jump to navigation

The Cat is Definitely Out of the Bag September 15, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

Viz yesterday’s post, I don’t think there is any doubt that Francis’ “private letter” to the bishops of Buenos Aires has had the desired effect.  The “leak” was far from accidental, I’m sure.  How else do you get awesome coverage like this, without a good leak?:

csawsctumaa7kbo

All according to the plan.  This pontificate has operated almost exclusively by Clintonian media techniques like trial balloons, floated comments, intentional leaks, and purposeful disinformation.  Franky isn’t bold enough to directly contradict Doctrine in an directly doctrinal statement himself, so he’s settled on a strategy of deception and attacks around the margins.  The letter of the law may (barely) remain intact, but the spirit is shredded like Hillary’s central nervous system.

Are you guys generally very concerned about whether Francis is an antipope or not, per Barnhardt, or do you think this is simply a matter beyond our (the laity’s) ascertaining, per Skojec?  I like Ann, but I think sometimes she gets too wrapped up in proving herself right.  I do agree with Hilary White and Steve Skojec that Francis’ pontificate may be a necessary emetic (great choice of words) to get many of us former happily conservative Catholics to realize that comfortable conservatism of the Ratzinger-Wojtyla papacies was an ineffective poultice covering up a horrible, festering wound (Vatican II/modernist revolution) that was killing the body of the Church.  Is that enough metaphors for one sentence?

I am loathe to think such evil could be “necessary,” but I also don’t know what else could have shaken up the Church enough to finally look at Vatican II and say – uh, no.

I think the most important aspect to keep in mind is that Our Blessed Lord is, ultimately, in charge.  May He purify His Church soon.

PS – the photo caption for the large photo center right should actually read “Giving thanks for the only folks who still bother with church in Ireland.”

 

Comments

1. tg - September 15, 2016

I agree with you what you just stated.
This is off topic but I noticed the epistle in the NO Mass for Monday was Corinthians:11 (can’t remember verses) but deals with receiving Holy Communion. On Tuesday, it went right to verse 12 – thereby skipping the words of St. Paul about sacrilege that were still in verse 11. It makes me so angry. I remember you saying that those verses are never in the NO Mass. I noticed in the NO Mass readings that the readings repeat themselves a lot. How many times do I have to hear about the prodigal son. Tantum, does that happen in the TLM?

Tantumblogo - September 15, 2016

Well it’s quite a bit different, but 1 Cor xi:27-29 definitely are in the TLM Mass on more than one occasion in the year. Because the TLM uses the same readings every year, you won’t get as much “coverage” of Scripture as you do in the NO, but what you do get is generally the most important parts and almost the entire New Testament is included. What you won’t get are somewhat pointless/obsolete parts from the Old Testament that were added to the NO in 1969 to no one’s particular benefit.

Richard Malcolm - September 15, 2016

1 Cor 11:27-29 does not, alas, appear anywhere in the new lectionary, despite the vast addition of more readings. The Consilium excised it as a “difficult passage.”

2. Baseballmom - September 15, 2016

Wow. This is getting more “interesting” by the day. But it is important for me to see to the salvation of my own sorry soul, and those in the sphere of my influence…. Just don’t know what else to do at this point.

3. tg - September 15, 2016

I checked out Father Z’s blog. He and his readers seem to be in denial. Who is this Jeff Mirus and why does everybody care what he says?

Tantumblogo - September 15, 2016

He writes at Catholic Culture and has a fairly big following. I dropped them years ago as I became aware of the traditional critique of post-conciliar Catholicism and accepted it pretty much lock, stock, and barrel.

Richard Malcolm - September 15, 2016

Right. I have to say that Phil Lawler has been….a great deal more critical than Mirus. He’s still worth reading. Mirus remains a papal positivist, however.

4. c matt - September 15, 2016

I do like Ann as well, and her argument is not without support. However, I think Hilary White has the better take. One of the points of contention is around BXVI’s resignation, and his attempt to only resign “part” of the papacy, thereby splitting in two. Both sides agree no pope has the authority to split the papacy between two people. Thus in trying to do so through his resignation, does that invalidate the resignation, or does it simply mean BXVI only thinks he kept something that doesn’t exist? I am resigning the active ministry of my office to you Bergo, but I am retaining the contemplative portion. That is like saying I am resigning the control and operation of my car to you, but I am retaining the contemplation of it. The resignation seems to be complete, and retaining the “contemplative” portion of the car is meaningless modernist gobbledygook. The car is the car is the car – it has not been split in two somehow – there are not two cars, one active, one contemplative. So Ratz seems to have given it up, and what he thinks he retained exists only in his mind.

Tantumblogo - September 15, 2016

I have to say, this whole sorry situation has shattered my image of PBXVI. How he can possibly square in his mind his lifelong (ok, 35 year, he was goofy when younger) opposition to so much of what Francis is doing, while continually fawning over Francis and heaping praise on him. I think he was much more modernist to his core than his papacy revealed. He did name some good bishops and certainly gave the inestimable gift of recognizing reality in Summorum Pontificum, but I don’t think he was the – if not quite hero, at least really good pope – I thought he was at the time. And every day he lives makes his excuse for abdicating more and more thin. It’s been 3 1/2 years already!

Woody - September 15, 2016

Remember that in his youth as a priest, he supported communion for the divorced and remarried. Also, he was a progressive/modernist, even while attending VII.

Tantumblogo - September 16, 2016

I commented a while back, that sometimes people who were liberal in their youth, and then saw the errors of that and became quite conservative, very late in life go back to their liberal ways. I had a relation like that. Was a staunch conservative after being quite a firebrand as a young lady then the last 3-4 years of her life she became all liberal again.

Or was he always more liberal than he appeared? I really don’t know at this point. This whole thing feels almost worked out in advance.

TF - September 16, 2016

Long before he fled for fear of the … not being able to whoop it up at World Youth Day — by the way, you ever notice how worldly the very name of that atrocity is? — I had started to be disappointed in Pope Ratzinger. Since then I’ve read much that convinced me he was still holding on to the modernism of his tie-wearing youth. But now, his gushing over Bergoglio have revealed his true colors. It’s almost as if he abdicated because he wasn’t narcissistic enough to push the modernist agenda any further. We finally have a modernist bull headed enough to complete the work of Vatican II, and isn’t it a pretty sight?

5. Richard Malcolm - September 15, 2016

I’m with Skojec. Not my call. He’s the pope, for all intents and purposes if a horrible one. We have had horrible ones before.

And as Steve and Hillary suggest: bad as it is, it is a pontificate that may have the benefit of providing some clarity for people. Not everyone – the papal positivists remain thick on the ground – but a surprising number of people.

6. Margaret Costello - September 15, 2016

Per the whole Anti-Pope thing. Mundabor does a good job of pointing out the absurdities behind the concept: https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/francisvacantism-leads-to-sedevacantism/

I like Ann B too…but sometimes she goes off the reservation i.e. saying we commit mortal sin by paying taxes to this government or forgetting that Francis is a wiley, slippery modernist who knows how to dance around the papal office without messing with the infallibility constructs…as well as our past Popes who have been doozies. Her premise is: the Pope MATTERS. But how? In what circumstances? Again, like you noted, she is very general. Yes, the Pope matters in some respects but to most of the Catholics who ever lived, they never saw, heard or read anything he ever created. They were lucky to know his name. What about all of those Popes who had mistresses, were murderers, heretics etc. Did the Pope matter then? Yes. Were they still the Pope? Yes. So I think this is a case of discovering the true nature of the papacy and learning what it truly means to be Catholic and have a Pope:+)

Crazy times, but opportunities to learn too:+) God bless~

tg - September 16, 2016

Good comment, Margaret. I like Mundabor and I generally agree with most of what he writes. I also like Ann B. Both of them crack me up. Sometimes we need to laugh to survive all the craziness in the church today.

7. David - September 16, 2016

Since this has gone through secular media sources, I can see quite a few weekly Mass attendees taking this as “correct.” I am very concerned that it will put priests against priests, where one priest will say “ok” and a good priest will say “no way.” This attitude reminds me of the controversy after Humanness Vitae was published in 1968, and quite a few Catholic priests told married women privately that it was permissible to take birth control pills, especially after having a certain number of children (no,that’s not a joke – that happened quite a bit in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s).

Fr. Murray, a priest I trust, covered his concerns about this leaked letter to this bishop in Pope Francis I home country last night on The World Over Live.

Tantumblogo - September 16, 2016

It still happens today. My wife, without even asking, was counseled by a priest to go on contraception after we had “had enough,” I believe it was 4 at the time.

area Catholic - September 16, 2016

!!!! — In this (Dallas) diocese ? I don’t want to sound naive but we have a big pro-life committee which promotes NFP — see their website. I notice you have a link to it. True, you never really hear about the topic from the pulpit — or rarely. I know how some of you feel about permanent deacons, but my father happens to be one and at least he will mention the topic on occasion — and pro-life as well — when he preaches.

8. Ademar - September 16, 2016

J.M.J.

Actually, whether Francis is Pope or antipope matters a great deal! The infallibility of his canonizations (Mother Teresa, Popes John Paul II and John XXIII, for example); the trustworthiness of his encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, etc.; the legitimacy his changes to Canon Law; the validity of his motu proprios; indeed the trustworthiness of his general magisterial guidance — all these things hinge on whether he is truly Peter or merely a “Bishop in white.”

Personally, I’m with Anne Barnhardt — the fellow’s an antipope. The poor man in the Vatican Gardens who abandoned us for fear of the wolves, however pitiable he is, is the Pope. He needs to man up and start acting like one.

Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!!


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: