ideological bankruptcy and intellectual aridity of modernistic catholics. No wonder modern NO liturgical music and scholarship are at an all time low, as is the near total ignorance of the official language of the church, Latin. This is objective argument to which there is no response but personal jibes and insults.

Do not concern yourself, my dear brother, I shall merely turn the other cheek. I have no intention of adding to such inappropriate behaviour from fellow christians. My beloved father, God rest his soul, never descended to such depths as he told me this was below the dignity of man as a creation of the image of Almighty God.

MacK said...

I did mean "anthropocentrism" - spelling error end paragraph 3. My apologies.

Screwtape said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Screwtape said...

NGB said...
Dear Mack:

You are not to worry. Br. Pious Beyond Belief is referring to yours truly, NGB.

Br. A.B.:

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? . . . Go rub your chain with crumbs!

Sometimes, to let somebody know he is a pinhead, as our pin hero assuredly is, constitutes charity. It depends on the context. I mean like man ya know, a context like this one.

For the record: what pinhead said constitutes an uncharitable rebuke. Definitely.

In context, of course. (As a matter of fact, his quoted example was so out of context as to make Mr. Mack sound incoherent, which he is not. That's just plain abuse. And in a prayer yet!)

Also for the record: not all seeming exaggeration is so. There is such a rhetorical device as hyperbole. It is a very useful and quite legitimate device. Satire is hardly possible without it. You need to read Dean Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to clear the intellectual sinuses.

sacerdoteaustralis said...

What about the general chapter of the Fraternity of St Peter that is occuring at present? No mention has been made of this, even though a priest of the fraternity is one of the members of "Rorate Caeli"? Is the Holy See going to intervene again? Has the Fraternity sorted out its deep inner problems and lack of direction? THERE ARE A GOOD NUMBER OF PRIEST MEMBERS OF THIS FRATERNITY WHOSE THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X! Cum Petro et sub Petro? I wonder????

Jeff said...

Mack, NGB, et al.

As Jack Nicholson said in Mars Attacks!, "Why can't we all just....get alonggggggg?"

I find myself agreeing with Br. Bugnolo again!

Jeff said...

Sacerdoteaustralis:

An interesting question. Of course, they may have many similar views to people on one side of the SSPX, e.g, religious freedom, etc.

But I don't think they can share quite the same views as some, about submission to non-infallible teaching, properly interpreted, or the necessity of practical lived obedience to the Successor of Peter. Otherwise, I don't know why they would be in the FSSP.

S.H. said...

Well I think the FSSP General Chapter is a non-event, because it was the "Rome and FSSP General Chapter" last time, or "How to have the pretense of your own congregation."

Can you really be called a "Society of Apostolic Life" when you can't even elect your own leaders?

Probably more of the same this year, hence the non-event. Meantime, it's the "excommunicate schismatics" that are inking up all the press. Still, after 36 years - the fly in the Vatican II ointment.

Screwtape said...

Jeff:

Remember, Jack Nicholson is just an actor and he says what the written lines are. Nicholson, himself, is probably a slicer and dicer in real life: recall The Shining?

"Go along to get along" is a sentimental cop-out and one of the major, serious, virtually irremediable, destructive wimpynesses of our time.

What the doubtlessly good Brother wants is the pax caesum (the peace that slays.)

How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this "peace".

I'm a bloody Scot: nemo me impune lacessit.

I'm for Novus Ordure road-kill.

MacK said...

This is why I pray "for the whole of Sacred Tradition" - I am not, as such, a member of SSPX as my parents (RIP) were. I do, however, love and esteem their objectives. I hope, too, FSSP solve their problems but they will not unless they decide who they are - to serve two masters necessitates compromises which lead to uncertainties. Our Blessed Lord warned us about this dilemma.

FSSP has been exploited by modernist merceneries who have tried to create the illusion of a modern church which "tolerates" all forms. This is a nefarious subterfuge used by those who were expecting traditional forms to become mere "fossils", while they bullied in NO rites & policies with threats of "excommunication" & "being in danger of losing the faith" and accusations of "disobedience", "schism" and "heresy". No wonder FSSP lacks proper direction like so much of the church these days.

Furthermore, many priests who continue to say both The Mass of All Times and the Bugnini service can feel the unnerving tension that exists with saying the latter in comparison with the spiritual harmoniousness propagated by the traditional liturgical form. When you serve on the altar, there is absolutely no comparison, only contrast, between the two liturgies. This alone should speak for itself.


Indeed, we may all "get along", as some advocate, but this need not be at the expense of fudges and compromises with erroneous norms and values. The NO church has cheapened itself in order to facilitate all comers but this clearly has mostly aroused mutual antagonisms, outright hostility, suspicion and even ridicule. There is not even a coordinated and cohesive view as to how to bring everyone together. Today, ecumenism & interfaithism are based on programmes with little or no Biblical coherence. For instance, the policies of Rome with regard to the Jews, denies Scriptural realities. JP II's policies accomodating muslims diametrically opposed centuries of teachings regarding false religions and paganism.

Regarding the current condition of the NO church in England, for example, The Pastoral Research Centre indicates a church on the verge of absolute collapse from all perspectives. Not so the traditional church, SSPX for example, it would appear to me. Similar trends are observable in most parts of the NO church, elsewhere. There is a candid admission of crisis. Therefore, there is no sense in trying to accomodate a modernism no one seems to want apart from those who cannot understand the dangers to faith of modernistic liturgical forms and the acceptance of popular norms, values and mores.

If the current supreme pontiff, with all of his so-called learning, is unable to understand that, then he had better think again. You can refer to "false interpretations" of VC II or liberal revolts or whatever you will - the consequences are the same - a church in almost total confusion, at odds with itself, a crumbling edifice, being gradually corroded by inimical ephemeral philosophies.

Since the 1960s we can discern all these trends. The visible church prior to that may not have been perfect but it was orthodox and it was a flourishing vine. How insane it was to place this in jeopardy. The actual effect bears this fear out. Thankfully, there is a part of the vineyard which remains unspoilt. Therefore, I pray that this may grow and flourish as it did before VC II whether it be SSPX, FSSP, SSPV, among others. These organisations have only arisen in response to pressing needs among the faithful. However, those who place their faith in Bugnini's service are on an unsure, painful pathway to continual change, perpetual disturbance and doctrinal ambiguity. As we pray, so we believe.

May The Holy Ghost in The Blessed Trinity guide SSPX & FSSP in their respective chapters. Give them the courage to make wise & definite decisions.

Athanasius said...

Br. Bugnolo,

There you go again with that peace and love stuff, you're sounding like the Vatican II Church! Don't come to us with peace and love! ;) (note: Satire)

I do thank you for reminding us to act like Catholics instead of just talking about it. Though we may not always agree, I am willing to admit that sometimes though well meaning we let our mouths get ahead of our hearts, and I mean that with all sincerity. Oremus pro invicem,

Athanasius

Screwtape said...

I wonder which Athanasius that "Athanasius" thinks he represents.

Surely, not the one who told the Bishop to shut up and sit down because he was preaching heresy!

Just think what a lovely Church we'd have today if St. Athanasius had had the sense to "talk like a Catholic" instead of some redneck rabble-rouser.
[satire]

MacK said...

On the subject of peace and love once again we have a post-conciliar revision of Biblical and Traditional understanding.

The "peace" of VC II is peace at any price, perfectly espoused in her greatest son JP II who sold the Roman Catholic birthright for an ecumenical & interfaith mess. He totally ignored The Christ's teaching that there would be no peace for believers in this life and He gave us His peace which passed all understanding.

Meanwhile, "love" today is a hedonistic, self-indulgent concept which has more to do with dubious left-wing political issues such as so-called social justice & questionable human rights as well as egocentric self-realisation. It has nothing in common with Christian "caritas". Charity is most centrally concerned with clothing and feeding non-believers with the Gospel of salvation, as Our Blessed Lord did. Conciliar thinking is sheer revisionism and closer to Marxism than Christianity. We ought to be careful when we appeal to love & peace since modernistic interpretations are insidiously misleading and corrosive where these are in question.

roydosan said...

Quoth Mack

"there is terrible disobedience towards the orthodox doctrinal perspectives of the Roman Catholic Church"

Yes including failure to submit to the authority of the Holy See - even if it is an "modernistic masonic pagan abberation" - which it quite patently isn't for "the gates of hell will never prevail against her".

Simon-Peter said...

Fruit:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7086

Certain items here require attention:

""We didn't want our non-Catholic sisters to have second-class status,"

&

'The prioress said the center, with members from several Christian denominations, will now function as an ecumenical community, similar to Taizé in France, under its new name, Holy Wisdom Monastery.'

Comment: "Woe to those who call"...Holy Wisdom???

"Such experimental endeavors can bear great fruit for the Church, such as the monastery at Taizé (France)," he wrote in a June 26 letter to his priests. "But there are very few other success stories worldwide, and thus our prayers and good wishes are all the more important."

Oh. Right. Okay. Define "success".

So, do you all have that? Everyone pray because our prayers and good wishes are all the more important so this experimental endevour will bear great fruit for the Church.

Perhaps this will bear great fruit for the Church, but not in the way the Bishop thinks.

As we are all worried about obediance, assuming this Bishop was my own, what obligation do I have to "[Everyone] pray...so this experimental endevour will bear great fruit for the Church."?

Would it be wrong for me to pray it fails (i.e. succeeds ;-))?

Answer the question directly please.

"Would it be wrong for me to pray it fails..."

And yes, you do know what I mean.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Dear NGB,

Thank you for your compliments.

I was paraphrasing what I read in St. Alphonsus' and St. Francis de Sales on charity.

I highly recommend reading their works.

Curmudgeon said...

Let's hope that the SSPX doesn't elect a "hard-liner", but let's hope that the FSSP does!

Screwtape said...

Br. A.B.:

You're welcome.

Cm'on, you know very well what I mean. I've read works of both authors you mention, some, but not a lot; my wife has read more, especially of St. Francis de Sales' œuvre.

The answer, as I know you know, is that neither Saint was confronted with the need to express the kind of charity we require today.

I have read Sermons of the Curé d'Ars that would send you screaming: "a terrible lack of charity!" One exmple: "Most of you are going to Hell, so you can go back to sleep."

Never, but NEVER, in the history of Christianity have we lumbering, cumbersome laymen been forced to make the kind of discriminating decisions we now must make. If they are not made, you get the confusion amply demonstrated here by Roydosan, who seems never to have heard of Trent.

And they never alter the mantra, no matter what evidence is put before them. They aren't running on the fuel of intelligence, they are spinning wheels in the woozy muck of their feelings; absolutely refusing to learn anything.

Of course I do slip when it comes to real charity. Never, however, knowingly. I think I can say that my flippancy sliding into sarcasm and satire at times has never cost a single soul.

The hierophants in Rome can hardly make such a claim. "I wear the necklace I made in life; I forged it millstone by millstone." Thus Spake ZaraWojtyla.

I know St. Alphonse wouldn't cavil. He had a mind-concentrating horrific vision of the end-time. And de Sale could be pretty doggone tough at times also.

It is the Church militant, after all; not the Church Wimpytant.

MacK said...

And there indeed we have it from modernistic revisionist perpspectives on "holy obedience" - to obey The Holy See is not to obey a bishop, including the bishop of Rome, who is disobeying the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred & Apostolic Tradition as the last three popes frequently have by introducing novel teachings which have jeopardised & scandalised the faith of many. There is a distinct difference between holy obedience and false obedience.

One thing is for sure, I have no intention of obeying JP II on embracing false religions and paganism as I have too much respect for the enduring teachings on this by Our Blessed Saviour, and all previous popes and doctors of the church on the subject. Our Blessed Lord warned us about false prophets and teachers who would come after Him. Further, I will certainly have nothing to do with the flagrant contradiction by The Holy Father of Sacred Scripture concerning our relationship with the Jews. Has he not read The Talmud? Has he not read The Old Testament and The Christ's teachings and prophecies concerning the Jews? I would rather obey St Paul when he tells us to obey God and not man. The Holy See cannot place itself above the immutable word of God nor the traditions established by Our Blessed Lord and vested in His Church. St Paul is clear on this - to keep the traditions laid down by them. Therefore, any pope who waltzes women onto the sanctuary, allows them to read the Scriptures from there and welcomes barebreasted women to do so should be criticised for this. Just as a pope who gives Holy Communion to protestants and who denies this in the first place, as was done over Tony Blair, is unworthy of the office they hold. This is defined as sacrilege. Perhaps if the consecration was invalid in the first place then there may be no consequence but we must assume this was being done deliberately. To obey this is sheer hypocrisy and has to be pointed out to the person concerned. St Thomas Acquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, St Bridget and many other great saints of the church, including previous Holy Fathers, have exhorted us to do this.

The Holy See cannot do just as it pleases. It has a responsibility to propagate The Faith - espousing Buddhism or phenomenological approaches, for example, cannot possibly be doing this. On the contrary, they place faith in danger. No one has to obey this perilous ephemeral nonsense. Following the pastoral VC II there has been an appaling marketing of false religions and beliefs by Rome through its actions & in its words. Would a Roman Catholic, in their right minds, obey such manifest falsehood?

Thankfully, we have traditional Catholics in the form of SSPX and others who have protected and shielded true orthodox belief from such erroneous philosophies.

My prayers rest with them all.

Screwtape said...

Mack:

Thanks for filling in the details. Your memory serves you better than mine serves me.

I am, after all, becoming mnemonically other-abled.

Even so, as I quote on my Blog site, "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw."

For better or for worse, it is, indeed, the SSPX that is the last best hope on earth. That's because it really remembers what Heaven's about; and, just as important, what the devil is about.

I say to the numberless stunted minds: "Have you walked about the earth lately? I have!" (Shaw)

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

I would point out, that, even if one's superiors err, or fall into moral evil, or issue unjust commands that cannot be obeyed, yet just as we ought to love our neighbors, and our enemies, so we must love our errant superiors.

Sarcasm can be used to defend against error, but I do not believe it is every licit to use against a superior. I know of no case of any saint who has done so, even when they have used it against formal pertinacious heretics, they have never used it against superiors.

I would cite this Tridentine example: it use to be an offense punishable by excommunication for any priest to use the pulpit to personally attack the authority or character of an ecclesiastical superior. We should take this as an example of how we ourselves should act, in these trying times.

The middle path, is to condemn the error, not the one in error, the judgment of whom lies with the Lord.

I have no love for the errors of the aggiornamento or of modernists, but that does not mean that I hate those who promoted them.

May God have mercy on all poor sinners, especially the worst of them. If we pray and do penance, we might save at least some; but we cannot do this if we sin against charity.

Simon-Peter said...

http://www.crc-internet.org/HIR2006/July47_2.htm

Screwtape said...

Br.AB:

I take your point, and you are probably right most of the time.

But when we're dealing with those whose malice aforethought, and that's the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn in certain instances, when, as I say, this animus delendi is destroying millions of souls, maybe a stinging word is not amiss.

Judging from words and actions over a long period of time, I deem the late Wojtyla worthy of ridicule. He held the office legitimately, true, but I draw a large distinction betweem the man and the office, especially when he did so much to destroy the authority of said office. There is no doubt whatsoever that the man was anti-Christ. I cannot help but see where pretending otherwise accomplishes only encouraging those who insist on imitating the ostrich, which, in this case, means they are flirting with the second death.

He's dead and our assessments, however couched, can neither hurt nor harm him, but it may shock others into considering the truth of things.

Let us just say that my harsh words doubtless anticipate the judgment of history.

He was manifestly a murderer of souls and I see no benefit in mincing locutions, any more than I would hesitate in pointing out that Vlad the Impaler was a ghoul or Rasputin was a dæmonic fiend.

Meanwhile, as the 2000-Year-Old Man said: "You save France - I'll go wash up."

Screwtape said...

SP:

Long, interesting article: I didn't know CRC had a Website.

All things considered, I don't think this "Prometheus" is going to be "Unbound."
[pronunciation: pro-meeth-oos (not e-us)]

MacK said...

I could not agree more with sentiments on "judgement", therefore, I state openly and clearly, JP II's behaviour has on several occasions been less than Catholic and certainly uncharitable, by scriptural definition of the word. Many of his acts did not propagate the faith but placed it in doubt. They did not fulfill Our Blessed Lord's prescription to go into the world to teach the Gospel in the name of The Blessed Trinity.

What Almighty God does with his soul is not my business but his public acts are. They are because they have general & particular effects. Thus, we can only make observations based on these relative to the Scriptural & Traditional norms and values we would expect as Roman Catholics.

We also have to weigh up the effects in the long term, as St Thomas Acquinas would encourage us to do. To try to claim we cannot make reasonable observations about a superior's behaviour, when he is as public and as influential as a pope or archbishop, when he is patently in error in word and deed as a human being, is not justifiable Scripturally. "Judge not lest ye yourselves be judged" does not imply feigning holy obedience when it is actually false obedience.

When a pope tells me to obey Our Blessed Saviour and to love Him with all my heart, this is immediately recognisable as a Gospel truth to be followed. However, to claim disobeying St Paul on the role of women in the church in Scripture is justified and to ignore his admonition to be not conformed to the spirit of the age is meritorious because a pope has encouraged us to behave otherwise, is tantamount to spiritual suicide.

When one of my sons sees a picture of The Holy Father being "cursed" on his forehead by a shaman Hindu priestess or welcoming animist voodoo priests into a Roman Catholic lieu of worship to perform their satanic rituals (I have lived & worked in an animist community in Africa myself) then I have to let him know this is mistaken behaviour; not worthy of his office and unworthy of imitation for specified reasons. This is my responsibility as a Roman Catholic father who loves his son & wishes ti indtil a right sense of faith in him. When said Holy Father dies I can still recite the Requiem Mass for his soul confident of Almighty God's omniscient wisdom & justice as supreme arbiter. To fail to distinguish this is to condone the dissemination of un-Catholic and phenomenological ideologies. Let us be clear on this.

It is similar to the idea that Padre Pio was always obedient to his superiors, as he was but incapable of discerning the nefariousness of changing the Latin liturgy. No wonder he sought The Holy Father's permission to remain faithful to The Mass of All Times. He certainly wasted not a moment in doing this. He even had his terse word to say about the changes going on in the Franciscan order as "denaturing" themselves as spiritual sons of St Francis. Looking at the mess that is the Franciscan order today in various parts of christendom: he was certainly correct there. Another factor is that he could be sure that he was obeying essentially orthodox superiors, in his day. Nowadays who can have this confidence, honestly?

"Obedience" in NO church is trumpeted around like "peace" and "love" which bear little or no resemblance to authentic teaching. Thankfully, again the true compass of faith is in the hands of traditional organisations to remind us of the correct direction and not some revised downwards perspective. Obedience to The Holy See must conform in spirit and in truth to obedience to Almighty God. There is no room for idols.

Screwtape said...

Mack:

Nice piece.

You are far kinder than I am, but I'm through being kind to less than kindred souls.

I'll not only call the emperor naked, I'll point out his exposed family jewels.

I am impressed by two factors: 1), that you spent time among animists in Africa (you must be either a diplomatist or an engineer) and thus have hands-on experience to judge a pontif's actions when he kneels in the mud to pray alongside a snake worshiper who tells him afterward, because a snake slithered out from under a nearby rock, that this meant that Wojtyla's prayer pleased the snake god; and, 2), that you are informed as to the meaning and importance of phenomenalism and ideologies.

I have been trying to point out all along that Wojtyla and Ratzinger are not theologians at all but rather, ideologues.

If one does not know the meaning of gnosticism and its partner-in-crime, ideology, one cannot begin to understand, really, any Christian heresy or the motive/motif of the bloodiest century in history, the 20th. Or, most of all, that dæmon-ridden Council.

To find out the true meaning, mutations, and history, of the forms of gnosticism and ideologies is not an easy task. The words are thrown around a lot by pseudo intellectuals who know virtually nothing of the matter under consideration.

You appear to have done your homework and made the necessary minimal connections.

The moment I learned that Wojtyla had been a professor of phenomenology in Cracow, I knew we were in for a very messy situation.

As a man said, can't remember who, "the past is prologue." This truism should, but won't, be taken into consideration regarding that young Rhine peritus who now sits on a throne. Can he do anything but defile it? Not likely.

MacK said...

Fr Brian Harrison who is theologian at the pontifical university in Puerto Rico writes in Latin Mass magazine that JP II aided and abetted the sins of idolatry in his Assisi interfaith get together in 2002 since he invited, among others, Zoroastrians and Animists. Fr Harrison is being charitable about unchristian acts by bishops. These place faith in danger and should be intimated publicly so that the rest of us can remove ourselves from the point of impact. This he uses as an argument against his canonisation. Other commentators give more examples. Who can deny, his behaviour provoked suspicion, doubt and even scandal among the faithful? It encouraged non-believers in their unbelief, too.

We have to admit it that the last supreme pontiff turned canonisation into an ideological process as it was being used to bolster modernist propaganda about VC II, among other factors. Its disciples do not care whether or not sanctity is an objective reality to be proven. Suffice it to keep repeating that this one or that one espoused false values such as religious liberty or ecumenical fraternity or interfaith equality and these are automatic entitlement to sainthood according to subjective perspectives. These criteria will even facilitate the sanctity on Earth of non-Catholics!

Thus, we certainly did have some authentic canonisations but amidst the 490 or so performed by his holiness, there were definitiely not only a few reflecting his ideological ambitions. Anyone who followed the long story over Mother Theresa will know how enthusiastic he was to canonise her as rapidly as possible. She was certainly charitable by most social standards but in some of her behaviour she was not the ideal model of Catholic Christian behaviour since she assumed physical postures of worship in mosques and temples; she consulted with new age gurus and there is evidence of religious indifference in her writings. I keep this strictly away from my children. I hope they never find her worthy of imitation in the faith.

However, NO church totally ignored this evidence and even tried to turn doctors routine medication leading to cure as evidence of a miracle in the case of one admirer of hers. It is the very imprudence of modernistic processes, such as rushed sainthood, that ignores finer details, so despised by propaganda, which are essential in making sound judgements. This ultimately causes scandal and doubt and does not reassure as it ought to do. The establishment in Rome seems determined to sanctify its errors in such manner, it can only be deemed ideological since much of it is not rooted in Sacred Scripture nor in Sacred Tradition.

Therefore, SSPX, FSSP and other traditional organisations will constantly come up against this litany of inconsistency, equivocation and mutability. Current NO church leadership was born out of these characteristics. This is why we must pray for leaders of SSPX and others to be wise, to discern good from evil spirits and to have the courage of the faith to defend sound Christian principles and to propagate the authentic Gospel of The Christ: not phenomenology.

My original petition stands and I add, Spare us O Lord! Spare us and them!

Screwtape said...

Mack:

First of all, as you intimate, Father Harrison is not exactly trustworthy. I quit reading anything he had to say way back in the days of Fidelity magazine, the E. Michael Jones enterprise. It may still be going, for all I know. Let us say that Harrison lacks a certain commodity sheepmen call oysters.

Your comments on the Instant Saint, Mother Teresa, is the first I've seen that lays out the whole scenario underlying ideological propaganda. She is reputed to have been offended by being called a glorified social worker, but in truth that's all she really was. She amply demonstrated that she had more care for "easeful death" than the destiny of souls. I didn't know about her antics in mosques and temples, nor about her hobnobbing with gurus. She did manage to effect the conversion of Malcolm Muggeridge. We have to take his word for that. St. Mugg was a delightful character and a lot of fun to read; his insight into the asininity of this secular age was right on target, but I think his theology was a little bit on the loose side. I know he was honest enough not to have claimed otherwise. I rather think he spent a little too much time under the influence of those 39 Articles.

Regarding the importance of consistency: C.S. Lewis, in Surprised by Joy, stressed the importance of recognizing and avoiding what he called "voluntary inconsistency" and intellectual dishonesty. (Too bad Lewis didn't follow his own advice at the end.) Anyone who is comfortable with contradiction, especially regarding first principles, is intellectually corrupt.

Another comment along the same line comes from John Henry Newman: "Consistency is a strong indication that an argument be true; certainly, if it is inconsistent, it cannot be truth."

Yesterday I heard a Sermon on the virtue of Fortitude where the Priest said these were the best of times because the worst of times were better for the making of martyrs. I take his point, but somehow martyrdom is not my goal.

We are being martyred, however, and daily we must pluck the knives from our backs and blunder forward. Or, as Muggeridge once observed, "We must gird up our loins for the lost battles that lie ahead."

One final note. My Patron Saint was canonized by Wojtyla: St. Maximilian Kolba. I have no problem with Kolba, although there is some question as to his "double" status (I forget the formal nomenclature for the two categories - pastoral and martyr for the faith, I think they might be called.)

Again, nice piece. Timely, and apt.

MacK said...

In effect, Roman Catholics have always had two excellent criteria for testing whether or not doctrinal teachings & modified norms are authentic. Do they conform to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? If teachings are ambiguous, leave considerable unease and provoke doubt then they should be shunned. Unfortunately, for NO catholics they have lost these key compass points. As Chesterton wrote, when people no longer believe in God they do not believe in nothing, they will believe in anything. Likewise, I have to comment, that once we become disorientated by phenomenological & postmodernistic ideologies we no longer believe in the pre-conciliar Roman Catholic Church and its infallible teachings. It is not an exaggeration to state that post-conciliar catholics are capable of believing in anything. We have witnessed this fact ever since the 1960s.
Some list members do not agree?

Explain how it is that since VC II NO church systematically disobeys St Paul's teaching on decorum in public worship? How is it that The Christ's very teachings on uniqueness of belief in Him as sole medium of eternal salvation is routinely contradicted by church hierarchs, among others? Suddenly, since the 1960s ecumenism and interfaithism are focussed not on bringing non-believers and protestants into The One True Fold of Our Blessed Lord but into a theologically relativised and pluralistic mass of humanity. We are merely just one aspect of a god who embraces all creeds & cultural persuasions.

Traditional Catholics now require leadership as never before since the modernistic tendancy is highly insidious and corrosive. Its effects are far-reaching.

Screwtape said...

Yes, can you imagine St. Paul approving JP II's "breakfast under the baloons" or "boobs above the albo" masses (sic)?

Then there is what a Swiss Guard avouched: all outdoor masses involve a desecration of the concecrated host. The wafers, he said, are found all around St. Peter's square after the shindig.

Now, various sorts of critters use that massive space for relieving themselves. When their effluence hits a host, as it assuredly must sooner or later, we then have the Pope's version of that infamous artist's "Piss Christ," only this is far worse because it is the real deal and not just a blasphemous symbol.

Think about that Novus Ordure Messae fans.