Thursday, March 29, 2018
Would Pope Francis wash Cardinal Burke's feet? Easter Tridiuum and so the Foot Washing is upon us again...
Easter. Bunnies. Eggs. Feet washing.
Our Caudillo, Jorge, made headlines in the past with washing the feet of Muslims and so on during this strange "rite". I suppose it is too much to hope for any sort of real understanding about what it is for – or should be for.
The whole foot-washing thing is a simple example of our hierarchy's not following Our Lord's example, but rather reinventing Him to serve their own self-identities.
The feet-washing thing is for the hierarchy, with bishops washing priests' feet and the pope washing bishops' feet. It is symbolic of their "working relationship", with the superiors acknowledging that they're there in service their fellow clerics who are below them on the Church's totem pole. Washing parishioners' feet therefore misses the point that this is about Church leaders' relations to each other. Our Most Blessed Lord did not wash the feet of just anybody, of course. Somehow our current leadership seems to just not be able to read (or think) clearly about either Holy Writ or Holy Rite.
But ask yourself the simple question: would Francis was Cardinal Burke's feet, or Cardinal Sarah's? Haha, to ask the question is to answer it. But clearly THOSE are the feet he should be washing, and which he never will. Bergoglio's washing Muslim feet (and etc.) obscures the whole thing hopelessly.
I think this whole fiasco sums up Bergoglio's papacy: confused, misdirected, and most definitely misdirecting.
An Préachán
Friday, March 16, 2018
"Weird" Vatican developments and Hilary White's take on What's the Story with Joe...
(And
yes, I use "weird" in both its modern and its ancient meanings.)
You-all may have heard of the latest odd Vatican development: Benedict's
"forged" or "forced" letter about Francis' theology books. Father
Zuhlsdorf has info on it here, and important links, as well:
See also Lifesite news: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/laura-ingraham-on-benedicts-doctored-letter-two-popes.-da-vinci-code-stuff
"Conservative" Catholics are up in arms, but the Trads aren't buying it, i.e. Hilary White's take:
Is
Hilary White, the author here, controversial? Sometimes, but honestly,
when Hilary is right, she's right. She writes here about the current
controversy of the "retired" pope endorsing the current pope's 11-volume
theological work. Many are insisting "Father Benedict" really didn't
endorse Pope Francis' -- er -- intellectual efforts. Rather, that he was
forced, or that it was photo-shopped, etc. Hilary White isn't buying
it. She makes the (unpopular among "Conservatives") case that Ratzinger
was always a Vat2 Reformer, heart and soul.
An excerpt:
Why
did Benedict resign? Why has he sat by passively while the Bergoglians
eat the Church? And in a larger sense, why was Kasper never disciplined
or removed from the College of Cardinals? Why were all the men whose
names we know only too well allowed to continue attacking the Faith and
the faithful for so many long years?
Because this is part of his programme. Bergoglianism is the logical conclusion of VaticanTwoism, and that, not the historic Catholic Faith, is what Ratzinger always believed in.
Because this is part of his programme. Bergoglianism is the logical conclusion of VaticanTwoism, and that, not the historic Catholic Faith, is what Ratzinger always believed in.
The
truth is the man we loved never existed. He was created for us out of a
blend of wishful thinking and secular media narrative, propaganda which
we heavily bought into because we were terrified of the alternative.
Well, here’s that alternative, grabbing us by the arms every day and
screaming his blasphemies and heresies into our faces. The alternative
is simply that the “conservative” proposal is false, based on false
premises, a matter of clinging to our personal preferences in opposition
to the evidence; a habit that I have called “Fantasy.”
An Préachán again:
She pulls no punches. Meanwhile, in shocking news, the Polish bishops are wavering on Holy Communion to divorced/remarrieds
An excerpt:
Polish
bishops appear to be showing support for allowing confessors to
determine on a case-by-case basis whether remarried divorcees living in a
state of objective adultery can receive Holy Communion.
In a statement issued after a two-day plenary meeting, the bishops stressed the importance of “discernment, accompaniment and inclusion” in dealing with such cases, according to the Polish Catholic website Pch24.
In a statement issued after a two-day plenary meeting, the bishops stressed the importance of “discernment, accompaniment and inclusion” in dealing with such cases, according to the Polish Catholic website Pch24.
"Discernment"! "Accompaniment"! "Inclusion"! All the codewords that really mean: "We don't really
believe this Eucharist stuff." Certainly, if they actually come out
with this, they don't believe 1 Cor 11:23 (and following to the end of
the chapter). And they break with Sacred Tradition as well as Holy Writ.
The
$64,000 question is: If the Polish bishops cave to the consecration of
sin, how long can the Chastisement be delayed? (See Fr Chad Ripperger on
Holy Detachment and the coming Chastisement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3oqUkCm0i4
)
You know, in Islam, the Muslims have always
said "Allah is merciful". They've never said, "Allah is love." Allah
doesn't love, nor does he "do" covenants or make promises, even to bold
mujahideen jihadi who slaughter many of us infidels. So "Allah is
merciful!" is far more a desperate plea than a statement of theological
fact. Maybe Francis in all this "mercy" talk (mercy which doesn't apply
to Trads, obviously, and is highly selective in general) is on the same
level?
The Good News, the Gospel, however, is
that God uplifts human nature and transforms us (hence the necessity of
the Incarnation, into which Baptism and the Holy Eucharist lead us),
making us "New creations in Christ"; (2 Cor 5:17, and also throughout
the New Testament, really, once you start looking for this teaching).
The True God doesn't leave us wallowing in the pigsty of sin, oinking
endlessly for mercy. It calls us to perfection in the here and now. See
Matt 5:48; and Rev 5:10, plus many others: verses Bergoglio might well
excise, if he could, as Luther tried to excise the Epistle of St. James.
In sum, the Gospel is far away from many, today. That's for sure.
3
As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and
godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us
by his own proper glory and virtue.
4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.
5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge;
6 And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness;
7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity.
4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.
5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge;
6 And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness;
7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity.
3 Peter 1:3-7
Can there be a more succinct counter statement to the "Discernment"! "Accompaniment"! "Inclusion"! hogwash?
An Préachán
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)