Amici,
I have an initial question to start the ball rolling:
Desacralization. Can someone – some Vatican IIer, some Bergoglio acolyte, or some Protestant maven –
please explain to me why it is SO important to desacralize Catholicism?
The Orthodox East have always been horrified at the West's orgy of
desacralization. But it is not just the West. Islam itself is another form of Christian
desacralization, a Christian heresy "boiling it down" to basics. Islam and Judaism are more a mundane, law-based "ethnicization" of a
faith than religions, per se. Islam has the Sufi mystics sect,
of course, often shunned by regular Muslims, and Judaism has the Haredim,
but they have 613 laws you must obey, for Heaven's sake; (Judaism
obviously never recovered from the loss of the monastic Essenes, its
most spiritual faction.) Protestantism serves as an expurgation of
Catholicism, an abridgement of it. Vatican II Catholicism meanwhile is the bowdlerization of itself.
But we're talking about – please remember – a religion. A RELIGION.
Don't you WANT a religion to be sacred? Holy? Set apart? Non-mundane, non-profane?
Uplifting, soul-heightening? I mean, isn't that the whole point?
- Religion needs to be vertical, not horizontal.
- God-centered or the Divine Above-centered it ought to be, rather than human-focused and earthbound.
- That's
what the Reformation was, a massive desacralization. The Iconoclasm of
it was precisely that, the casting down of both art and theology from the themes of heavenly sacrifice and spiritual ascendancy, the verticality of it all,
knocked down to a paltry banality of prosaic credence. A whittling down
to the lowest common denominator short of atheism. (But of course it would inexorably lead to atheism.)
- And
Vatican II was a "mini-me" replication of the Reformation that left the
Catholic Church completely wrecked, with now twelve types of Catholics
in existence, as per this interesting video. All thanks to the Vatican II Church's idiot cognoscenti.
Marshall and Robinson
A fascinating
interview occurred between Taylor Marshall and Calvin Robinson, an
Englishman who has gained an internet following as a Christian
apologist. He is not a Roman Catholic priest or a priest in one
of the Eastern Rite Churches in Communion with Rome, nor yet an
"Orthodox" priest. Robinson was on Marshall's podcast to explain what he
is: he's been an Anglican then an English Free Church deacon and now is
some form of "Old Catholic". Mr Marshall seems to agree that Robinson
obtained valid if illicit orders and could easily become formally a
Catholic priest in communion with Rome, and spends a lot of time trying
to pin Robinson down on why he won't go ahead and become a full
Catholic. Robinson dodges and weaves. "Is Catholicism Always ROMAN?"
Then
Gavin Ashenden, who knows Robinson, weighs in with a long but
engrossing podcast explaining the English Reformation in great detail
and utterly destroys the Anglican/Episcopal conceit that they have
"Catholic Roots". Brilliantly done, Mr. Ashenden (who was himself once an Anglican bishop).
I highly recommend both the friendly, civilized Marshal-Robinson discussion, and Ashenden's friendly, civilized rebuttal of Robinson's arguments. Robinson himself is the unknown quantity, and we want to know
about him. He's obviously quite orthodox in his Catholic beliefs and
made the argument that historically, to be Catholic, one had to hold and
teach the doctrines of the Universal (i.e. "Catholic") Church, and
Marshall was making the point one also has to be in Communion with the
pope to be Catholic. As an interested third party, I would say that in
theory the two notions ought to go together; in practice, as we see
every day, they don't. And at the core of why that is so stands this question of desacralization of the Faith.
What's Catholic?
First
and foremost, heretics don't get to define what's "Catholic", and
Protestants of any stripe are some sort of heretic, by definition. But
now we have a crisis within the Church (as Ashenden reminds us) and
things ecclesiastical are deeply awry. We have the Church desperately
trying to desacralize itself. Just now Anthony Stine has a video up on
homosexual priests about to "come out" and demand being fully accepted
by Rome. "James
Martin's Favorite Kind Of Priests Are About To Go Public In A Big Way".
As Stine points out, this is all part of the secularization of the
Church that has been going on since Vatican II and is now gathering
steam under "Francis". Clearly, Queer Advocate Martin and these
homosexual priests seek to make "push come to shove" and force the
Church to accept them, which it cannot do without dumping St. Paul, let
alone Our Lord Christ. Stine says Martin has openly rejected St. Paul's
teaching on deviants, and now "Pope Francis" has written a foreword to
James Martin's new book.
- In a mess like this, why would a good man like Calvin Robinson want to become Roman Catholic?
Church of the Troll Bergoglio
Although Vatican II sourced the confusion, one of Bergoglio's most infamous hallmarks is his spread of utter
confusion. This is the Twilight Zone papacy. We all know Bergoglio is
an absolute formal heretic (or whatever term one desires to use), and
certainly a professional Destructor (you know, like Gozer in Ghost
Busters). Bergoglio is "cancelling" orthodox Catholic bishops and
crushing the orthodox Traditional Latin Rite Mass while allowing the Sin
of Sodom to disembowel the Holy Church. Did you see the Vatican sponsored a drag queen? For their World's Children Day no less? This is a "No, just stop" moment. It ought to be an officially "Damn
Bergoglio and the horse he rode in on" moment. Bergoglio and his peeps
have not denounced this, so far as I know, and the deposed Bishop Strickland
calls for something to be done about it. Well, my dear Bishop, you
shouldn't have let that Troll depose you.
Bergoglio
allows all this and lets the insane German Church run wild while he
sacks bishops like Joseph Strickland for the crime of being a believing
Catholic. As with Joe Biden being America's worst president, so "Pope
Francis" is Holy Church's worst pope – were he an actual pope, which many of us know he cannot be. So, one can reason:
- As Bergoglio's minions in the hierarchy are cancelling orthodox Catholic priests in every direction, therefore –
- Why would Calvin Robinson want to become a full Roman Catholic priest when the bishop who received him would immediately "cancel" him, too? (Yes, they probably wouldn't receive him in the first place.)
- Calvin Robinson was too polite to say this, of course.
The question is crucial. Is one not
a Catholic if one is not "in Communion" with the pope, even though one
is baptized and holds all the Catholic dogmas and essential doctrines?
And even more basically, can one be "in Communion" with a heretic pope
who is destroying the Church? In this crazy reality, Robinson can quite
possibly possess valid holy orders because a "Nordic Catholic Church"
bishop ordained him, a bishop who had himself received a valid although
illicit consecration. Is Bergoglio himself an actual bishop because of his valid
consecration when he himself doesn't believe a word of it all? Welcome
to the Twilight Zone.
The Papacy
Every
organization needs a top guy with whom final authority rests. A ship
needs a captain, an army needs a general, a platoon needs a sergeant, a
company needs a CEO and a country needs a monarch or president The
papacy serves that role for the Universal (Catholic) Church. For almost
two thousand years, each bishop of a diocese was "pope" of that Church.
Once elected by the clergy and people, or later appointed by higher up
archbishops, a bishop stayed with his flock until he died. He was
"married" until death to his town/diocese/region, and could only be
"divorced" from it for serious health or moral problems. Rarely were
bishops moved from one diocese to another as they are commonly moved
about today. (Parish priests usually were assigned to a parish until
they died, as well.) Paul VI changed all that and made bishops "retire"
at 75. Also, you couldn't be a bishop without a diocese, hence the
tradition of naming Vatican curia bishops to be bishops of some long
extinct early Church. Vatican II changed that. Bishop Strickland is
therefore now still a bishop although he's been deposed by an evil
heretic. Bergoglio the Destructor will most certainly not bother to name
Strickland bishop of some defunct diocese, unless as an insult it would
be, say, Laodicea.
Problems worked their way up the ecclesiastical ladder to the pope for adjudication. The pope was universal pastor in that specific sense, and not pretending to be actual pastor of every diocese and parish on Earth, micromanaging it all. A system existed, worked well, and they kept to it. (Yes, the Orthodox broke off – and on, and off again – and before the Muslims came in the 7th century, the Coptic Church and the Syrian broke off as well. The remote Armenians were probably never part of it to begin with.) Dealing with Luther's narcissistic egomania is an example of how that system worked.
- But with the advent of modern communication technology, the papacy could wield absolute power under a domineering kind of pope.
- The first transatlantic telegraph cable was laid before the American Civil War, and although that failed, soon others followed, and Pius IX could "call up" and give direct orders to a bishop in Argentina or Australia in minutes.
- Pius IX was certainly domineering, and even said, "I am the Tradition" echoing Louis XIV's "I am the state". Pio Nono it was who called Vatican I and got it to formally declare his special "from the Chair" pronouncements "infallible".
- That had been the
understanding before, of course, but never codified because a pope only
acted infallibly when some issue needed a final ruling. By the nature of the system, a pope's ruling was a "final word". Usually, a pope was kept busy enough just being the actual bishop of Rome, a task they now delegate to others.
- But with the new technology, Pius IX seemed to think the bishops of the world were his secretaries and "branch managers" and put them on a leash. That may not have mattered much when the bishops were orthodox Catholics, and Ashenden takes the time to read the kindly but final response the great Pope Leo XIII made about Anglican orders.
- But now when popes were only in varying degrees orthodox; i.e. the Vatican II popes enmeshed in the Modernist cobwebs, that became a problem.
- Finally
we have Bergoglio, who has taken Pius IX's absolute power and is
employing it to literally deconstruct Catholicism, root and branch. He's
formally creating a new Church, the Synodal one.
The Universal Church is thus quite divided, and no, I don't include Protestants in that Church, but only Apostolic Churches.
- The Big Fourteen Orthodox Churches are not in Communion with the pope – definitely and defiantly so –
yet they have valid Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders. (They have a
problem with their divorce doctrine because some emperor or other
demanded it, and otherwise, they're each a "national Church".) And the
venerable Coptic Church isn't even talking to the Catholic Church now
thanks to The Troll, our Juan Peron on the Tiber.
- Is a "Benesedevacantist" like Ann Barnhardt a Catholic? Or myself?
- Or
a "regular" sedevacantist like Louie Verrecchio at AKA Catholic? He
doesn't accept ANY of the Vatican II popes. (BTW Verrecchio has an
excellent article here about how the Vatican II Church messed up the Collect for Trinity
Sunday, with a link to Professor Michael P. Foley's amazing article on
the same, here at New Liturgical Movement.) Read those two articles to see what you've been missing as a "Catholic"
since Vatican II, both about the sublime doctrine of the Most Holy
Trinity and also just how profound the sacrament of Confession actually
is. You know, both of those are pretty basic, and we've been robbed
blind by these Vatican II cretins.
Our
Lord Christ Himself said, "If they are not against us, they are for
us." (Mark 9:28-41; Luke 9:50) But what about Bergoglio? That man is
definitely NOT for Christ, in any way. Bergoglio tears up Church
tradition and disregards the Deposit of Faith. Hardly ever does he
mention our Lord, and his documents and those of "Tucho-Touchy"
Fernandez almost never mention Christ. The entire Synodal Church that
they are aborning has very little indeed to do with Christ. So, no
wonder there are twelve types of Catholics now.
That is a problem indeed for the desacralizing Vatican II Churchmen and the desacralized laity, and not just for a Calvin Robinson.
AnP
