Saturday, 12 December 2015

Reaction...

In the six and a half years that I have been writing an online journal my articles, reflections, comments and images have inspired both devotion and revulsion. I have lost a number of regular readers because I have not shied away from saying what I think. Most Christian blogs have nothing to do with me, and I am proscribed by such fora as Fisheaters and Ship of Fools. Nevertheless, I have been profoundly touched by the many messages of support, encouragement and good will that I have received from the occasional reader over the years. It is for such well wishers that I stagger on chiefly, if not only for myself. If I ever wanted anything from writing this awful blog it is some credibility and the stimulant for actual publication. When my father dies I can see myself going the way of "Old Smoky," the nickname my father has given to the tramp we sometimes see around Crayford town centre. I would say that I am trying to collate the best of my stuff into a publishable form but I am otherwise engaged in wrestling the job situation and my own chronic indolence. Sometimes I am too depressed to face the uphill struggle against failure and rejection so I retreat to my Nintendo.

So far I have received no reaction at all to my post on the latest defecation from Rome. There was the usual disclaimer, "this is not doctrine," &c. but everybody knows that's a ruse. The two covenant heresy is already established in inter-religious dialogue with the Jews, and appears to have been personally believed by John Paul II and by Francis. Now, the doctrine of the two covenants is an heresy. It was never believed by the Apostles, the Fathers, or the Scholastics. It is, in fact, new. Now, what do we usually call people who choose not to assent to the truths of faith? That's right, we call them heretics. So if John Paul "the Great" believed in the heresy of the two covenants, and proclaimed his error in a Roman synagogue, then we can safely call him an heretic. As we can call Francis an heretic. 2+2=4. It's that simple. We're not in Room 101 here! I don't particularly care for subtleties and nuances, as Fr Hunwicke has described this heretical document. I only care about forthright, blunt proclamation of the Truth of the Gospel with absolutely no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation. That has been one of the chief evils of Christianity, as I see it (besides the Papacy).

In many ways I see this as myself.

That a Roman pope is an heretic puts the traditionalists out of reckoning. That's where the backtracking, and the qualifications, and the cognitive dissonance come in handy. Not for me, though. I don't believe in that kind of nonsense. I have no difficulty in accepting that bishops can be heretics but I see no value in believing that the bishop of a particular see cannot possibly be an heretic. This document, while not "magisterial," is going to be an embarrassment to the traditionalists just as much as the impetuous utterances of Frank when talking to journalists. Who am I to judge? Just someone who cares about Truth more than league of friendship or allegiance or the communion of heretics.

8 comments:

  1. If you're going to be a straight shooter you're going to get strong reactions either way. At least you're bold enough to be saying what you want to say even though at heart you know you'll get your fair share of nasty comments by doing so.

    I had a friend in high school who was similiar to you in that he put himself out there and let everyone know who he was and what he stood for. The guy got a lot of harassment but he always had adoring women by his side and a few close friends. Last I heard he was doing very well for himself in the computer business. I was always sonewhat jealous of him because unlike me he was not afraid to be his own man without hiding behind something.

    One thing that most peop,e on their deathbeds regret is not having allowed themselves to really be who they were meant to be. At some point it's too late.

    You're your own person. Embrace it. It sucks sometimes but embrace it. So many people are scared to death to do what you do.

    I don't always share your views on things but I say keep writing, keep sharing your thoughts. Some of us tune in and admire your courage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Someone else described me as a "fool for Christ." I take that as a compliment.

      Delete
  2. Patrick, as you know, I have often chastised you for intemperate language (I suffer from the same sin myself); but your analysis are almost always spot-on. Your present understanding of papolatry is also correct as is your understanding of the problems inherent within conservative, traditional Catholic positions vis-a-vis not only the Papal system but the adaptation of effectively the new rite, but only so long as it is in Latin; and their usually dishonest appraisal of history. In some ways they remind me of Anglo-Catholics of forty years ago, who believed all the promises the liberals of the establishment made to them about how their tradition would be respected; the liberals realising that he who controls seminary education controls the future. Many stupidly remained until it was too late, far too late.

    I think your enclosing of the wonderful painting of Feodosia Prokopiyevna Morozova is a good symbolism of all of us who remain loyal to the old, in our case Latin, traditions. It will not be easy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are certainly courageous. My time as a Roman Catholic was relatively brief in my lifetime, but it did have its effect, especially my time at Gricigliano. That being said, I am more emotionally detached and less inclined to voice all my thought in public. You will suffer for what you say in public - just be sure that it is worth it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Patrick, I have always found your posts to be quite interesting and enjoyable to read. For me, it's encouraging to see a man less than half my age who shares my opinions of the world. My personal opinions of Jewry and Islam have often insulted others, and "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". The facts are what they are. As far as the latest Roman Defecation is concerned, I'm not the least bit surprised. I lived through V II and realized then the Roman communion is overflowing with feces, or as we say in the US, "It's full of shit!” I once enjoyed commenting on another blog, one on which you and Dale make many stimulating comments, however, mine were considered over the top. The cleric responsible for that blog now considers me persona non grata and once again, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". I will continue to read and occasionally comment here for as long as you continue to write. Don't give up the ship!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would echo all of the points made by the comments above. You speak your mind with a refreshing honesty and refuse to be drawn in to the Traddieland fictional view of history etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is still hope for Traddieland, though, as seen here in this article acknowledging the evil effects of Pius XII's reforms to the Roman liturgy, while proving Fr. Cekada to be still influenced by Traddieland fantasies (i.e., Pius XII was tricked by Bugnini): http://trueorfalsepope.com/articles/salza/Feature%20-%20Sedevacantism%20and%20Pope%20Pius%20XII's%20Liturgical%20Reforms.pdf

    I must admit to like reading your site, too, though, I do disagree on some essential points. However, your analyses are very well-thought out and provoke discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul, thank you for the article. It is fascinating. And also very true. I must admit that I am surprised at its honest portrayal of some of the issues and personalities of the traditional Catholic movement, but I do hot hold out much hope. My own experience with Latin, celibacy, Papal fixated Catholic traditionalists is that there is very little hope.

      What I find disturbing about them is that they are so much like Byzantine Orthodox converts, very, very nasty with a putrid streak of self-righteousness more than a mile wide, and very deep as well. And as Patrick has pointed out, they do not really love the liturgy at all. Their fixations are often cultural, political, Pope, and Latin. By the way, I say this as someone who is not at all opposed to either the Baroque or low Mass.

      Delete