Pope Francis in context - E. Michael Jones

The following is a pretty good discussion on the new book.  I wholeheartily endorse reading the book.  As an aside, E. Michael began this pontificate as being very open to Francis.  It is only after his travels to Argentina that he has changed his views.

https://www.amazon.com/Pope-Francis-Context-Arrived-Buenos-ebook/dp/B0721KX2BV/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499824052&sr=8-1&keywords=e+michael+jones

The LMS of England gives their Rorschach Option

In the movie Watchmen, the character Rorschach gives an excellent opening monologue which I think plays well with the current situation:


"Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen it's true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... ...and I'll look down, and whisper "no."'

If the spats with the FFI and the Order of Malta have shown us anything, it should make us recognize the time and prep for likely ends.  The Latin Mass Society of England has put out a series of how the ancient liturgy can be a true bulwurk against the modern nominalists and modernists alike:


"The advantages the Traditional movement has in the current crisis are both tactical and strategic; I shall give two examples of each. Consider the tactical ones first.


"The recent history of the FFI and the Order of Malta illustrate two important tactical realities. One is that the Traditional Mass is a de facto rallying point for orthodoxy on a wide range of issues. (This has been the fear of opponents of the ancient Mass from the beginning.) The other is that internal divisions, including divisions about the liturgy, provide both an excuse and a point of leverage for attacks on an organisation (/ group / parish). It follows from these two undeniable facts that the Traditional movement has an obvious advantage. It is by definition united around this banner of orthodoxy.

...


The second tactical advantage is that the Traditional movement is not dominated by any one organisation: the blogs, priestly Institutes, lay groups, periodicals and so forth all exist among a good number of others of their kind. The suppression of one or another would not be the same kind of disaster as is the suppression of the FFI or the Order of Malta, because resources and support can be transferred between them far more easily than between non-traddie conservative organisations. Traditional groups are not interchangeable, but the fact that they support the Traditional Mass is a decisive reason for nearly everyone who supports them, to support them, and these supporters are, normally, already very familiar and friendly with other Traditional Catholic groups and organisations, and would be highly likely to find another group to support instead, were their current favourite to disappear. The orthodox Catholics who support the Order of Malta (as with other worthy conservative bodies) do so for all sorts of complex reasons, and if the Order were, for practical purposes, to disappear, they would be scattered to the four winds. As a force for good the Order would be gone, and no similar organisations would be proportionally strengthened. This is not a criticism of the Order, but in the current crisis it is a disadvantage.

...

The first strategic reason is this. As the cases of the FFI and the Order of Malta illustrate, internal struggles over teaching and liturgy are endemic within conservative Catholic organisations, and within the broadly understood ‘conservative Catholic movement’, if we want to call it that. The tactical consequence, of offering an opening to the enemy, has already been noted. The strategic consequence is that this makes them a terrible front in the war in which to invest resources, not just because of this tactical vulnerability, but because so much of one’s efforts will be spent on internal, organisational conflict. You might say: these internal battles need to be fought. Well, that is a judgement each person needs to make on the spot. The organisation at issue may be in a great position to make a valuable contribution to the struggle if only X, Y, and Z internal battles are won by the good guys, and that may be a realistic prospect. In my experience such prospects are never as rosy as one imagines. Nevertheless, if you really judge that to be so, good luck to you, but remember this: while this battle is going on, the efforts going into the internal battle are not going into the apostolate. They are not doing the work the organisation is supposed to be doing. In the meantime, you are helping to keep an organisation afloat which may be doing bad things as well as good ones. And finally, in my experience internal battles are disproportionately exhausting and demoralising, whereas work ad extra can be very rewarding and energising...."

You can read the rest of this rest of this series HERE

On the Gaffigans’ and a good question on the Malta situation

File this in the same stack as Stephen Colbert catholics.

As much as I enjoy most of Jim Gaffigan’s material, I am utterly frustrated by how these folks can fall into the dumbest of traps. Now many people will say, “But, they don’t use contraception”. As if that was the sole distinguishing mark of a Catholic. No, what he has been shown to push is of grave concern, and that so many Catholics have been silent on this – I’m looking at all of you that push Gaffigan stuff on Catholic Blogs, news sources and at official Catholic gatherings – is a grave disgrace. There was not a single show where he did not try to use his platform to normalize sodomidic behavior. For crying out loud they made one of the family helpers/advisors a sodomite and never, ever attempted a plea to the individual to change. They brought him into the home to influence the kids, and effectively normalized his disorder by making him a regular on the show. And in case you need more that same actor decided he needed to act up the other day.

Woke budget cutter pic.twitter.com/QoaVqGpFNk

— Michael B Dougherty🍃 (@michaelbd) January 13, 2017

----------------

The other thing worth touching on is this Malta bishop’s situation. CCC, on their Twitter feed made a good observation (which could be applied to many things):

Why was ad orientem SUGGESTION shot down immediately, while Maltese bishops' DIRECTIVE--violating Church teaching--is left uncorrected?

— Cream City Catholic (@CCityCatholic) January 16, 2017

It is a fair question to ask I believe…

I can’t believe every woman I know is marching in the streets and CNN is showing Trump pretending to believe in God. #WomensMarch

— Jim Gaffigan (@JimGaffigan) January 21, 2017

+JMJ+

I don’t remember hearing that...

The desire by some to flee from the visible and actual, lets be clear, actual Petrine office held by Pope Francis is quite boring. Why do these folks flee from the trial? How much has been written by these self appointed doctors, and yet how often as their work led people to pray, fast and give more alms for the love of Christ and his Church?

I dont remember Dom Bosco relating the sea would be calm. I don’t recall that before the sea became so the Man in White safely brought the ship in before the storm hit. The storm is here, be a man, embrace the trial with charity, clarity and just piety.

Vision of Dom Bosco

It is not the call of any single prelate, clergyman or gun totting blogger to declare anything in regards to Peter. Know your roll. If you are not willing to do at least twice the amount of time praying you do complaining, please do us all a favor and stop causing greater scandal. Thank you.

Pray for Peter
Pray for your bishop
Pray for your priest
Pray for the Church

On the recent SSPX communique

A lot of mixed reaction on this, but I think its pretty clear to me.  The ball is in the Holy Father's court, and as a good Father he is being asked by his children to make it clear that they are being
welcomed back to the Church in a non ambiguous way.

I don't think it unwise to demand that Peter be clear with regards to his office and the responsibilities therein. The desire to be canonically recognized, by all accounts, seems to be real, but the recognization is not for fuzzy reasons. I'm not saying that what the communique says is the best approach at this time, but consider the thought of being Fellay.  Doing a quick recognization at this stage is like leading the sheep he has into a buzz saw of confusion.

For a second lets allow the notion that they were really schismatics.  If the Church really desired their coming back into the fold, wouldnt it be at least partially on the Church to make it clear what they are being called into?  And if there are mixed signals, I can understand the hesitancy.

In the end, this can all be fixed when Peter openly proclaims the Church's teachings and holds his brethern to the standard needed to see the Church flourish again.

So the ball is in the Holy Father's court. Will he be clear and thus prompt the recognization or will ambiguity for the sake of LUB reign and people continue to call the society evil.  It's not a good situation as always, but such is the historical impact of every pontiff in his personal decisions.



Furthermore I believe the charlatan and sedevantist Ann Barndhart needs to stop leading others astray.