Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s continuing journey toward authentic Catholic tradition – one that in some ways resembles my own – took another major step forward in June as he publicly took aim at “the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II.”
In a missive dated June 9, 2020, Viganò accused the Council vis-à-vis its treatment of religious liberty of “contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.”
He said that the Council’s concept of ecumenism “was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.”
He even went so far as to identify Satan as the true author of “the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI,” saying:
Just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist.
In a follow up letter dated June 14, Archbishop Viganò sharpened his criticism, charging the Council with behavior “intended and conceived for its subversive value, and which as such has caused many evils.” He said that rather than selectively condemning its errors, “it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten” and to “declare its oblivion.”
These are strong words from Archbishop Viganò, and they necessarily lead to some very important questions concerning ecclesiology and the papacy.
With regard to the former, he leaves little room for confusion as he identifies the acts of the Council as “voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church.” In other words, he makes it clear enough that the Second Vatican Council did not come from the one true Church of Christ. As Our Lord said:
Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. (Mt 12:25)
Furthermore, the Catholic Church is a Holy Mother who always and everywhere nurtures her children in that which is good. The Council, as Archbishop Viganò stated, was “intended and conceived for its subversive value,” and it “has caused many evils.”
With this evidently in mind, Archbishop Viganò says as plainly as possible:
From Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.
And yet, in spite of so much clarity, Archbishop Viganò’s conception of the papacy remains clouded and confused. For example, he refers to the Bergoglian Reign of Terror as coming from “the highest Throne” and “the present Pontificate.”
This is the same man that Archbishop Viganò excoriates for having signed and promoted the infamous Abu Dhabi Declaration, a text that he calls a “triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist!”
He even suggests that Bergoglio is little more than a Masonic puppet, referring in the same discourse to “the directions he has received.”
Are we really to believe that such a man reigns from the Throne of St. Peter, the occupants of which have been divinely endowed with the gift of truth and a never failing faith, that the entire flock of Christ may be protected from the poisonous food of error? (cf First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus)
More broadly speaking, are we to imagine that the man at the helm of the “parallel church” – the same that Archbishop Viganò correctly identified as being “diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ” – is at one and the same time the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ?
The very thought that this describes the man known as “Francis” is growing more absurd with every passing day.
But why stop there?
Bergoglio is just one of half-a-dozen men who, whilst laying claim to the papacy either presided over or promoted the conciliar revolution, leading the parallel church in its diametric opposition to the true Church of Christ.
At this, we have arrived at the most noteworthy aspect of Archbishop Viganò’s essay.
You see, in spite of his unsustainable ideas concerning the Bergoglian “pontificate,” it appears that he isn’t stopping there in his assessment of the papacy as a whole. Rather, there are signs that he is privately exploring some of the same sedevacantist arguments that I am currently weighing.
We’ll return to those signs momentarily, but first I wish to point out that which is far more obvious; namely, the fact that Archbishop Viganò is evidently entertaining doubts as to the legitimacy of conclave 2013.
Referring to the events of 13 March 2013, he mentioned “the first appearance of the ‘newly elected’ Pope,” with the words newly elected conspicuously placed within quotation marks.
This can only mean one of two things; either he is not convinced that the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid and/or he believes that the activities of the so-called St. Gallen Mafia may have nullified the outcome even if it was.
About those events, Archbishop Viganò stated:
The mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI.
The logical consequences of Vatican II were weakened by Benedict XVI? No, that dog won’t hunt; in fact, that beast won’t even get out of bed and, deep down, I think knows it.
Benedict was a staunch defender of the Council’s version of religious liberty; he was also a dyed-in-the-wool ecumenist who convened his very own Assisi abomination – the very two conciliar errors Archbishop Viganò chose to condemn by name.
So, what gives? My guess is that Archbishop Viganò is struggling to come to terms with the disastrous tenures of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI for the simple reason that he had a personal relationship with both men and genuinely liked them.
Even so, I believe that he is sincere in his efforts to find and speak the truth, whatever it may be, in preparation for the day of reckoning that awaits us all. As such, I think it is reasonable to imagine that he is privately and prayerfully applying everything that the popes, councils and theologians taught about the papacy in the centuries leading up to Vatican II to the scoundrels who laid claim to the Chair of St. Peter both during and after the event.
Sure, I may be projecting my own experience on the Archbishop, but I sense that there’s more to it than that.
For one, he mentions by name John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict and Francis (who he more often calls “Bergoglio”) – some of them multiple times. Curiously, however, he doesn’t refer to any one of them as “Pope,” nor does he refer to any of the former three as “Saint.”
One also notes the fact that when Archbishop Viganò first made a splash with his testimony of August 2018 concerning Uncle Ted McCarrick, he was very careful not to say anything that might reflect poorly on either John Paul II or Benedict XVI in spite of their obvious responsibility for allowing the predator to roam more or less freely.
Now, almost two years later, we see that the gloves are slowly coming off.
In his latest essay, Archbishop Viganò openly pointed to the example of “John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers, Buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics” as that which led to “the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the Pachamama on their shoulders.”
Elsewhere in the text, he wrote about the hermeneutic of continuity that Benedict XVI invented as a means of interpreting and implementing the Council, openly admitting that it had “shipwrecked miserably.”
In August of last year, I wrote in this space: It would seem only a matter of time before Archbishop Viganò will be moved to admit that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were not only agents in, but leaders of, the gigantic subversive operation that was launched at Vatican Council II.
Now that there is evidence that this moment is at hand, I will leave you with this:
It would seem only a matter of time before Archbishop Viganò will be moved to openly postulate whether or not any of the men who served at the helm of the parallel church that was born at Vatican Council II have any legitimate claim to the Roman Pontificate. This is, after all, the next logical step in his journey toward tradition.
Well now, Louie. I guess you haven’t abandoned the blog! Welcome back!
I hope he doesn’t. The last thing the Church needs is for one of its most sober minds lost to the circus of sedevacantism – whichever one of its who-knows-how-many-million varieties he decides to promote. Hopefully Louie’s speculation turns out to be no more than wishful thinking.
Novusordoism and its line of heretic-popes is no circus, and is a monolithic entity with no variation at all?
Unfortunately when I was researching sedevacantism I couldn’t find a single strain of sedes with anything remotely approaching a plurality of overall sede support. It’s a matter of picking your poison and hoping it doesn’t burn too bad because this is who you have to choose from:
CMRI
SSPV
Feeneyite sedes (Most Holy Family Monastery)
home-aloners (eg Gerry Matatics)
“Pope” Michael
The Palmarian crazies
Ecclesiavacantists apparently including AKACatholic’s very own InCaritas
Papal minimalists (NQP)
Richard Ibranyi of “the throne’s been vacant for 1000 years” fame
Novus Ordo Watch
And on and on
So, who represents “true” sedevacantism?
I hope he does embrace sedevacantism. Then even fewer will bother to pay him attention than do now.
Who wants anyone to represent sedevacantism? It’ not even a thing, it’s just a state of being sane and recognizing that an anti-Catholic is obviously not the Pope. What you failed to find in researching sedevacantism was the Pope. Me too. What we need is the Pope of the Catholic Church. How do we get a Pope?
He refers to JPII as “Saint” in his letter to President Trump. I think he believes Benedict is still the pope. Perhaps Vigano can convince Benedict to choose his own successor and we can be free from this Bergolian tyranny and any other apostate they “elect” after him.
So-called “Pope Francis” could install in St. Peter’s Square a twenty-foot-tall statue of a man-bull hybrid with a raging furnace in its base and an infant-sized trap door in its lap and Ganganelli would attack anyone questioning the catholicity of “Pope Francis” after such an outrageous act!
Ganganelli, if you deny that you would be taken in by such devilry, there is no meaningful difference from a Catholic perspective between installing Moloch in St. Peter’s Square and participating in a pagan service in a Vatican garden with Pachamama at its center. They are both acts of idolatry and apostasy.
I wonder if someone as afflicted as you in the spiritual realm has problems seeing in the physical realm. Do you often bump into objects right in front of your nose?
Dear wise guy Vermeullarmine: Does the SSPX enjoy the “support” of the novus ordo so-called “Catholic Church”?
Since when can a pope choose his own successor? The period of actual sedevacantism will occur to fulfill the prophecy of Marie Julie Jahenney after Pope Benedict dies in Portugal. Most likely the bishops who remained Catholic and didn’t formally join the “Church of Man” will choose the next pope once the dust settles perhaps even still while underground, or perhaps after the 3 days of darkness.
This is the dumbest take. In a battle between Pius XII sedevacantists and BenXVI sedevacantists, there is no way the BenXVI sedevacantists can win. Imagine having to defend communion to non-Catholics(jp2), religious liberty(V2) and the new mass(Paul VI).
This position is a non-starter.
Hypotheticals aren’t useful. Maybe the Pope will declare Mary the 4th person of the Trinity…..useless speculation.
In the case of Pope Francis, *everything* he has done was anticipated by his immediate predecessors including Pachamama as JP2 allowed a statue of Buddha to be placed on the altar during the 1st Assisi prayer meeting.
Let’s see how many varieties of Lefebvrism you get in the SSPX:
SSPXers who accept the validity of the new rites
SSPXers who occasionally go to the Indult/Motu Mass
SSPXers who would never go to the Indult/Motu Mass
SSPXers who don’t accept the validity of the new rites at all
SSPXers who believe in novus ordo Eucharistic miracles
SSPXers who don’t believe in novus ordo Eucharistic miracles
SSPXers who pray before novus ordo tabernacles
SSPXers who would never pray before novus ordo tabernacles
SSPXers who never eat meat on Fridays and fast for 3 hours before Communion
SSPXers who sometimes eat meat on Fridays and fast for 1 hour before Communion
SSPXers who say the Luminous mysteries of the Rosary
SSPXers who don’t say the Luminous mysteries of the Rosary
SSPXers who pray the Divine Mercy prayers
SSPXers who don’t pray the Divine Mercy prayers
SSPXers who accept canonisations up to 1983
SSPXers who accept canonisations up to 1962
SSPX priests who say the 1962 missal
SSPX priests who use (parts of ) earlier missals
SSPXers who are happy when the local bishop visits their schools
SSPXers who are livid when the local bishop visits their schools
SSPXers who accept the canonisation of John Paul II
SSPXers who don’t accept the canonisation of John Paul II
SSPXers who say Bergoglio is a Modernist
SSPXers who say Bergoglio is a heretic
SSPXers who say Bergoglio is not a heretic
SSPXers who are sedevacantist
SSPXers who are anti-sedevacantist
SSPXers who want recognition from Rome
SSPXers who don’t want recognition from Rome
SSPXers who go to the SSPX marriage tribunals
SSPXers who go to the diocesan marriage tribunals
SSPXers who believe in Fr Paul Robinson’s big bang theories
SSPXers who don’t believe in Fr Paul Robinson’s big bang theories
Resistance who support Bp Williamson
Resistance who don’t support Bp Williamson
Resistance who support Fr Pfeiffer
Resistance who support Fr Hewko
Resistance who go back to the SSPX
Resistance who support priests ordained in the new rite
Resistance who don’t support priests ordained in the new rite
That’s for starters. Talk about picking your poison. The differences between different sedevacntists is minimal compared to this.
Maybe there’s no unity among Catholics because there’s NO POPE.
Is there anything that Bergoglio can say or do that can convince you R&Rers that he cannot be the Pope? With Ratzinger, the guy actually said he is no longer the Pope and many still won’t beleive him. The conciliar popes have uttered one heresy after another for decades and still the R&Rers make excuses. One excuse is to deny that the heresy isn’t actually a heresy but only some error or misinterpretation. The other excuse is to make the more blasphemous claim that Holy Mother Church can and did teach errors and heresies. All this nonsense just to have a Pope.
At one time or another Bp Fellay has held each one of those positions.
Ganganelli is everywhere and nowhere; expounding, distinguishing and speculating; agreeing and disagreeing. It is obvious why you attack others who have adopted more definite positions – you are afraid to adopt a position yourself. Ganganelli take Our Lord’s admonition and let your yes be yes and your no be no.
He can choose his successor, but obviously can’t assure that his wish is fulfilled with the election taking place after his death. I believe Vigano will be at the forefront of this effort. With Benedict separating the See of Peter from the bishopric of Rome, the stage is set to move the papacy to Fatima.
What matters is, the SSPX has Bishops with succession. They have given the faithful a valid Mass since 1970. Is is crazy ugly out in the SSPX Hinterland, yes!
With the SSPX you are keeping that bond with Eternal Rome, while spiritual distancing. That is all any of us can do right now. If you head out on your own, you’re done for.
What is most significant about this is that Archbishop Vigano has not yet stated that one has the right to operate outside normal jurisdiction when a prelate fails to condemn error or teaches heresy, which was the primary reason Archbishop Lefebvre was falsely called schismatic. Yet according to Anthony Stine of “Return to Tradition” he is being called schismatic! Get that? He is being called schismatic simply because he wants to condemn the Second Vatican Council. A council where it was stated publicly ahead of time, that it was going to remain pastoral, meaning, not even the (authentic) or fallible level of the magisterium was engaged, nor the 2 other infallible levels of the magisterium, and that all doctrine of the council is simply unintentional, though marketed as super-dogma! This seems to be another case where the desire to hang Archbishop Vigano, for something, anything, has left his false accusers caught in their own trap.
Except that the SSPX now allows NO “priests” to join their ranks without conditional ordination.
This is an a priori objection based on the assumption that NO ordinations are inherently invalid, which is certainly not a position that I or the SSPX subscribe to.
We only have the word of modernists that NO ordinations are valid. Rush claims that SSPX is spiritually distancing from the errors of the NO. I am simply pointing out his mistake. The SSPX risks contamination the more they interact with the NO apostates. While we can argue ad infinitum about the official status of Bergoglio and Ratzinger, all of us should at least agree on one simple Catholic practice: have nothing at all to do with heretics (ie the NO). Too bad Abp Lefebrve tried to appease them in 1988. Look what it got him.
Interesting. Every time Abp. Vigano writes, it rings like a bell of truth.
This is difficult to articulate, but at this point in history, it does appear that everything except Christ might be up for reconsideration. There are psychological factors at work for all of us, what is that, normalcy bias? Twenty years ago if someone told us the world and the church would fall apart the way that it has and we’d see what we are seeing, we’d jump out the window. My sister who passed 6 years ago wouldn’t recognize her own country. I’m actually glad my sister and my parents aren’t here to see it. So when I look at things today I realize everything except Jesus Christ is up for re-evaluation. I’ve got to put aside my prior assumptions about all of it. Maybe it’s my failing, but I’m not married to any written in stone ideas about what is or isn’t possible in the church or the world. Not at this point. It may feel secure in a world gone mad, but what good is it if it isn’t the truth?
Bergoglio is a demon worshiper and the church is filled to the top with men who despise Catholicism and appreciate sodomy and young boys. This being the case everything except Christ the King is up for re-interpretation. He’s the Rock, the sure foundation. Everything else seems like it’s slipping away like sand.
Here’s an anecdote. My husband is brilliant and works very hard. This being said, he doesn’t like to do yard work. We moved to a house that has a very high maintenance yard, not just grass but extensive garden areas w/rhododendrons, azaleas, camellias, etc. So, he lived as if we had no yard. He drove into the garage entered the house & in his mind the yard, back and front, didn’t exist. For many years I badly attempted to maintain it myself until bracing loopers against my chest to cut a high branch I pulled a muscle that made me feel like I broke my heart for several weeks. Then, I said “Honey, I’m going to hire a lawn service, okay?” And he said, “Sure.” SSPX is pretending that the Papacy doesn’t exist and I’d like to suggest to them that we elect a Pope because even though they are pretending that the Papacy doesn’t exist, it does and the fact that it is vacant does need to be addressed. I think that it would be super helpful if they’d stop pretending because I can’t just go hire a Pope; if I could I would. SSPX needs to get engaged in this. They are not doing the right thing and are shirking their duty. If they are true Bishops, they need to get us a Pope. I don’t believe for a second that any of them believe these New Orders are Popes, I think that they are just driving into the garage pretending the yard doesn’t even exist.
We have the SSPX vouching for these newcomers! The SSPX is binding and loosing in a sense. Our Lord promised to be with the Church and He is.
And yet the SSPX continues to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with their heretic-apostate “pope”. Anyone who truly thinks this is how one goes about saving the Church doesn’t have their head screwed on right.
I know what you mean. Just one example of the diabolical transformation:
In 2016 in Anaheim I was stopped at a crosswalk at about 2:00 p.m. The children were walking home from school. They were about 300 of them. Were they actual Americans? No. They were all dark mestizos. I have nothing against them…in their own countries. But in my own country, I had become a stranger, a stranger surrounded by dark aliens bent on sapping my country dry. Then Orange County, formerly a conservative bastion, went blue in the 2016 election. Incredible. Why? Because of the dark invader horde, having invaded both illegally AND LEGALLY, along with the white ethnomasochists psychologically transformed to hate themselves and thus to vote for their own displacement. Complete madness.
That was when I knew for sure that it was time to move to Idaho.
You use the most inflammatory rhetoric possible but the fact is Mexicans are coming here in large numbers and they vote Democrat. Democrats are evil liberals. Liberalism is a sin. Liberalism destroys everything it touches and this country is being destroyed by liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans. The US was the last stand so temporally speaking we are completely doomed. I’d just like to go out with a Pope.
The maintenance of society requires a variety of legal fictions. The classic legal fiction is the Objectively Reasonable Man (now, “person,” of course), he who stalks the halls of tort law. Perhaps there are necessary legal fictions regarding popes. Plato was quite correct in proposing the need for certain noble lies.
I once heard a homily from an SSPX Priest in which he told us that Padre Pio told a woman who lied to sneak Rosaries and other holy objects across Communist borders, that it was never okay to lie.
Demography is destiny. Throughout history, wherever there have been large migrations, war has followed. Indeed, mass migration itself is a war tactic, as Muslims in Europe are showing. Unless the invaders are repulsed, the resident population is eventually wiped out, at least effectively so.
80% of darks vote Democrat. Why? Because Democrats provide the most handouts, and because they maximally support grievance against and displacement of the Evil White Man. But whatever the reasons, this means that the ongoing holocaust of legalized fetal infanticide will become increasingly entrenched and bloody.
Hence, on this infanticide basis alone, the invasion of darks—via both illegal AND LEGAL immigration—must not only be stopped, but also reversed. Also, of course, whites must stop contracepting themselves to death. And it goes without saying that all suicidally xenophilic white ethnomasochists must be permanently exiled, in the nude, to inner Antarctica.
To the extent that any reader of these words feels the impulse to squeal “RAAAAAAAAAYYCCISS,” to that extent has said reader been psy-op’ed.
The great-great-great grandson of Comanche Chief Bad Eagle, an excellent man, has some wise words here on immigration and the need to fight it:
Comanche Rejects Open Borders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li2QWcBk_ZE
Also see this by the same Comanche:
What’s Up With White Women — and White Men?
https://youtu.be/1LbJRxw0kTo
And don’t miss this:
What’s Wrong with White Women?
https://youtu.be/AypyqCAHi5A
I’d like to add that I’m Irish Catholic from Boston originally and all of my relatives hate God and vote Democrat too so I don’t have anything against Mexicans, some of them don’t even hate God. Probably, if no new people were coming here the people who were here already might out of self preservation vote conservative. This is not going to happen. We should just concentrate on getting a Pope.
And certainly see:
Why You No Longer Recognize Your Country
https://youtu.be/P1fu9XkCKiE
And finally, see:
What the Riots Mean
https://youtu.be/qeYdpfIjfCs
Padre Pio was wrong about that. Sometimes lying is the right thing to do, and conversely, telling the truth would be wrong, gravely wrong.
For example, suppose a home invasion crew demands to know where my wife is hiding so they can gang rape her. Instead of telling them where she’s hiding, I tell them that she’s not at home, thus gang rape avoided. It would’ve been very wrong for me to tell the truth in that instance.
This one example is sufficient to show that, assuming Padre Pio actually said that, he was quite wrong.
Perfect example, AlphonsusJr. Instead of lying to a home invasion crew, you should be shooting the home invasion crew. The home invasion crew is going to find your wife eventually. Instead of pretending that some communist goon is the Pope, the Bishops of the Catholic Church should be electing a Pope. What is difficult to understand here?
It’s very hard to see clearly in the murky waters of Vatican II. Tricky tricky tricky…diabolically tricky. Much is hard to understand.
And certainly don’t mess:
An Orgy of Self-Righteous Sentimentality
https://lawliberty.org/an-orgy-of-self-righteous-sentimentality/
Notice all of the white ethnomasochists in the top picture, along with the avowed Satanist among them. Pitiful. Just plain pitiful.
“In the case of Pope Francis [sic], *everything* he has done was anticipated by his immediate predecessors including Pachamama as JP2 allowed a statue of Buddha to be placed on the altar during the 1st Assisi prayer meeting.”
Very true – and *they* weren’t popes, either (eye-rolling emoticon).
Louie said:
You seem to imply that a papal claimant cannot err. But Pastor Aeternus does not say an occupant of the Throne of St. Peter cannot err. It limits the gift of infallibility to the following:
So his “gift of truth” is limited to the following conditions:
1. He defines [definit] a doctrine
AND
2. concerning faith or morals
AND
3. to be held by the whole Church
The Latin word definit is the third-person singular present active indicative of the verb definio, which can mean:
1. I bound, set bounds to; I limit.
2. I define, explain, designate by limiting.
3. I terminate, finish.
Therefore, in order for the statement to possess infallibility, the Pope must state that his doctrinal formulation is the end of the discussion on the matter for the whole Church.
Can you give me an example of any papal claimant ending discussion on a matter since Pius XII? If not, then it would seem that your reasoning, in the quote from you above, would be misleading, no?
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not a fan of any of the papal claimants since Pius XII. But we need to be accurate when we speak about the dogmatic claims of Pastor Aeternus. I agree with everything else you say in the post.
That was probably the best and thorough response to that sophomoric argument that I have ever came across. This is what we get when “Sheep are scattered”.
Just when I thought we had an interesting discussion going, the Daily Stormer has to come along and spoil all the fun.
Pitiful! Just plain pitiful!
“…the statement to possess infallibility…”
How can a statement “possess infallibility”?
Only an agent can possess that. It’s simply a poor use of the word to attribute it to a statement or utterance. Statements and utterances are expressions of an idea or ideas which an agent has. They’re not the agent itself.
In the most proper sense of the word then, the only agent who can possess infallibility is God Himself.
California was part of Mexico you moron till the Americans stole it in their sleazy imperialist war of 1848
( p.s.: needless to say, ideas are always imperfect and therefore somewhat fallible. Unless it so happens that the ideas are God’s own. Especially His Idea- which is to say His Word – about Himself.)
Poor Vermeullarmine. You actually thought the people here care about Catholicism? C’mon dude you can’t be that dense. They are first and foremost right wingers. They *thought* that Catholicism was a vehicle to impose right wing ideology but then the V2 popes came along….
Although this is actually unfair to the pre-V2 popes who would be just as horrified by right wing ideology as the post-V2 popes. Remember, it was Pius XI who fired Cardinal Billot for his association with the right wing Action Francaise. It was also Pius XI who authored the famous encyclical against racism Mit Brennender Sorge. It was Pius XII who condemned capitalism *by name*. And there is literally a statue is Muslim Turkey in honor of the World War I pope Benedict XV.
Ultimately, this website has been going around and around for the last 7 years without any resolution because God Himself is not a right winger. Remember, Pope Francis can’t take a single breath without God allowing it.
What is it that right wingers like to say? Facts don’t care about your feelings? So suck it up snowflakes. You’re on the losing side.
“They are first and foremost right wingers. They *thought* that Catholicism was a vehicle to impose right wing ideology but then the V2 popes came along….”
Indeed.
“Ultimately, this website has been going around and around for the last 7 years without any resolution because God Himself is not a right winger.”
Yes. And because as far as I can see no one who writes comments here, much less the owner/author of the blog itself, seems to understand the root and true nature of the crisis the church is in. It is most definitely not Vatican II or the Novus Ordo fundamentally. Those are merely effects and not the cause itself.
Formalism and canon law only get you so far. They only function as well as what ostensibly informs them is intact: faith which is based in Tradition and an understanding and conformity with the natural law.
This is a version of the “RAAAAAAAAAYYYCCCISSS” squeal. You just couldn’t resist your programming. Pitiful!
Complete nonsense. There was no theft. Hence they signed the treaty.
And there’s more where that came from:
Condemnation of slavery (Gregory XVI, In supremo apostolatus, 1839
Prohibition of the enslavement of Indians in the new world (Paul III, Sublimus Dei, 1537)
Condemnation of anti-Jewish pogroms during the Black Death (Clement VI, Quamvis perfidiam, 1348)
Condemnation of the antisemitic blood libel canard (Innocent IV, Mandate of 5 July 1247)
And I could go on and on!
Are you, by chance, a sodomite?
As those who have actually read it know, Mit Brennender Sorge does not condemn “racism.”
Speaking of which, see:
What Is “Racism”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1RTlvYAvcs
The likely sodomite and wretched heretic NQP is back under yet another name. Sad!
They signed the treaty because Mexico City was occupied and the nation had a Yankee knife to its throat. An imperialist war is still an imperialist war no matter how you dress it. But kick out all the Mexicans from their homeland and force the slaves back to Africa because Alphonsus says it should be so!
Ah, so condemning slavery and rejecting the blood libel for the hogwash it is makes one a sodomite.
I’ll keep that in mind! And let everyone else who agrees know.
Vermeullarmine- very true.
While Americans like to pride themselves on being democratic and freedom-loving, and certainly many individual Americans are in fact, historically America has actually acted a varying degree just as “imperialist” as any other power.
Does “manifest destiny” ring a bell, perhaps? It was no different than Rhodesian imperialism in 19th century Africa. It was, I suppose one could say, the spirit of the age.
Vermeullarmine- you’ve probably figured out already that this AlphonsusJr character is a rankled fool who almost certainly has some larger emotion/psychological issues unrelated to the ideas he promotes here.
I mean, who the hell would honestly, seriously support transporting dark skinned people in America “back to Africa” wholesale. That’s crazy talk by a crazy person.
I wouldn’t take him too seriously.
“So, who represents “true” sedevacantism?”
I’d say no one.
Sedevacantism isn’t anti- or un-Catholic per se. It can be VERY Catholic in fact.
It is just a reaction to recent circumstances and events and people within the institutional church. One which, in turn, is in my experience based on a misunderstanding of what the pope and the papacy actually are.
St Cyprian- In other words, what you’re saying is that commenter Ganganelli tries to use his intellect to parse fact from fiction and truth from untruth rather than posit some ham-fisted “position” on anything and everything.
That’s commendable. I happen to support this modus operandi myself. Heh.
So kudos to you, Ganganelli, even if I don’t always agree with you.
“In the case of Pope Francis, *everything* he has done was anticipated by his immediate predecessors including Pachamama as JP2 allowed a statue of Buddha to be placed on the altar during the 1st Assisi prayer meeting.”
True. Many ardent traditionalist Catholics recognize that Bergoglio is of a piece, of course. But many less “traditionalist” Novus Ordite Catholics are surprised by him- as if he came out of nowhere. Or they invent the logical and theological equivalents of epicycles to “explain” him and what he says and does.
To my mind, Bergoglio is just the most perfect flowering of the idea that the Pope is literally the vox dei (not to be confused with the Vox Day character that our colleague AlphonsusJr likes to hold up as a serious public intellectual).
Agreed. No sense of humor at all, this AlphonsusJr. character.
With all his martial rhetoric and talk about being “always armed” and not hesitating to shoot people who “come at him”, I suspect he is a current police officer (because in the US, most police officers are in fact always armed whether on duty or off) and ex-military (I’ll bet 10 to 1 ex-USMC enlisted because I’ve yet to meet one current or former enlisted Marine who wasn’t at least a little bit of a fanatic).
Or, if not a cop, just a paranoid nut who thinks people are about to “come at him”.
It’s amusing watching NQP talk to himself under his new sock puppets Vermeullarmine and qeylIS. Keep it up, cuck!
Scary to think that emotional tinderboxes like him can be armed to the teeth
“It was Pius XII who condemned capitalism *by name*.”
“Quadragesimo Anno” condemned the rapacious sort of “capitalism” which abuses the laborer by not giving him his just due in terms of compensation and livelihood and which in turn divides society into the haves and the have-nots. That has always been the position of the church and that of a true Christian.
But acquiring capital- that is to say ownership and self-sufficiency -is based in the natural law. That sort of “capitalism” (so to speak) is a very good thing.
Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV, in his unfortunately meandering and long-winded manner, addresses capitalism and so forth in this video. Some good points therein, if you have the time to listen: https://youtu.be/JzHEKViZTe8?t=93
Do you live in the US? Every man I know is in fact always armed. I avoid liberals so I can’t speak for them.
Melanie- When I say “always armed”, I mean carrying a firearm wherever you go.
It’s one thing to own firearms. I’m all for it. God knows I do and have myself- the 1911 is the best handgun ever made IMO :).
It’s another thing to carry a loaded one everywhere with you like your wallet or iPhone or keys.
There are only three types of people who carry a gun everywhere and at all times in contemporary American society: a police officer, a paranoid person, or a criminally-minded person.
If someone were to walk about with a rapier or a gurkha at their waist at all times, we’d think he was a little nuts. Why is it any different if someone is packing a pistol or revolver everywhere and at all times?
Anyway, enough digression. The point is that this AlphonsusJr character is clearly not right in the head.
Not sure if we’re supposed to interpret your comment as meaning we should listen to what he has to say or somewhat snide quip that should not listen to what he has to say. It isn’t clear to me.
Whatever the case, it is true that people who are paying attention to him are a tiny minority. Just like the percentage of Catholics who attend a “Latin Mass” is tiny. Vigano’s publication, to my mind, is too much too late even if it there were more wide awareness of it. The church as an institution we once knew is finished and dying. But that doesn’t mean faith and Tradition are.
“I hope he does embrace sedevacantism. Then even fewer will bother to pay him attention than do now.”
Oh?
Now, why would you say that Gagzilla…?
Are you hoping that everyone will ignore Frankie’s rehabilitation of a sexual abusers like McCarrick, who even sent him on his merry way to China for some annual bags of silver moolah?
Now why would Gag want to do that?
Does Gag want the cover-ups to continue?
Did Gag just not think about what ze was saying before ze typed?
Or is this all because Gag is butthurt about “Muh Vatican 2” or support for Donald Duck?
I’d say each and every papalist position. from hard side-ism to the most maudlin pro-Bergoglio position, is a non-starter and “no-win” position. I say that emphatically.
That is because each of these positions places all authority with regards to Tradition, faith, morals and in a supposed quasi-divine “office” held by an individual, mortal, fallible man.
In reality, the real Authority is Jesus, and the way we know Him- which is to say to come to have faith in Him -is through the Apostolic Tradition: the Gospels, the Roman Canon, the symbols of faith, etc. Not by some divinized guy in Rome or some “inspiration of the Holy Spirit”.
“side-ism” should read “sede-ism”
“…it’s just a state of being sane and recognizing that an anti-Catholic is obviously not the Pope. ”
That’s one of the better definitions I’ve come across.
By having the temerity to reject the Church’s definition of the Roman Pontiff you, Geylis, are anathema.
Here we go again, Gaginthetank has forgotten his pills and is once more posting comments referring to something else on the wrong website.
Just as for any Lefty, where they see things everywhere to the point that even 1 + 2 = RACISM!!!! because some white guy put together the Principia, Gag has been drinking from the wrong faucet for so long, he mistakes actual Catholicism for Republicanism. Because that’s all the dope can understand or see. Everything looks like a nail for gaggy’s hammerhead. Recall that Gags is the same gagerelli that took his theology of the Pope from Protestant websites with entirely made-up quotations that came from nowhere! And he never once noticed it! But he once attended an SSPX mass somewhere, so he’s as qualified to discuss it as the average Catholic high school graduate wearing a rainbow badge because teacher told him to.
Might want to visit the doctor Gagster. The colour ‘Red’ that you’re seeing everywhere is actually your own blood, from all the headbanging that you do to make reality conform to your vision, also it obscures the Hammer/Sickle signs that your friends wear on their armbands.
Also remember folks!
“Hitler couldn’t take a single breath without God allowing it. Therefore, God obviously approved of Hitler! So you can shove that fact up your feeling!”
– Ganganelli
Eh Alphonsus is up in Idaho with their puny 4 electoral votes. He’s really pretty much harmless.
AlphonsusJr- “It’s amusing watching NQP talk to himself under his new sock puppets Vermeullarmine and qeylIS.”
The difference between people like you and people like myself and Vermeullarmine is that we actually use the combox to make actual comments, remarks and thoughts and a semblance of discourse.
You, on the other hand, feel the need to usurp the combox to promote your hair-brained, half-baked ideas about everything and anything to whoever will listen and make it your own little mini-blog.
That’s a sure sign of a crazy person. So in your own right, keep it up.
What makes all this dementia on the part of gags and his alt-accounts funnier, is that all that ‘Freedom of Religion’ and ‘Separation of Church/State’ and ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ are all RIGHT-WING causes championed by the Masonic States of America.
And these are what VATICAN II adopted and pushed!
The Lefties out there certainly aren’t all about that! They are all about imposing ONE Religion on everyone, where their Cathedral is the State, and you can’t just say whatever you want least you run afoul of the Hate Speech Commandments. Such compassion and tolerance!
Leftism is the new State Religion, an inverted Ape trying to be a pretend-Catholic Church, and Gags and co. are the useful idiots adding their pinches to its altars. Little doubt these same tools are out there pulling down statues of saints and chalking blasphemies on images of the Holy Mother of God because # Black Lives Matter and # Cancel the Police and # No more Apu on the Simpsons, or something….
Melanie- The “definition” you speak of is not based in Tradition. It’s also largely ahistorical. Honestly you really don’t have the right perspective. Yours is that of 19th century theologians, not the Gospel.
History and Tradition mean everything to a Christian because our faith is in an historical Person who claimed to be God’s Own Revelation of Himself and backed up His claims- first and foremost by His Resurrection.
Hang your hat on that, and you’re on the right track.
Hang your hat on novel 19th century theological inventions of what the papacy is, and you’re asking for all sorts of unforeseen consequences. Mostly negative ones- like the entire situation the Chruch finds itself in now with neo-Modernism (or perhaps as Rod Dreher termed it: “liquid modernity”) and a “Pope” who basically isn’t even Christian.
Oh Johnno boy nice that you remember me. Since I’m still living rent free in your head let me remind you #FrancisPope and there is absolutely not a damn thing you can do about it.
Some people like the smell of coffee in the morning, I like the taste of right wing tears.
Vermeullarmine, you are correct. They go blue in the face that the new rites of ordination, and the new Mass, are valid, at least “per se”, “according to the book”, etc. As far as I’m aware it is only Confirmation that they have a real problem with.
If that is the case then the SSPX has absolutely no reason whatsoever for NOT using the new rites of ordination, especially since they accept priests ordained in the new rite. Let them put their money where their mouth is and ordain their own priests using it. Or… they have a retired novus ordo bishop (living in one of their Swiss houses (Huonder) who was ordained priest and bishop in the new rites… let them use him to ordain, without the other SSPX bishops there. Then see what the reaction of their faithful is. Some would be fine with it, others not. Same goes for the priests.
The bottom line is that the SSPX has no uniform set of doctrines/morals/liturgical laws/disciplinary laws, except for loyalty to the party line, Lefebvre was never wrong (even when he contradicted himself, many times), and ridicule “sedevacantism” at all costs.
I’d further suggest that your apparent obsession with “having a pope” is a bit unsettling. We could elect ten popes. What difference would it make? Zero.
Simply electing a guy pope because “there HAS to be a pope” isn’t the answer. Tradition and reasoned faith in Jesus based in that Tradition is the answer. It is the measure of and rule for any true pope, bishop, priest or layman for that matter.
To say that the SSPX has never been consistent would be an understatement. I don’t hold it against Lefebvre- he was dealing with an unprecedented situation.
Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t hear Mass at one of their chapels (which I have) unless the priest was a staunch and steadfast defender of Bergoglio (some SSPX priests are, whereas are some aren’t, whereas some are outright sedevacantists).
Ah yes… I recall that great right-wing V2 Pope – John Paul II, fighting very hard against the leftyness of socialist communism and Margaret Sangerism.
Remember fellas! Gags is all about dose facts!
And if you don’t like blanketly labelling all white people “Privilege Raciss!!!” it’s because you are such a captive to Capitalism that the dollar signs in your eyes won’t let you see how emotional and loving Al-Antifa Qaeda followers are! So take a knee, genuflect, observe your 8:45, and send $20 to the Joe Biden Campaign c/o #BLM’s funnelling campaign c/o ActBlue. All the cool kids are doing it! Coca-Cola, Nike, JP Morgan Chase… such grassroots, those guys!
That being said, sometimes I think church was a bit too hasty and far too deferential to Augustine in labeling Donatism a heresy.
There is something to be said for the manifest faith of a priest or bishop. It does matter, once you discard the sacramental theology of Augustine with its “ex opere operato” notion.
Not at all Lady Gaga, you’re just the graffiti punching bag at public playground that all the little children gather round and take turns kicking while saying “ha-ha!”
So whenever I go out for a daily stroll, I like to swing by and see what other immature doodles are written on it before giving you a good few minutes of pummelling for my own childish amusement. It fills me with such nostalgia!
And you know the best part about being me is? I don’t have to really do anything. Because God already laid out the schedule of events a long time ago.
It goes something like this –
– America will become Communist (That’s your side winning! Congratulations!)
– Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ (That’s also your side winning! So much winning! My tears overfloweth into thy Starbucks cup!)
– Various nations will be annihilated (I think you live somewhere in the vicinity of one of those…)
– The Pope along with the bishops will consecrate Russia (Frankie really really doesn’t want to, no converting anyone for him! That’s proselytism! Such solemn Nonsense! Non, non, he won’t have any of it!)
– Russia will be converted (To Catholicism – Despite Franky’s wishes – P.S. – This will be bad for your side…)
– Finally a period of peace and blessings will be granted to the world. (Implying a big big loss, for both left and right wings of the bird that won’t fly within the cage of politics that’s all you’ve ever known…)
So if I’m still around, I’ll finally drink a cup to that!
Frankly I think people like you, Johnno, as well as AlphonsusJr take these BLM and anti-fa people way too seriously.
They’re privileged punk who through tantrums. Virtually none of them have seen the face of true hardship and desperation. Same with the morons who formed their own warlord-state in Seattle. Give it time, and they’ll all take their ball and go home.
There’s no such thing as true widespread and endemic hardship, poverty and hunger in the United States. Maybe in isolated pockets in white Appalachia or the black Deep South, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
Point is this: while there are sinister people like George Soros and Bill Gates out there who have truly sinister motives and ambitions, the average person has very average concerns and ambitions: food on the table, a place to live, raising children, recreation, etc.. Not taking over the world through violent revolution.
Not to mention Idaho is a bastion of white supremacist assholery.
“Because God already laid out the schedule of events a long time ago.”
This, my friend, is exactly the nucleus of your problem.
You believe God has a “schedule” or “schedules” of historical and future events and their meanings which is/are clearly and absolutely discernible by the human intellect.
Whatever happened to “His ways are not our ways”? Do you have a red Batphone to God? How do you presume all of this knowledge?
“They are all about imposing ONE Religion on everyone, where their Cathedral is the State, and you can’t just say whatever you want least you run afoul of the Hate Speech Commandments. Such compassion and tolerance!”
I would say that there are not a few Christians, mostly the more fundamentalist types such as Traditionalist Catholics, Southern Baptists, and the more hardcore evangelical Protestant types who would indeed like to impose one religion and church on everyone by force of law and violence.
How does this make them fundamentally different from their leftist counterparts? To my mind there is no difference. More importantly, how does it square with anything Jesus said or did? Did Jesus set up shop as an earthy autocrat and impose fealty to Him by the sword and law? Rather He preached the kingdom of God and revealed His Father to us in in His life, death and Resurrection.
Even the Apostles didn’t get it. Even AFTER He was Resurrected: “when are you going to restore the kingdom?”.
(btw, Catholic, Apostolic Christianity isn’t a “religion” in any proper sense of the term. It is a faith and only a faith in its essence. It annoys me to no end when traditional Catholics prattle on about the “Catholic religion”. The better term is “expression of faith/Tradition”)
Behold these soy boys flirting with each other. Sick!
Tom A.: I agree. Lefebvre was a trained diplomat and his diplomatic manner backfired on him.
That’s why he went ahead and consecrated the four bishops. He lost whatever good faith in the papacy he had and fell back on Tradition- to his credit.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Great comment, Librorum
Alphonsus: “Demography is destiny.”
Really.
Hitler and his party lackeys and underlings also spoke in terms of demographic destiny. So did all the white eugenists of the late 19th and early 20th century. I’m sure you know that.
The question is: how far are you willing to go to implement that “destiny”? What measure is a measure that goes too far?
When you suggest mass indiscriminate transportation of people against their will (black people to Africa, white people to Antarctica to freeze to death), the only conclusion I can draw is that you’re a nationalist socialist.
You see, far-right people such as yourself are really just socialists like their leftist counterparts. It’s just that you want more localized, racialist sort of socialism whereas the far-left wants a worldwide sort of socialism.
p.s.: I recognize and admit that you probably weren’t serious about transporting white people to Antarctica to freeze to death. But it doesn’t matter if you were or not; that sort of rhetoric/hyperbole gives an insight into what is going on inside your head.
I should add also that not only right-wingers but also libertarians (most of whom tend to be right-wing) also take up Catholicism as a sort of vehicle to promote their ideology. They should be equally recognized and distanced from by any Catholic worthy of that title.
An acquaintance of mine put libertarianism very succinctly and humorously: “it’s philosophy for stupid people”.
“Is there anything that Bergoglio can say or do that can convince you R&Rers that he cannot be the Pope?”
I don’t think so. Because in their mind there simply HAS to be a Pope.
Ann Barnhardt’s blog is the one of the more shrieking, insane public iterations of this. I suppose she never read Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity” what with all of its muddle and neo-Modernism, nor I suppose has she researched much church history or the read the Gospels very objectively.
People like her concern me for two reasons- because her sort of rhetoric is very attractive to a certain sort of somewhat deranged personality. And for her own part- because I think, years from now when both Bergoglio and Ratzinger are deceased and there is another non-Christian heading the Roman Catholic Church, it is very possible that she’ll have said “aw fuck it all” and have dithered off into some other lifestyle.
I can totally see that happening with her. I hope to God it doesn’t for her sake but I’ve seen it before in other people like her and I know the signs.
It is because their faith, and apparently hers, rests more in people and in ideas and not fundamentally in Jesus.
There’s only one very sick person writing comments here, and that is you, my friend.
Such a soy boy, NQP. No doubt you never drive unless a comfort doggy is on your lap. Sad!
qeylIS = NQP
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Careful there! You are wildly generalizing in a very unfair way. My nephew is not a police officer and he carries all the time. He’s not ex-military either. Many Americans carry all the time, men and women, realizing the times we are in. There is not a thing wrong with it and innocent lives are often saved because of it. People carry guns because cops are too heavy, and you may not get one at all if Democrats have their way.
Your statement you’ve yet to meet one current or former enlisted Marine who wasn’t at least a little bit of a fanatic is blatantly over the top and offensive. Marines are America’s shining stars, and we owe them many military victories for their sacrifice. They are the best of the best. Don’t lump them together as if they’re all psychotic because they love our country and take protecting it seriously. So should we, especially as we see we may indeed lose it come this November. If only most Americans loved our country half as much as most Marines! We wouldn’t have the problems we do.
And I’ve got news for you, it’s not paranoid today one iota to believe people are going to “come at him”. A Catholic priest in his 80’s got beaten down on a Washington street the other day, as he was praying. His face was swollen and purple. A New York city woman of 92 was raped and killed on a New York street a few weeks ago, an 81 year old woman was punched in the face by a young black man on a New York street. So you shouldn’t think it can’t happen. Ask the couple in Missouri who had a BLM crowd jump their private gate and threaten to kill them and their dog. If you live in a community without threat, wonderful for you, but if people don’t have their head on a swivel these days, they’re living in Dreamland.
I don’t agree with Alphonsus on the blanket statement about Mexicans. But anyone who says America is not suffering from allowing so many people into this nation is not being truthful. This country is suffering from it and this will likely continue. People like Alphonsus are being more honest than people who think that but will not say it because it’s just unacceptable today. White people are the only group in the world that is not allowed to openly state a preference for our own. Everybody else can, white people, no. There’s a lot of hypocrisy.
AlphonsusJr., if you actually took the time to TRY to write some intelligent commentary or counterpoint to either my comments or the posts of others, it would be much easier to take you seriously.
You come across as a juvenile moron who’s been reading too much racist and right-wing trash. I’d like to think you can do better than that, honestly. Cut the hyperbole and actually reply like an adult and I’ll treat you like one. I take the time to make reasoned replies to people. So do others here. I’m sure you can as well. You don’t seem to realize how silly you make yourself out to be with all of this posturing as a racist dipshit using Catholicism as your…well…lapdog.
Until you do that, to me you’re just an immature moron who couldn’t reason his way to the exit of his local Walmart. And you’ll be treated as such.
If America were really “an imperialist nation” as stated here, the world would look vastly different than it does. America is a superpower, and yet Canada and Mexico and other nations are not occupied. Does anyone doubt if China or Russia were the neighbors instead of the US this would not be the case? You bet it would be different.
America is what was called by some historical figure a “benevolent giant”, and she is. It is disgraceful that anyone would look at America, particularly from the inside, and fail to appreciate the greatness of her history, actions, and the generosity of the people, while finding flaws and criticizing the nation as “imperialist”. What rubbish.
Since you like to extol manly virtue and such, I challenge you – from one Catholic man to another -to make an intelligent comment or rebuttal to any position I’ve laid out thusfar here which doesn’t resort to needless ad hominem. I look forward to you doing that. The ball is in your court.
If you do, I’ll begin to take you somewhat seriously. Until then…you’re just an immature racism-addled nut with violence on his mind.
Evangeline- The USA was not founded as an imperialist sort of nation. At least not on paper.
Rather it became one periodically- during the 19th century, and then again during the Cold War, and then again with the rise and influence of neo-conservatism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries up to today.
The point is this: American exceptionalism is a load of crap. And it has nothing to do with being Catholic. America is simply a very fortunate country by a variety of measures and that is why it has done so well, and unfortunately it has taken the ideology of its own uniqueness too far at times in history.
America is also not “too big to fail”. Not by a long shot. If it does, it won’t be by sudden conquest or whatever like the Aztec, Nazi or Imperial Japanese empires (which were largely despised by their subjects), but more likely death by a thousand cuts not unlike the Roman Empire.
“RAAAAAAAYYYCCCIISSSS!!!!!” You processed soy boys just can’t resist the “RAAAAAYYCCISS” squeal. LOL!
Shave your ass, soy boy. It’s time.
“California was part of Mexico you moron till the Americans stole it in their sleazy imperialist war of 1848”
Alot of AlphonsusJr and other’s rhetoric here is based in the old error idea of “my country right or wrong”.
The Australian rock band Midnight Oil- despite their leftist bent -captured this notion very will in this protest song of theirs from the 1990’s. The reason I post it here is because sometimes a song can capture an idea better than prose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCmYVRNg9ug
Now you’re just getting homoerotic and creepy.
I reiterate my challenge, if you’re the Catholic man you purport yourself to be.
Well, you ARE a racist.
And like libertarianism, racism is a “philosophy for stupid people”.
No reasonable person subscribes to the notions of race which you apparently do. They’re not based in reality. They’re based on emotions…mostly very negative ones.
So…you’re the emotion-ruled, “cuckolded” one here (after all, a cuckolded man is one who is ruled by his perceptions, passions and appetites and not his reason). Not me or anyone else who doesn’t buy your nonsense.
“Your statement you’ve yet to meet one current or former enlisted Marine who wasn’t at least a little bit of a fanatic is blatantly over the top and offensive.”
I take that back. Now that I recall I had a high school friend who went through Parris Island after he graduated and did one enlistment in order to say he made it through Parris Island and more importantly to get the GI Bill. Point is: he didn’t buy into the whole mythos and ethos of the Marine Corps.. He did it for his own healthy pride as a man and for his own future betterment.
There are probably other Marines like him. But I’d wager they’re more in the officer corps.. Not the enlisted corps, and definitely not your typical infantry battalion.
There is no such thing as a “noble lie” in any proper sense of the term “lie”. That, itself, is a very ignoble lie.
There is only withholding the truth from someone who isn’t privy to it because it would hurt them or be detrimental to them. For example: not explaining the mechanics of sexuality to a young child. Or with holding information from someone because it would distract him from a more important task or because it is simply not important to their context.
That is categorically different from some Platonic “noble lie”. I disagree with your assertion completely…though based on the train of stupidity which precedes you here, I suspect you really don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
To paraphrase Chesterton in “Heretics” (or was it “The Everlasting Man”…it’s late here and I’m tired), Plato said many silly things. And Chesterton was totally literal and totally right in that case. Totally.
Is a duel at 20 paces legal?
Flushing the SSPXer out of the brush: Mr. Quail you engaged in a total micharacterization of my point.
–
Anyone who has been exposed to Ganganelli knows he is a contrarian who spends most of his time picking apart the positions of others while providing half-*ssed reasons for his own position.
–
His position can be summarized thus: because of the past inconsistent enforcement of the teachings against, e.g., usury, it doesn’t matter what the current hierarchy professes now, even if it is heretical, and all Catholics should continue to attend so-called “mass” at their diocesan church.
–
In addition, I had a past wager with Ganganelli regarding the outcome of the synod on marriage which he lost because I wagered that so-called “Pope Francis” would not support traditional teaching on marriage.
–
Finally, since Ganganelli effectively argues that it really doesn’t matter what the hierarchy professes and that we should all return to our diocesan churches, are you willing to accept his counsel yourself?
–
BTW, because of their actions and behavior, I consider all semi-trad mouthpieces such as Siscoe, Salza, Ferrara, etc. as at best unintentional frauds and hirelings who are mainly concerned with money.
Mr. Quail: At first you struck me as an adherent of the SSPX. Now you appear to be a protestant. Is that the case?
“The difference between people like you and people like myself and Vermeullarmine is that we actually use the combox to make actual comments, remarks and thoughts and a semblance of discourse.”
I hate to tell you, but this particular combox, at the very least, doesn’t reflect that. So far the three of you have done nothing productive. Once again we have a large percentage of posts not even talking about Louie’s post. Most people wouldn’t even bother coming in here to discuss it because they would have to wade through and sift out all of the nonsense.
QeylIS: If you are NQP, why are you posting under a new name?
I don’t accept it one iota. Either in theory or in practice. I think the best “way to be” is to be a bit of a Donatist these days and discriminate by individual priest. One has to find one who has a good understanding of Tradition, the traditional Roman Mass, and who has the courage to uphold Tradition in the face of any opposition from the “establishment”. There are more of then than you might realize out there, and they are not all sedevacantist priests.
Well, let me put it this way: Fr. Cekada might be a bit snide, but he has a point when he calls The Fatima Center (whom all of those gentleman are deeply associated with) “The Fatima Industry”.
So yes I agree with you there.
There is an easy solution to this: AlphonsusJr ceasing abusing this comments section as his racist mini-blog and attacking people with nasty ad hominem without provocation.
I’m just as frustrated as you are. But with a guy like him, reasoning and argumentation don’t work. One has to meet him “where he is”- which is to say in a sort of adolescent/collegiate funk of spite, violence and hatred co-opting Catholicism as a front.
That being said, my concern is that his sort of garbage will sound attractive to a certain type of personality: one who is more “right-wing” than an actual Catholic Christian per se. Ganganelli pointed out that there are more than a few people who post (and likely read the blog but don’t post) here, and I happen to agree with his point, regardless of however else I disagree with him.
Wrongo bongo once again, soy boy. There are many reasonable people espousing such RAAAAAAAYYYCCISSS CRIMETHINK on excellent sites like Vdare, American Renaissance, The Occidental Observer, and Unz. And they all enjoy the great honor of being HATE SITES by the perfidious $PLC.
Definitely don’t visit any of these sites, soy boy. You’ll soil your panties immediately. Because RAAAAAYYCCISS…. LOL!
Right.
So you’re proving once again you’re an immature shithead who frequents far-right and so-called “alt-right” (whatever that term even means, because even I don’t know) internet habitats, spews the filth he soaks up on there on a site like this, and then calls himself a Catholic.
Right.
I mean, it seems like you are trying in earnest to prove what a fool you are. It’s almost surreal.
Is this a joke?
So sad. Everything about you, qeylIS/NQP, screams SOY BOY. From your tone-policing, to your concern-trolling, to your compulsive virtue-signaling, to your frequent use of the subjunctive mood, and of course your likely sodomite perversion and wretched gamma sperg heretic status, and certainly along with your requisite horror of all things RAAAAYYYCCIISSSS….it all screams one thing: fully programmed soy boy NPC. I can hear your lisp through the screen. Pitiful!
Finally, I say again, there are many reasonable people espousing my RAAAAAAAYYYCCISSS CRIMETHINK on excellent sites like Vdare, American Renaissance, The Occidental Observer, Unz, and Faith and Heritage. Indeed, sanity today REQUIRES such CRIMETHINK. And of course most of these sites enjoy the great honor of being branded as HATE SITES by the perfidious $PLC. Wonderful!
Definitely don’t visit any of these sites, soy boy. You’ll soil your panties immediately. Because RAAAAAYYCCISS…. LOL!
For those who love truth and hence like to get real, really real, here’s a sample of that CRIMETHINK:
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
I dunno. Maybe because I think Klingons are kind of a cool fictional antagonist. No deeper meaning there.
Speaking of which, AlphonsusJr would likely find common ground with this particular Klingon’s speech
Anyway…! 🙂
You live in a VERY small world and very sparsely populated world, my friend.
Population: 2- yourself and you single maniacal idea. Just as Chesterton said.
I wonder what will happen to you years from know when it all comes crashing down on your head- whether gradually by age and experience and the wisdom which often comes with it, or by the sudden force of the illogical and absurdity of what you once believed to be true.
I think I’ve said all I can say to you here and now. You’re incorrigible. Good luck.
Definitely loads of soy—and hence estrogen—flowing through your veins. Bite your pillow, girly man!
Remember, Pope Francis can’t take a single breath without God allowing it.
Indeed. And what is it that has been said about elections? “We get the leaders we deserve.”
I’d say that this is most definitely true not merely in worldly politics (Donald Trump- and I say that in the pejorative) but also in the institutional church.
Bergoglio is the leader the church deserves because it has drifted away from Apostolic Tradition over the centuries as an institution, with the most noticeable paroxysms occurring in the form of Vatican II and soon thereafter the introduction of the 1969 Roman Missal.
People like Viganó and Peter KwasniewskiPeter Kwasniewski are well-intentioned in their critique of V2 and the New Order what has come forth from it since. But they utterly fail to recognize that V2 and the NO are of a piece and going back to the 4th century with the elevation of Augustine in the Latin-speaking church as a sort of guru.
Until people start recognizing en masse what the real root of the problems are, there will be no progress. Only spinning wheels in the mud on the part of “traditionalists” and “conservatives” for one, and further regress into gnostic-modernist-amoralist-diabolism by the rest of the word.
Just remember folks Pope Benedict wrote this:
“We are staring at the trials of everyday Christianity and forgetting on that account that faith is not just a burden that weighs us down; it is at the same time a light that brings us counsel, gives us a path to follow, and gives us meaning. We are seeing in the Church only the exterior order that limits our freedom and thereby overlooking the fact that she is our spiritual home, which shields us, keeps us safe in life and in death. We are seeing only our own burden and forgetting that other people also have burdens, even if we know nothing of them. And above all, what a strange attitude that actually is, when we no longer find Christian service worthwhile if the denarius of salvation may be obtained even without it! It seems as if we want to be rewarded, not just with our own salvation, but most especially with other people’s damnation—just like the workers hired in the first hour. That is very human, but the Lord’s parable is particularly meant to make us quite aware of how profoundly un-Christian it is at the same time. Anyone who looks on the loss of salvation for others as the condition, as it were, on which he serves Christ will in the end only be able to turn away grumbling, because that kind of reward is contrary to the loving-kindness of God.”
God is not a right winger. You’re on the losing side. And you have a real possibility of eternal damnation(see Matthew 7:21-23 which, by definition, can’t be referring to atheists, agnostics, progressive Catholics)
Yeah, that’s called a fake pope. Catholics have faith, hope and charity and therefore certainly do not ever wish to see anyone burn in Hell but always strive for the salvation of souls. This is in start contrast to your fake popes who discourage conversion, repentance and instead seem to be corralling as many souls as possible away from salvation and down the wide rode to Hell. You shouldn’t follow these men, they’re the bad guys.
Ratzinger did have his moments, for all of his love of Teilhard and otherwise Modernist tendencies. Just goes to show that many, if not most, people are complex and complicated.
In particular this part stands out:
“We are seeing only our own burden and forgetting that other people also have burdens, even if we know nothing of them. And above all, what a strange attitude that actually is, when we no longer find Christian service worthwhile if the denarius of salvation may be obtained even without it! It seems as if we want to be rewarded, not just with our own salvation, but most especially with other people’s damnation—just like the workers hired in the first hour. That is very human, but the Lord’s parable is particularly meant to make us quite aware of how profoundly un-Christian it is at the same time.
It brings to my mind a quote from Chesterton wrote in his (distantly second best work, IMO, after The Everlasting Man) book What’s Wrong With The World:
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
Agreed, in spite of the not-too-bad quote from Ratzinger Ganganelli posted.
I’m almost certain, unless you repent, you will go to Hell.
But here’s the one thing most miss. If Melanie dies and Paul VI and Francis and Father Martin are there in Heaven, she will run not walk into Hell. She, and her like-minded clones, would literally rather go to Hell then serve a God that wold support Francis.
The real danger with a guy like Ratzinger is not such much the obvious externalites, but his published thought.
Once one actually tries to hack through his body of work it becomes pretty clear that he’s a pretty serious neo-Modernist. Which is why it baffles me that someone like Ms. Barnhardt insists that he is unquestionably the pope. I just think she’s really ignorant about the man, and unfortunately her ignorant, ranty sort of cant wins alot of similar personalities over.
I have a family member who is fluent in German as a second language, and he has stated that when Ratzi speaks in his native Bavarian German he sounds very effeminate. Bearing that in mind both he and I suspect he’s likely a closeted or clandestine homosexual, but that’s only a suspicion on my part and I can’t offer hard evidence to that end.
Well…then again there’s this which I’m sure some of you have seen. The facial expressions on the man speak more than words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Ajga1VLtk
I’m trying to wrap my mind around the logic you’re employing here. I’m failing to see it.
God doesn’t “support” anyone in any human sense of the term. You yourself have said so with regard to right-wingers. So you’re a bit inconsistent to…apparently…assert that He would “support” a Bergoglio, or a James Martin for that matter.
You’re not making a whole lot of sense here.
…and frankly, Ganganelli, you’re acting like a bit of a judgmental jerk to say such things about Melanie.
No one has comprehensive access to the innermost recesses of another persons intellect, will and conscience. It’s simply knowledge which we are unable to have access to. And anyone who says otherwise is lying.
That’s solely the domain of God. Only He has absolute, omniscient, metaphysical certitude about both Himself and His creatures.
Not us- we only have moral certitude based on what we can discern from what our senses offer to our powers of reason.
Giuseppe Pellegrino is quoted on Twitter as saying, “The magisterium of the post-conciliar popes has made important contributions, which have not been sufficiently taken into account in the present debate.”
Since it was publicly stated before the council that Vatican II intended to remain pastoral, it’s simply not the magisterium on any level of doctrine. So is there anything good from the post-conciliar magisterium?
If long winded documents that talk around in a circle without coming to any definite conclusion is an important contribution, then that would be something good!
If Pope John Paul II cannot be quoted as personlly making a public statement that he didn’t intend to move the infallible doctrine that women cannot be priests into the state of dogma, then that dogma defined by him, constitutes an important contribution of the post-conciliar magisterium. But either way, those advocating women priests have objectivly automatically excomunicated themselves from the Church.
Perhaps Pope Paul VI snidely calling Latin and Gregorian Chant silk purses is what some believe to be an important contribution? To me it’s just a snide statement contrary to the Churches established tradition contradicted when the Abbey of Solesmes was given the task of preserving both.
It almost seems like what is not erronious is being put forward to prop up what is heredical in both the conciliar and post-conciliar era?
10 years ago it may have been prudent to distill the conciliar and post-concilair documents. Right now it looks like wether they are distilled or just thrown out, the same number of Catholics in name only are going to align themselves with error and heresy and condemn the faithful.
Ganganelli, If I’m wrong and you are right then not only am I not going to Hell but nobody is going to Hell nor Heaven because your New Order religion is a crock. It is a meaningless arbitrary jumble of trite sentimental liberal bs. I don’t know how that can even make you happy on earth never mind provide you any hope in a life after death. Maybe you are overthinking things. I hope I’m right and that we get a Pope soon, I bet you’d convert to Catholicism. I hope you will.
Right now it looks like whether they are distilled or just thrown out, the same number of Catholics in name only are going to align themselves with error and heresy …
I believe this is very true.
However, I believe it is true perhaps for a different reason you might: because Vatican II (and the New Order which came from it) are NOT the cause of the dilemma.
Put simply- the cause goes back to Augustine and his immense and detrimental influence on the Western church. Disentangling Augustine from the Apostolic Tradition and faith is a likewise immense undertaking which I don’t see either really pickup up steam, much less reaching a conclusion, for centuries.
I hope that my estimation is wrong.
For some reason HTML isn’t working well. The following is my quote from “Ratio”, just to be clear:
LOL! 🙂
Legally, the church imposes excommunication on those who engage in dueling, and rightfully so. Plus I’m not one for physical violence or threats unless it becomes utterly unavoidable.
It’s very much avoidable with this little internet bluster-boy AlphonsusJr.
A few remarks about the notion of Christ The King, and especially Louie’s more recent emphasis on it.
I believe it is a somewhat ineffective metaphor for Who Jesus is to the contemporary, “democratic” mindset and ideal.
I believe this is because the image of “Christ The King” brings to mind images of medieval princes and emperors enthroned with ridiculous regalia and a likewise ridiculous court and pomp.
The contemporary mindset and ideal, suffice it to say, isn’t much impressed with pompous autocratic monarchs. It views them largely as anachronistic figureheads (unless of course you live in Saudi Arabia where the king’s word literally IS law).
Likewise, all a “king” (or a prince or a duke or any other “noble” for that matter) really is is nothing more than a glorified warlord. Jesus was certainly not in His earthly life 2,000 years ago and is not now a war-lord. He was and is His Father’s Word Incarnate- which makes Him so much more – infinitely more indeed -than simply some petty warlord.
I think therefore it wouldn’t be a bad idea to dispense with hereditary noble title metaphors when talking about Jesus (and His Father). They’re outdated, anachronistic and don’t impress most people these days. They might have impressed a peasant in 14th century France or England, but that was then and this is now. Plus, more importantly Jesus only referred to His Father as “King” of a “Kingdom” was in order to prove a point in a way his Apostles and disciples could readily understand in their cultural and historical context because He was introducing something entirely new to it.
He certainly WAS NOT talking about establishing some mere earthly kingdom at all. After all, He said “The Kingdom of God is within you”.
Do not judge, lest you be judged. That’s the big challenge for some. You’ve got the billions that are happy with things as they are. Then there’s the myriad trad groups separated by this or that quote. Then there’s the SSPX.
I actually disagree with this on a historical basis.
What I mean is that there have been times, both during the late patristic and especially during early medieval times (the so-called “Dark Ages”) when this succession was murky at best.
Therefore I don’t think one can form a solid, historical basis for positing some “unbroken chain” of succession back to the Apostles in all cases- and possibly the majority of cases.. It’s very dubious at best, and therefore not a solid basis for authority within the institutional church.
I think personal manifest faith based solidly in Tradition coupled with an evident, outwardly moral lifestyle (in line with the natural law) is a much better basis for authority and thereby structure within the church.
“Mr. Quail: At first you struck me as an adherent of the SSPX. Now you appear to be a protestant. Is that the case?”
With all due respect and based on your previous comments on here, you see it that way because you’re stuck in a hyperpapalist box.
-Just like the Novus Ordo.
-Just like the SSPX and its front The Fatima Center.
-Just like the various semi-sedes and full-blown sedes.
Papalist/hyperpapalism has proven to be a dead end and ultimately a destructive idea and force. I dare say that anyone who can’t see that either is in denial or simply not seeing what is right in front of them.
Apostolic Tradition is the true way forward for the church- and really it’s simply a return to the beginning rather than “progress” in the modern, contemporary sense. But…and this is a very important “but”…only after it has been disentangled from the choking weeds of Augustinian theology. Until that day comes, the church is going to face the same problems again and again and again. Truly.
That is precisely the project of the next generation of church leaders and thinkers. Not spinning one’s wheels round and round in the muck of papalism and canon laws which simply don’t apply in the current scenario. Nor endless bickering, division and infighting about “validity”, “succession”, “legitimacy” and so forth.
Yup, there’s the SSPX…still cozying up to the Novus Ordo sect….still naming a heretic in the canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. What a farce.
At this point, considering everything we’ve witnessed since 2013, any priest or bishop who would commemorate Bergoglio in the Canon (or the Novus Ordo EP’s, which are emphatically NOT the Roman Canon) is either a complete idiot or simply has capitulated to the establishment.
I don’t see any other conclusion. One cannot willingly recognize his authority and call himself truly faithful to Tradition and faithful to Jesus.
“…your requisite horror of all things RAAAAYYYCCIISSSS…”
AlphonsusJr, I don’t really recoil in horror at racism as regard it as stupid and idiotic.
Frankly, American white racists pale in comparison to some of the stuff I’ve heard from South African Boers whom I’ve personally met and gotten to know a bit. Ever met a Boer?
Anyway, for me racist attitudes are a sign of an uneducated, inexperienced, fearful and immature simpleton rather than a well-rounded, experienced, intellectually curious and reasonable adult man or woman.
These proof-texts you post here supporting your racist/nationalist whateverthefuck idea you have are ridiculous. You might think you sound very convincing and powerful and “now I gotcha!”….but to me you sound like a dozen or more other similar fools and idiots I’ve come across in my life. And I worked in oilfield services when I was younger…..if you want to talk about first-hand experience with racist, bigoted, white guy thugs and assholes. That particular industry is rife with them.
There is no unity among Catholics because they have lost sight of the true principle of unity: Apostolic Tradition and the faith in Jesus as God’s Self-Revelation which is based upon it.
Instead, it has devolved into:
-faith in the pope
-faith in signs, wonders, locutions, apparitions and the like
-faith in ecclesiastical structures
-faith in religious formalism
-faith in canon law
-faith in theology
-faith in politics
-etc., etc., etc.
In short, faith in anything and everything but Jesus as God’s Self-Revelation.
Antiquarianism and Gallicanism all rolled into one. Nice job.
The whole modus operandi of the SSPX is to judge (sift) what is Catholic from Rome and accept it, and then judge (sift) what is not Catholic from Rome and reject it.
Antiquarianism and Gallicanism all rolled into one.
Not at all.
Regarding antiquarianism (or its related notion archaeologism): If you think I’m suggesting we re-create some “primitive” imagined Christian Eucharist, you’re quite mistaken. I don’t support that at all. It’s just silly. The Roman Canon is quite adequate in expressing the Apostolic Tradition and what Christ did and told us to do, and there is no reason to change it. I also happen to believe it is the most pure expression of the Apostolic Tradition when compared to the anaphora of the Eastern church.
Regarding Gallicanism- Gallicanism isn’t a heresy so much as an opinion and an attitude in the non-malignant senses of the terms.
Were it not for a little Gallic dissent, we might have even have any “Latin Masses” now. That is because like it or not, Lefebvre was influenced by endemic Gallican tendencies in his native France. And we owe the survival of the traditional Roman Rite largely to him- like him or not.
Hurling the accusation of “Gallicanism” is simply a dud.
Indeed.
Forty or fifty years ago, that might have been a prudent course of action. Might have been. Emphasis on “might”.
But now, it’s utterly indefensible. The only course of action now, as far as I can see, is to find recourse in the Apostolic Tradition and the natural law.
The institutional Roman Church as it was once known is game over and it isn’t coming back any time soon.
You’re both missing the point. The old saying is that God doesn’t send anyone to Hell, rather they go there on their own.
They go there because they can’t stand the idea of the God of Pope Francis. The want a vengeful God that smites their perceived enemies. They think that they have been oh so faithful and have made oh so many sacrifices. The idea of God that would say to Father Martin or people like him, “Welcome faithful servant” repulses them. Like Pope Benedict said, they are no literally no different than the workers hired in the first hour.
Louie wrote-
Louie- pleasing metaphors aside, could you please explain how this turn of phrase has any literal meaning? How is the Church a “Mother” in any literal sense of the word?
It just strikes me as a pious nicety which really has no force of argument at all. And the last thing we need now is pious niceties- we need more historical and literal FACTS.
The SSPX is the visible Church and you are bound to be subject to Her.
I for one completely believe this. God doesn’t “damn” people. We choose our own destiny- either God or the false god we make of ourselves or of creatures. God doesn’t force or compel anyone, ever, at any time for any reason. In either direction. We are made for and by Him, but it is up to us to choose Him freely and out of love because we are in His Image.
That being said I for one don’t rule out the possibility that anyone, despite their apparent and manifest sins, might not actually be on a road to perdition.
But on the other hand, apparent and manifest actions are all that we have to go off of.
So I can only surmise that a Bergoglio or a Martin is on the wrong track based on just that: apparent and manifest actions.
All the same, I’m certainly not going to go out of my way to pronounce judgement upon either of them EITHER WAY, however. That is because I simply don’t have access to that knowledge.
And neither do you.
I understand what you’re getting at: the judgemental attitude of “traddies”. It’s a real problem. And it’s really just a somewhat subtle form of gnosticism. Traddies are some of the worst modern-day gnostics around, in my experience.
Well aye aye Captain/Pope Rushintuit!
*renders a crisp naval salute followed by a Trinitarian three-fingered Swiss Guard salute*
Wow, even I find this a bit much. Plus this is grossly unfair to the SSPX which has never claimed to be THE visible church, simply part of it in opposition to those who would deny its communion with Peter.
I agree with this much. It never has claimed to be such and isn’t such.
OK…
Well for one the Church isn’t that which is in “communion with Peter”. Peter is a deceased Apostle of Jesus who was a key figure in building the early church. An important figure, but not someone whom we have to be somehow “in communion” with. We don’t go up to the communion rail and receive the body of Peter. We receive Jesus.
So that said, the Church is that which is in communion and union with Jesus by way of faith in Him which based in the Apostolic Tradition. That’s why the Church, prior to it being Catholic, is Apostolic. But nevertheless our communion and union is not with the Apostles or Peter, but with Jesus.
Funny, I can’t seem to figure out which Vigano is speaking with every letter. Hopefully, that’s because he is still trying to figure things out.
You speak like the serpent.
Rushintuit, if you truly think the SSPX is some quasi-divine and infallible vessel, you’re putting your eggs in the wrong basket.
Reasoned faith in Jesus by way of Apostolic Tradition coupled with a life in line with the natural law is the way forward. If the SSPX just so happens to promote and active embody this, so much the better for them. I’m sure there are many priests in the SSPX who do. But I wouldn’t say, as you seem to, that the Society is some entity which is above and beyond reproach. It is a human thing…just as the Roman Catholic Church itself is…and like all human things it can falter and fail.
You’re just flogging the same hyperpapalist error that your opponents in the Novus Ordo and the sede camps flog in their own ways, whether you or they realize it or not.
And that, my friend, is not the way forward.
I’d say Viganó is most definitely still sorting things out.
He’s way up in management and was a willing lackey for many years until he saw things which picked at his conscience.
Psychologically, that’s a big hurdle to overcome: having to disown himself from an institution which has literally fed, clothed and provided for him for most of his adult life and which he has served and defended.
It’s easy for people like me or anyone else here to sit back and lambast the man as just another heretic. But I don’t believe that is fair, or even accurate. A little empathy is in order for him. And for that matter not just for him, but for ALL honest and would-be Catholics who are sincerely trying to figure out what is what in the interesting times we’re in and trying live a Christian Catholic life.
****
I shall say this to pre-empt the town idiot AlphonsusJr before he interjects with his very unmanly and occasionally homoerotic and sexually charged bluster: Empathy is a very masculine and thereby FATHERLY virtue in a male. It isn’t the exclusive domain of females even if it is more natural to them due to the fact that a woman HAS to have empathy because she bears children. As a male, you can either remain a simple “male” who promotes gross male arrogance and will to dominate such as you seem to come across in most of your comments here…or you can be a fatherly man who loves as a man does by first understanding and thereby guiding and protecting and providing for those whom he is responsible for. That is your choice.
After all, God is first and foremost Our Father, and His Son- His Incarnate Word -exhibited the most profound sort of empathy with each of us by becoming a man. Consider that whenever you feel the need to bluster with your bellicose and violent nonsense.
I think most here are confusing the Pope as the principle of unity with the Pope as the principle of everything. Even an atrocious Pope can be the principle of unity, but only a very good Pope can be the principle of everything.
Except that Plato wasn’t literal all the time, so Chesterton was wrong in being so literal all over.
What if his texts are still being ghostwritten for him, like in the first big revelation, by two journalists with lifelong connections to Opus Dei? During Franco’s Spain they told their converts that their purpose and vision is to reform the Church. To some this just might make them look like an intelligence front. Patterned after Freemasonry even. Just think how they name their lodges, er… dwellings.
The grand scheme has been all along to do away with real Tradition and have a culture war on sex and procreation in its place, as if people were saved by supporting the nuclear family and right to life. Then people are progressively made disillusioned, first with Francis, then with Vatican II, then maybe Bergoglio, then maybe Ratzinger. John Paul II might have a special place in the scheme. This is the role Viganò is being used for.
It’s not about whether he will learn. It’s that those who keep taking him seriously and drink his every word never will.
All viable alternatives are both attacked and slandered while attempts are made to either enlist them in the war for sex and family or otherwise neutralize them or draw them in. This is Dr. Marshall’s actual mission. Not sure if he is a Mason, but he is heavily connected to Opus Dei at least. Of all the alternatives to Vatican II, SSPX is the most numerous and widespread one. All the rest are comparatively fringe, no matter how weak or half-baked one might consider SSPX’s position to be.
When Israel went astray, God allowed it to have extremely bad kings. But they were kings anyway. I think the same applies to the Pope. You are not entitled to a good Pope and you should thank God for giving you the best possible Pope in this situation. Nothing less would keep the remaining faithful sober and test them in all the right ways. But the first requirement is to acknowledge him as the Pope.
What Viganò and Dr. Marshall are really saying is that all the Trads and Conservatives should do nothing that actually helps their spiritual life. Instead they should put their hope in these big name media figures and their endless talking. And at the same time they should pray their Rosary that the New World Order will turn out all right.
The plan has been to first take away the actual spiritual life from the Church. Then fight culture wars in its place. Then, after enough time has passed, say sixty years, show people that the spiritual life is long gone, neither is the culture war going too well and also that their long time heroes and recent saints have been seriously fake. People will start desperately looking for an alternative spirituality. Now give them Talmudic Judaism, which is Dr. Marshall’s real area of expertise and the actual belief system that Opus Dei and everyone else have intended to reform the Church into all along.
I haven’t ruled out ghost writers. I do find it interesting how his tone/focus/angle seems to change depending upon his intended audience (see the heresies in the Trump letter or the letter to the Rabbi regarding his Appeal).
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
The only principle of unity in the institutional church is personal, lived-out faith in Jesus based in the Apostolic Tradition.
A pope, in turn, can only be a unifying principle by actually living out that faith based in that Tradition.
Just like you. Just like me.
I would say that Chesterton was more often than not NOT being literal in much of what he wrote.
He did this to make points, rather than simply get lost in purely imaginary ideas worlds.
He had an imagination, in the truly Christian and therefore reasonable sense, which was second to none.
That is why…as far as I can see…the summation of his mature thought as expressed in his greatest work The Everlasting Man is so not-understood and mis-understood by so many today.
That’s not really adequate to describe his thought, but for now…
When Israel went astray, God allowed it to have extremely bad kings.
You proceed here from an understanding of the Jewish Scriptures which is erroneous.
You implicitly assume that the history and culture of ancient Israel was based on a sort of “pre-Incarnation Self-Revelation” of God. You assume that the Adonai/Yahweh of the OT was God’s own Revelation of Himself.
I reject this entirely and without reservation. Unequivocally. And I do so on the basis of historical record and a philosophy which places actually existing things (“beings”) external to the intellect in the highest place in reality. Call that “moderate” or “Thomist” realism.
There is only one Divine Self-Revelation, and that is the Person Jesus. He was an ENTIRELY new and unexpected thing to both the ancient Israelites/Jews.
…and to the rest of the world.
More than that- he was brought into the Novus Ordo by Fr. Bill Stetson of the OD. He is on record stating this. Marshall also received his advanced degrees at the University of Dallas- the pre-eminent bastion of neoconservativism and so-called neo-Catholicism in the United States. I happen to have insider knowledge of that institution because I attended it for several years when I was younger, long before Marshall did.
I also happen to know the Opus Dei from the inside, going back to my childhood. The outside perceptions of it are somewhat accurate- it’s a bit overbearing and a little sinister, and some members are a bit cultish. I have experienced this first hand. Especially the more elite members- particularly within the DC Beltway. But many of the conspiracy theories about it are…well…theories and little else.
But the most disconcerting thing about it as an organization is its allegiance to the papacy and the Novus Ordo, right or wrong. That’s their liability and their downfall. And that is why I oppose it without reservation.
Unfortunately, OldFashionedToucan is probably pretty accurate here except this silliness about Jorge. Jorge could be lumped in with these big name media figures though. He had a very cordial photo op w/Marshall accepting his new book. This idea that Viganò is in hiding maybe is true but I feel like it might more likely be for effect. Each has free will but I don’t know if people often extricate themselves from these cabalistic groups to become heroes. I hope for their own sakes they do but that’s up to them. Me, I need the Pope because I’m Catholic and every other Catholic should join me in caring about this. It’s disturbing how easily Catholics fall into these cults of personality and now are completely ignoring the fact that we don’t even have a Pope. If we want to follow rightful authority which I think all men of goodwill want to do, we need the Pope.
I believe you are quite sincere, Melanie. But I could easily see this type of mindset degenerating into the very sort of cult of personality you oppose. Consider that.
But if we’re to have a Pope, he has to be manifestly faithful to Jesus by way of the Apostolic Tradition.
That has ALWAYS been the true understanding of the nature of authority within the institutional Church- faith based in Tradition. Even if it has been obscured or forgotten. The old, discarded oath of papal coronation even stated in so many words that steadfast faithfulness to Apostolic Tradition was essential to holding the papacy.
Show me another group who has Bishops with succession like the SSPX.
According to this article:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-i-do-not-think-vatican-ii-was-invalid-but-it-was-gravely-manipulated
Fr Vigano is not inching towards sedevacantism.
This has nothing to do with my sincerity Geylis. The Church is in a bad situation when there is a long interregnum and that is a fact. Many souls will be lost while the Church is without the Roman Pontiff and I think that should be quite clear to everyone. I wish you did not fill this entire comment box with whatever this tradition heresy is that you’ve embraced.
The unspoken problem here is that many Catholics…one of whom include the publisher of LifeSiteNews himself Mr. John Henry Westen…implicitly believe that ecumenical councils are “guided by of the Holy Spirit”.
This is an ahistorical and superstitious belief.
History shows that all of the various synods and ecumenicals councils have been, to varying degrees, very messy and disorganized affairs.
If one is looking for ultimate truth and meaning in ANY sort of church council which has been held throughout history…I dare say “look again”…and then look towards the Apostolic Tradition.
typo- “…guided by AND of…”
Melanie- It has everything to do with your sincerity, actually.
That is because your apparently very sincere apprehensions of what both the Pope of Rome and the papacy itself are simply aren’t historically or theologically accurate.
For a Catholic Christian, history is utterly key. This is because Our Lord Jesus Christ is a very real historical figure, and that is how you and I, 2,000 years after His life death and Resurrection, come to know Him and thereby have faith in (and hope and love) Him as God’s Self Revelation: through history and Apostolic Tradition.
You are a liar Geylis. I don’t just believe history that I read bc this world is filled to overflowing with liars. I do still read history in an effort to perhaps grasp bits of truth amongst some probable combination of truth and lie. I know our Lord Jesus Christ through the Church that He founded upon the rock of Peter. I hope people read your fallacious arguments, in light of your creepy sophistry, with the contempt and disregard which they deserve. You are a heretic and do not deserve a platform to spread this antiCatholic garbage. What the heck are you anyway, Orthodox, Lutheran? Many have asked you and you refuse to answer. What religion are you trying to convert people to?
Vermeullarmine,
It seems you’re right about Louie’s “wishful thinking”, at least concerning Archbishop Vigano’s “next logical step”. On July 1, the Archbishop clarified his position stating, “I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecumenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent.” At least he seems to reconfirm the validity of John XXIII and Paul VI while calling for the abolition of the Council.
Vermeullarmine, Re your 1st comment
It seems you’re r,ight about Louie’s “wishful thinking”, at least concerning Archbishop Vigano’s “next logical step”. On July 1, the Archbishop clarified his position stating, “I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecumenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent.” At least he seems to reconfirm the validity of John XXIII and Paul VI while calling for the abolition of the Council.
Pope John XXIII was a Freemason! Pope Paul VI was a Talmudic Jew! Gimmie a break! That’s why Our Lady insisted on the Secret being released no later than 1960!
The message of La Salette was as damning as you could imagine:
PRIESTS WILL BECOME CESSPOOLS OF IMPURITY.
ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF THE ANTI-CHRIST.
From what we got of the Fatima message:
THE ROMAN CHURCH WILL BECOME THE ANTI-CHURCH BECAUSE OF ASSISI.
Why was JPII shot in ’81? To get him to read the Secret, repent and give up his dream of an Assisi, pagan love in! Our Lady did everything she could to save us. She surely gave us enough info to know what is going on and to seek refuge.
Yes of course Rome lost the faith. We all get that. But why oh why do you SSPXers insist on putting the name of Francis the Apostate in the Sacred Canon. If you were to simply remove that one item, I would fully be on board with the SSPX. I have have heard one too many SSPXers call Bergoglio the “Holy Father.” It makes my stomach churn to hear such blasphemy.
I get it Tom, but there isn’t a Council being called to condemn Jorge. By commemorating Bergolio, the SSPX is just admitting that we are frozen in time so to speak. Canon Law doesn’t have a solution for this full on apostasy! Everything is on hold until a full solution presents itself.
PNF: “You seem to imply that a papal claimant cannot err. But Pastor Aeternus does not say an occupant of the Throne of St. Peter cannot err. It limits the gift of infallibility…”
.
You’re wasting your time. This is something sedevacantists aren’t able to comprehend. They have all been led to believe the Pope is a demigod and can do no wrong. It is worse than the Protestant caricature of the Pope. Melanie is constantly whining because she wants a demigod Pope to restore the Church and end her suffering, and the lazy sedevacantists aren’t busy electing him. But where is her gratitude for the dozen antipope the sedes have already elected? And if she rejects those fraudsters, why does she think the next fraudster the heretics elect will be any better?
What Melanie doesn’t realize is she will never accept anyone as Pope because no Pope will live up to her expectations. If Melanie read Mary Ball Martinez’ book, The Undermining of the Catholic Church, she would probably reject Pius XI and Pius XII.
“Unfortunately when I was researching sedevacantism I couldn’t find a single strain of sedes with anything remotely approaching a plurality of overall sede support.”
.
Sede-ism is a chaotic mess.
Then put papal elections on hold too. In fact that is exactly what the sedes have done. SSPX put some things on hold while letting other things go full speed ahead. Such as papal elections, appointments, new ordination rites, new canon laws. The SSPX should just stay a million miles away from the V2 NO sect until they return to Catholicism. That was Abp Lefebrve’s initial advise until Wojtyla put on the Polish charm and Lefebrve fell for it.
I am not sure you were ever a sede because you have no idea how most sedes think. There is not one sede I know who thinks the Pope has to be a “demigod.” The conciliar popes along with the conciliar bishops have been teaching heresy for decades. They have introduced a new church that is no longer Catholic. It is therefore impossible that the these men are Catholic. Therefore they cannot hold office in an organization that they are no longer a member. The Catholic Church cannot give evil doctrines and practices to the faithful. The conciliar church has done just that. You know nothing about that which you speak.
Tom, I think you are on to something there. Formersede is either as fake as his pope or he’s bought into the rabid, anti-sede Koolaid.
Yes, me too, but it was worse and more shocking when one of them said, “Our Holy Father” and worse still when I remember his grandfather as a sedevacantist (but before we even heard of that word). They lead to a loss of faith through the generations. Now the Church errs for them, but not for those who believe in the catechism.
Because they are infallible (?) “tradition” and Rome is just a bunch of jerks, oh but “They’re still the Church!” (not). Welcome to the new SSPX religion, founded in the 1970s. Thankfully my religion goes back to the time of Christ.
Formersede, you want to criticize the way the various sede groups govern themselves and condemn other sede groups, fine. It is a valid point. Being there is no point of unity (Pope), that is a natural consequence. I admit the sede structures are all over the place. But that fact does not fix you fatal flaw that your hierarchy has been promulgating heresy for decades. I rather be confused about the state of the Church than be in a church that teaches heresy. Apparently you choose to associate with modernist heretics. Every time to assist at a Mass in union with your heretical pope , you affirm your approval and communion of heretical modernism.
It’s good to hear some sanity on here from someone at least, Tom A, and also Librorum. I wonder if FormerSede read Pastor Aeternus about the NEVER-FAILING FAITH OF PETER, THE POPE. Astounding that the people discussing Catholicism so publicly do not even know that a pope cannot err in his teachings of faith and morals. They think the pope can err in a general council and even in a synod! Oh no, they certainly haven’t read Pastor Aeternus properly at all. It clearly condemns these ideas and anathematizes those who hold to these beliefs – that means they are condemned to Hell. It is amazing that no one seems to be frightened of that. Three little children saw Hell 100 years ago, and yet plenty of people on this commbox are apparently dying to go there.
The SSPX should just stay a million miles away from the V2 NO sect until they return to Catholicism. That was Abp Lefebvre’s initial advise until Wojtyla put on the Polish charm and Lefebvre fell for it.
Indeed.
Of course, prior to all this in terms of both chronology and importance, the Roman Catholic Church ITSELF has to recover a purer expression of the Apostolic Tradition in terms of both formal, solemn statement and outward practice by discarding the erroneous Augustinian theology which became so intimately intertwined with it.
As far as I can see, this very well could be the most painful, challenging, difficult and drawn-out crisis the church has yet to face. I see it as analogous to a life-long opiate addict undergoing painful withdrawal. The “opiate” in this case is Augustine’s thought which has basically dominated the theology, catechism and popular understanding within Western Catholicism (and the Protestant spinoffs- some of which in turn are actually some of the most perfect embodiments of Augustinian thought!) since virtually the time of Augustine himself.
Augustine has to be put in his rightful place- as an intellectually and theologically marginal figure who had some very erroneous- perhaps even heretical -ideas about Tradition, faith, sin, redemption, salvation and revelation.
Until that day comes, we will face the same old crises again, and again, and again under new and different guises. That I can promise you.
Regrettably, I don’t see that day coming in my life time.
This is very true.
It also begs the question: why does practically every “conservative” or “traddie” talking head and intellectual out there keep falling back upon canon law? Or Bellarmine? Or Cajetan? Or even Aquinas? All of these guys lived hundreds of years ago and never publicly anticipated the crisis we are in now.
It’s like listening to a broken record.
The real fall back in this current crisis is the Apostolic Tradition, in its purest form unadulterated by Augustine and many other later theologizations such as “Magisterium” (in the Leonine sense) or “papal infallibility”? That is the way forward.
Apostolic succession = SSPX.
Rushinuit- You’re placing your faith in “Apostolic Succession” because you tacitly accept an implicit notion of Augustinian sacramental theology based on the notion of ex opere operato.
Succession can have a useful historical and practical function. I will grant this. And I believe this.
But to divinize it by way of some ex opere operato theology simply has no basis in either a Thomist-realist philosophy and epistemology based upon the primacy of the reality of actual beings which are external to the mind.
More importantly and not unrelatedly, nor does it have any basis in the Apostolic Tradition we find recorded in the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament.
Augustinian sacramental theology is the basis for so-called “Apostolic Succession”. And it is a highly flawed theology, to say the least.
Q, whatever, I’d almost as soon become an Atheist as listen to you. There has got to be a continuous visible Church. I think the SSPX fits the bill, even unknowingly.
Your faith, therefore, is in an institutional structure.
I reject this mindset completely.
Those sorts of ecclesiastical institutions are a human construct which only have legitimacy or validity when they truly are at the service of the Apostolic Tradition which forms the basis of any real faith in God’s Self-Revelation in Jesus.
And right now….that whole human institution and structure is under relentless attack from within and without.
Therefore I believe the only realistic Christian attitude and action is to fall back upon the basic Tradition of the Apostles found in the Gospels and much of the New Testament.
I don’t see any other alternative. The Roman Church and all of its structure, hierarchy, etc. are severely compromised and probably are going to die off. There is no recourse or redoubt to be found therein, therefore.
Our faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, the future of the earthly Church, and ultimately each of our final, individual salvations…lies in the Apostolic Tradition…even if every structure and “system” breaks down or disintegrates entirely.
> Therefore I believe the only realistic Christian attitude and action is to fall back upon the basic Tradition of the Apostles found in the Gospels and much of the New Testament.
Sounds like Novus Ordo approach.
Which leaves you exactly where?
Andy- Not at all. The Novus Ordo approach rather is to capitulate to the world.
What I wrote is just the proper, orthodox and reasonable Christian attitude and way to act when faced with crisis. From the earliest times. Read Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians- chapter 2 verse 15.:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.“
I wrote that it sounds, not “it is”. My well-meaning NO friends refer to the same verse. The church is so messed up and it is only way at that point is to revert our religious clocks to AD 33.
For me personally, the Center is of the Church – both institutional and spiritual – is the TLM. Those who truly embraced It, will be saved. Both SSPX and NO priests/faithful who rejected V2.
“Both SSPX and NO priests/faithful who rejected V2 and converted to TLM ” I meant of course.
I’d say more precisely that the Roman Canon expresses best the essence of what Jesus historically actually did (His Redeeming Sacrifice for our sins and Offering to His Father on Calvary) and what He told His Apostles to do henceforth (“eat my body”, “drink my blood”, “do this in memory of me”) and through that what we as Catholic Christians down the centuries to this present day ought to do.
The rest of the rite of the Roman rite of Mass (“TLM” “Tridentine Mass”, etc) is actually to varying degrees mutable and changeable. History shows this. And I’m all in favor of allowing for small, “organic” local variations of such parts of the rite which do not go too far into pious excess or change the rite so as render it into something essentially different. Not that I think doing such precipitously is always wise or prudent of course; these days in particular it’s best to stick pretty much to the letter of the rite published in 1962- or preferably earlier -because we’re in a full-blown and arguably unprecedented crisis.
Now that was a brilliant comment. So true. I’ve ran into them all over the years.
I would probably think that Benedict was still pope if I didn’t learn from whitesmoke1958.com (especially the 3 youtube interviews; part 4 was censored and is at Bitchute) and “Papal Imposters”: youtube.com/watch?v=2-VqjJW_lOM that the evidence points to “sede impedita” occurring at the 1958 conclave. Even if you know a lot, you will learn a lot that is new in those interviews. And for the nuclear threat that lead to that sede impedita, see padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Grave_Reasons_of_State.html (other articles there are important as well). And in case you didn’t know about the absolute proof of an imposter Sr Lucia, see sisterlucyimposter.org.
It’s not just the TLM, it’s also the pre-Paul the Destroyer sacramental rites, doctrine, and discipline. Have you seen whitesmoke1958.com, and especially the interviews there on youtube with the premier researcher into the 1958, 1963, and 1978 conclaves? Fascinating stuff, although disturbing too.
Keep it simple, there has always been a tug of war withing the Church. Things went South when the decision was made to keep the Fatima Secret. Then the Council followed and tilled the ground for a new mass.
All was still not lost, JPII was shot which gave him a chance, during recovery, to search his soul. Imagine, he had time to think about the Secret. He had an expert in Portuguese, translate the Secret for him. He had time to reflect on his plans for Assisi!
After Assisi, the Chastisement began in earnest. God could say, I gave you every chance to do the right thing. So now Justice will be imposed in place of Mercy. Chaos will run thru everything, even thru Tradition.
What to do? Chaos is cancelled out with simplicity. You look at the players in this saga. You look and you see a group that started the same year the new mass was hatched. You also see the same group, get four new Bishops in 1988. Four new Bishops with succession!
They mention the pope at the Canon of the Mass because the entire church has been chastised into the service of Satan. Only the SSPX has retained fidelity! But a priestly order has no jurisdiction to act on its own and remain inside the Barque of Peter. So we wait it out. God started the Chastisement. God will end the Chastisement.
“ They mention the pope at the Canon of the Mass because the entire church has been chastised into the service of Satan. ”
That is the stupidest thing I have read in a while. What does that even mean? It makes no sense whatsoever. Also it is absolutely blasphemous to say Holy Mother Church is in the service of Satan. It is true that we arw suffering a chastisement. The chastisement is the fact that there is no Pope.