jump to navigation

We Are in Opposition to the Person of the Pope Out of Loyalty to the Sublime Office of the Papacy May 9, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, reading, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

From Miter and Crook by Bryan Houghton, a mythical tale of an English bishop consecrated in 1965, just as the human element in control of the Church launched the revolution against her very nature, who “rebels” against authority and re-institutes the Traditional Latin Mass and many other traditional practices of the faith in 1977 after a decade of experience had shown him that the ethos of Vatican II was wholly destructive.  The book follows the repercussions of this most pastoral of decisions and the sufferings and persecutions the good, if fictional, bishop endures.

The book is a bit odd in format, being a compendium of correspondence this sadly unreal bishop (would that we had far more like him!) engaged in from the time he launched his program of restoration until the inevitable conclusion (which I will not spoil).  The excerpt I quote below is between the good bishop and a hostile confrere, one who judged the good bishop rebellious to authority and disloyal to the Holy See for committing the horrific crime of Catholicism.  I copy and paste from various sections, but draw from pages 31-35.  I thought some of the fictional bishop’s commentary highly insightful, and also quite apropos of our present time, when Rome has once again descended into soul-destroying selfishness.  I indulge myself with comments along the way:

I have my own private view of history.  I accept that it is a struggle – even a constant state of revolution.  It started straight away in the Garden of Eden.  I also admit that the revolution always succeeds.  But what is so puzzling is that the moment the revolution succeeds it is obliged to start all over again from scratch.  It always triumphs but never conquers.  The USSR today is a living example of what I mean. [Thank God not so living today, at least not in a physical form, though its spirit lives and has colonized much of the former Christendom]   After sixty years of straining away at the most ruthless and continuous revolution in history it is no further advanced than in October 1917.  It has massacred untold millions of people, all of whom appear to have resurrected again.  In fact it has taken 60 years for it to beget its most astonishing and least desired product, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Strange, isn’t it? [Quite insightful. Indeed, the revolution never ends.  Not only does it devour its own, but in the end it devours itself.  The revolution against the Church is of a part with the revolution of October 1917, and that of May 1968, but more fundamentally it is an inescapable part of the original rebellion of Adam and Eve, as noted above. The Church is the only enduring construct of the counter-revolution]

This seems to me to be the process [by which revolution is carried out].  Neat, logical little men, often lawyers, are forever attempting to reduce God’s magnificent, incomprehensible, chaotic creation to the neatness and logic of their own beastly little minds. [This is a tremendously meaningful sentence.  Think about it.  Not only have all revolutions stemmed from such little minds, and every heresy, but the entire modern conception of science (as a pseudoreligion) has as well.  Evolution, global warming, and Big Bang are what comes from men who try to reduce God’s greatness down to their own level of understanding.] Of course they succeed in a way, rationalizing everything around them until it stops working altogether.  They can rationalize the egg industry so as to guarantee equality of egglessness for all but they cannot pass a law requiring all hens to lay an extra egg a day.  If they do – and it happens – the hens are unlikely to play ball, or, in the present case, eggs……Hence the endless and heroic fight of the revolutionary.  I suppose that Robespierre will forever remain the ideal type; such a nice little lawyer, as neat and tidy in his mind as in his pale blue frock-coat, and so full of “virtue” and so “incorruptible” that only he could organize the Terror.

Anyway, my point is that the revolutionary process is the eternal attempt of man to impose his order, his law on God’s creation. And this is exactly what is happening in the Church. Until this post-conciliar period, God’s Church appeared almost as magnificent, incomprehensible, and chaotic as His creation. It was cluttered up indiscriminately with tiaras, cardinal’s hats, miters, birettas, rosaries, prie-dieus, saints and sinners, Friday fish, indulgences……and all the rest.  yes, cluttered up it was, as is the universe.  But it all worked incredibly smoothly………

……After Vatican II the neat, logical little fellows were given their head.  Obviously, the first thing to do was to clear the decks.  A clean sweep has been made of absolutely everything.  Not only was the tiara flogged but even the Pieta got chipped.  Then they must produce a neat, logical little liturgy: unpretentious, comprehensible, as dull as themselves.  The laity promptly participated by walking out.  That is the process all along the line.

Now, am I acting as you say “clean against the trend of history?” [You’ve surely heard this argument, haven’t you?  That Catholics – “traditional” Catholics – are contrary to the times?  That the Church “isn’t going in that direction anymore?”  That Latin is “not where the Church is headed?”]  Yes, if you regard the revolutionary process as the constitutive element of history.  No, if you think of me as the dull, elemental matter of God’s creation popping up inevitably from the very nature of things.  That I personally shall be ground to dust [by the Church hierarchy lashing out against this most unspeakable of rebellions, non-acceptance of the revolution they have imposed] is not unlikely; but the reality I stand for will still pop up when the neat, logical little men find themselves holding a handful of dust.

Quite logically, you accuse me of fighting for a lost cause……[This] is among the greatest compliments you can pay me. Perhaps my only inveterate sin is my contempt for those who jump on bandwagons.  Surely lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for?  Why don battle dress for a victory parade?  And surely you do not believe what is lost by men is lost to God? [I appreciate this hopeful segment]

……Colomba was a Dominican nun who lived in Perugia.  She suffered from almost every type of mystical phenomenon – ecstasy, levitation, and the rest.  The Master of the Dominicans felt uncertain about whether her spirit was from God or from the devil.  This was about 1490, when people still believed in both.  In consequence he would have the girl examined by the Holy Father himself who was on a visit……This was duly arranged.  In the great hall of Perugia…..there sat enthroned the Sovereign Pontiff, Alexander VI…..and the Papal Court around.  Colomba was introduced. Upon sight of the Vicar of Christ, she immediately went into ecstasy, as should all good nuns……….She levitated and railed at the pope from somewhere near the ceiling. “You who are the Vicar of Christ and act as the Vicar of Satan! You who hold the Keys of the Kingdom but only unlock the doors of brothels!  You who are captain of the Ark of Salvation and have a girl in every port!  You who…….”  After twenty minutes of this, the Papal Court felt rather anxious for poor Colomba’s safety.  How do you get girls out of ecstasy?  However, Alexander Borgia turned to the Master of the Dominicans: “Have no fear, my son: her spirit is certainly from God since everything she says is true.”

I sometimes wish that I were an ecstatic Dominican nun.  I could keep going for well over twenty minutes.  What i doubt is whether the sixth Paul has the humility of the sixth Alexander.  Admittedly, it is far more difficult to be humble if one sins between the ears than if one sins between the sheets.  Anyway, the point is perfectly clear: Colomba was in opposition to the person of the Pope precisely out of loyalty to the institution of the Papacy[Yes!  That’s it!  And the same is the case today, and dare I say, has been the case with most critics of the leadership of the Church, including the Pope, since the human element of the Church rebelled against the Church’s very nature and being.]

What I find astonishing in our days is that the situation is exactly reversed.  People can attack the Papacy to their heart’s content provided they do not breathe a word against the person of the Pope [the particular pope then reigning]. Our own ecumenists see the Pope as a Constitutional Monarch with plenty of whiskers but no teeth.  Hans Kung is even against the whiskers.  Dom Bernard Bresnet thinks that the papacy should be a committe with, get this, a lady chairman.  Professor Delumeau would prefer the pope to be the quinquennially elected President of the World Council of Churches.  All these – and I could name many others – are in keeping with the present regime, and Delumeau can even expect a gift in his stocking at Christmas from the pope himself.  On the other hand, that benign old gentleman, Archbishop Lefebvre, gets into endless trouble for maintaining that the personal administration of the present Pontiff is an unmitigated disaster[Because he refused to take part in the mutual suicide pact that is the post-conciliar Church]

…...What I am getting at is perfectly clear.  You should think twice before you start talking about loyalty.  It is certainly you who are disloyal downwards. [meaning, to the laity under his charge, by leaving them to the ravening wolves of error and heresy while blithely declaring his “loyalty” by introducing the endlessly destructive conciliar revolution] It is also possible that you are disloyal upwards to the divine institution of the Papacy precisely by toadying to its temporary administrator.

———–End Quote———–

Indeed.  Excellent, excellent summation.

I haven’t got much to add to that, except that it is amazing how little has changed in the past 40 years.  If anything, it’s gotten worse, even acknowledging young priests of relative orthodoxy (few of whom have any idea how much they do not know, nor the volume of what has been lost, some hopeful religious orders, Summorum Pontificum, and other positive developments.

Many hoped that JPII and then Benedict indicated that the tide had been turned, or a nadir reached from which we could hope for steady improvement.  Others, perhaps wiser, believed that the conservativish pontificates following Paul VI were simply a period of entrenchment and solidification. Either way, Francis has shattered many illusions that the Church was on the cusp of renewal.

I do believe there is great truth in the above, wherein the bishop states that no matter how hard they try to kill Catholicism, it will keep popping back up, both because at least a tiny fraction of people recognize its unalterable truthfulness and want it, and also because God is ultimately in charge of all.  God has a penchant for working phenomenal turnarounds, as this series of sermons indicates.

I could say more, but must cut this off now.  I did not want to go an entire week with no posts.  Hopefully you think this post makes some kind of sense. In lieu of reading here, watch one of those five videos on God’s turnarounds a day until I get back.

Thank you for your prayers and well-wishes.  The power of prayer – or at least yours –  is unbelievable. Every day with my boy is a testament to that.  I am in debt to you all.  Thank you again. I pray for you.

 

 

Advertisements

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson is not a Christian…… May 9, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in catachesis, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, sadness, secularism.
comments closed

……..at least not in any conventional sense.  I had taken from some of his many discussions on the subject of the Divine Logos/truth/etc and some interviews he did with a creator of Byzantine iconography that he might be Christian, but he addresses the matter more specifically below and I would have to conclude that, sadly, the Jungian inanity Peterson has absorbed takes him out of any category of comprehensible Christianity and into some netherworld between Christian and deist.  Which, good luck with that, as the man is brilliant and full of conviction but ultimately I do not believe he could repeat the Nicene Creed with any conviction:

 

Perhaps you’ll have a different takeaway, but that’s mine.

It’s a shame because Peterson is a man of prodigious gifts but 30  years being steeped in the modernist/post-modernist social sciences is almost impossible to escape without taking a severe toll.  Still great to see how easily he can take atheist’s conceits apart.

You can see the entire interview here.

I will be out the rest of the week due to a death in the family.  Please pray for the repose of the soul of John Hoelscher, my wife’s uncle.  He died yesterday, Monday May 8, 2017.  May God have mercy on his soul.