Thursday, 15 October 2015

Fred Phelps...

The hated Mr Sheridan is under attack once more. Why this time? It's months since I mentioned liturgy on this formerly liturgical blog. Unless, perhaps, Mr Sanchez had my sojourn in Ireland in mind, in which case he might concede that my lofty contempt for the want-of-liturgy I experienced in Stranorlar and Knock is justified. And none of that was as trivial as a missing third Confiteor (who gives a shite about that?!), but instances of complete departures from Tradition, and even good taste. Perhaps it's because I took the high ground, shook the dust from my feet and said: "serves you right!" People should know by now that I have washed my hands completely of empathic concern for the present state of the Roman Rite. I simply do not care any more. As Dame Edna would say in her assiduous way: "I am only human. Prick me and I bleed!" So I have said: "There is only so much disappointment, incompetence and malice I am prepared to tolerate." Did I just say "malice?" Yes I did, because there comes a point at which those who care about tradition and those who confuse tradition with a rigid, rancorous adherence to Papal fiat come to blows, and I am sorry to say that the latter have always triumphed and trample upon their foes with hideous delight as the Jansenists, heretics and sedevacantists they undoubtedly think we are. For those of you who care to dispute this, I have many a personal experience to share to support this. It is not an assertion based on ignorance or prejudice. As in modern day politics, it is the triumph of the Neo-Conservatives! As such, I can say with confidence that there will be no love between RC traditionalists and me to my dying day.

I've been compared to the late Lord Bannside before (which I take as a compliment); I've been called demagogic, fanatical, insane, &c. But I've never been compared with the Westboro Baptist church. What on earth next!


  1. In defense of Mr Sanchez, sometimes your observations, not recently, but most certainly in the past have been a little, well sometimes a lot, beyond the pale. So, Patrick, do be careful of presenting yourself under attack when you have been guilty of the same tactics. Grin and bear it, and more importantly, perhaps it is best, when attacking to the "Roman Rite" to limit your usually excellent observations to the novus ordo and its truly dreadful incarnations. I am still waiting to find out the theological import of Catholic hymns that extol wiggly worms. No response yet.

  2. "I can say with confidence that there will be no love between RC traditionalists and me to my dying day."

    I couldn't agree more, Rome in all her various manifestations is the Whore of Babylon, worthy of scorn and derision.

  3. What is fascinating - and amusing - is to see those bloggers who eight years ago were full of 'He who hears you, hears Me' and how Catholics should give at least assent to non-magisterial teaching of the pope are now rushing around decrying 'Neo-Ultramontanism' and 'Ultra-Ultramontanism' are now wanting to promote limits on the papal office. Just imagine how Pius XII, Pius X or Pius IX would have reacted to such chatter! The venom directed at Pope Francis is really quite astonishing, as it is distasteful, as so many in Traddieland see their bubbles about to burst.

    1. It just demonstrates that the pope, who is an individual man however wise and good, exercises undue, unscriptural influence over an institution spread the world over, and the members thereof. So far as I can understand, there are no "limits" upon full and immediate jurisdiction. And as for papal infallibility, there are so many cop outs that the doctrine might as well not exist. That is not to say that there are some, particularly in Traddieland, who are not willing to ascribe infallibility to the papal pronouncements that they personally like. The aliturgical "Benedictine altar arrangement" springs to mind, and its universal adoption by the churches. But Francis says something like "who am I to judge," and they're up in arms!

      What kind of warped ecclesiology is that? I always believed that Christ was the sure foundation (to quote the hymn), not the pendulum of very different successive popes.

    2. Rubericarius, this is so true. The fact that most Catholics seemed unable to see the defects in a system which proclaims their leader to be personally infallible, and then be surprised when the leader behaves as if he is not answerable to anyone, not the Church, not the Tradition, is simply ludicrous. Frankie is not the problem anymore than Benedict was the problem, the post 1870 system is the problem, but now Rome has indeed painted itself into a corner.