Monday, October 26, 2015

The Vatican Dogs return to their vomit

There was a time in recent years that the dwindling defenders of the Faith had hopes that the last remaining 1960s hippies who gave us Vatican II were finally dying off, with a hearty good riddance to them all.  That awful and unnecessary Council, non-dogmatic and wholly pastoral, was the opening of the sore that had been festering for at least 100 years and more.  And with it came the visible destruction of the Church, the Church's "October Revolution" as the material heretic Yves Congar called it, the destruction of the Mass, the normal practices of piety, sacrifice and the twisting into nothingness most of the Seven Sacraments.

But its leaders were dying out (thanks be to God) and its ideas were at last becoming suspect and more and more people were beginning to question why this Council was supposed to be so great and so wonderful and so superior to all the other Councils of the past twenty centuries.  There was a reawakening, in fact, to a long lost reality.  Not a general, "great awakening" to be sure, but an awakening nonetheless.  Priests were starting to act like priests again, nuns like nuns, Bishops like Bishops.

The aging, senile and rotting in mind and body leaders of the Revolution saw this and were horrified.  Yes, they knew that there were younger men who carried on their ideas but they were being held back, to a certain extent.  People were not falling over themselves to praise the Modernist cabal.  Their books were no longer best sellers despite the praises of the anti-Catholic intelligentsia and the eternally clueless neo-Catholics.  Young people were beginning to turn back to ancient practices, and were having more children.

Clearly something had to be done.  Even the sodomites that had infested the clergy (going back to at least the 1920s) and were now being exposed due to the horrible crimes they committed, were not leading the charge.  But  in the eyes of the Modernists something was needed.   And fast.

Benedict XVI became Pope for a time, and although he was for the most part merely a John Paul III he did attempt to bring a little justice back into Church practice by his motu proprio regarding the Ancient Rite.  For whatever reason he resigned, or was forced to resign, and the Mincing Terrorists finally seized their chance to return to the vomit of their Second Vatican Council.  A compliant - yet somewhat autocratic - man was thrust into the Papacy in record time.  There was precious little debate if the swiftness of his election is any indication.  The election of Bergoglio stank of one of those color revolutions the CIA is so famous for, a coup in which the front man for the powerful is installed as a figurehead.  The Holy Ghost had been available at the Conclave but it seems clear His assistance was not requested by many of the voting Cardinals.  Rather than listen to the Holy Ghost most conclave voters were listening to a faceless clerical Oligarchy.

So now with their man in charge the final dreadful "implementation" of that awful Council of the 1960s seems about to be accomplished.

It interests me to see so many normally level-headed Catholics and Catholic intellectuals still clinging to their fantasies about Vatican II.  Blame for its ill effects are cast against individuals like John Courtney Murray or Paul VI or whichever prominent Modernist emerged from that confab. These Catholics still cling, almost quaintly, to the notion that Gaudiem et Spes or Dignitatus Humanae were "falsely translated" or "falsely understood" but that the actual documents themselves are the words of God.  It is inconceivable to me that people can still hang on to these notions in the light of subsequent events.  Never do they ask if the Documents themselves were unclear, or ambiguous or even needed (They were unclear, they were deliberately ambiguous and they certainly were not needed).  The good-intentioned defenders of Vatican II and its "decrees" do not connect the dots between these documents and the collapse of the Faith which immediately followed this Council.  In their view a Council could never produce such a disaster; it must have been those "bad translations" and "bad interpretations".  Incredibly naive?  Yes.  But they still grasp that narrative. They have come to terms with the collapse and like a man who in order to stave off gnawing hunger will acquire a taste for manure they now accept a Mass so stupid as to offend the sensibilities of a four-year-old.  They have also come to terms with the manure of homosexuality.  It's not a mortal sin anymore; rather it's an "attraction" or an "orientation", or something akin to a case of the mumps. (To be fair to them, some are becoming horrified by the emerging degeneracy all around us. Perhaps the recent Synod may be for them the final slap in the face they need to clear their minds of the notion that Vatican II was the Greatest Event in the history of the Universe.)

Empty seminaries and convents are not seen by the Vatican II knights as bad fruits.  The connection is never made.  The collapse in Mass attendance (hardly surprising) and Confessions is just one of those things, say our Catholic intellectuals, and have nothing to do with the Modernist attack on the Faith, the one we were warned about by a genuine papal Saint, Pius X.  (Though I am hopeful that some reality will find its way back into the minds of our Vatican II cheer leaders, it is already plain that even in the face of what happened in Rome these past weeks some are already claiming - with not the slightest evidence - that "the conservatives have won!"  This is unbelievable to me.)

But that first attack of 1962-65, devastating as it was, did not finish the job.  Now, it is quite clear, they mean to finish it.  The counter-attack they temporarily faced in recent years is to be decimated  by a counter-counter-attack.  They've got a pliable puppet in the papacy though, as I said, one with autocratic tendencies, and so they are riding high right now after their Synod of Shit, and a Bergoglian motu proprio which formally introduces Catholic divorce.

They have returned to their vomit in high style and are going to rub our noses into it.

But we're not going to just sit in silence while they do so.


Aged parent said...

I encourage my readers to see this excellent post on the St Louis Catholic blogsite. Beautifully and heartfully written:

Anonymous said...

Very well written, but I find the words 'manure' and 'shit' prevent me from sending this to others who are having trouble coming to grips with the debacle. A substitute word could be found that wouldn't agravate them. Aged Parent, food for thought.

Anonymous said...

Those are quite legitimate words in the English language. This is not a time for prudishness.

Aged parent said...

Dear Anon@5:31pm

Thanks for the comment - and I understand your discomfort. I usually don't use coarse language but I felt that in this case whether by exasperation or brutal honesty no other word would fit. What these men are trying to do to God's Church is evil, well-intentioned or not, and they deserve to be told exactly what it is they are doing.

Some years ago a good priest friend of mine and I were talking about how badly treated he was when he met in Rome with several high-ranking Churchmen. This priest was trying to find justice and high ranking clerics treated him like some unimportant dog. Later, he as commiserating with a Cardinal friend of his about the incident, and the Cardinal looked at him and said, "Father you have been shat upon".

So, I guess if a Prince of the Church can occasionally use that word we might have occasion to use it once in a great while.

Thanks again for the comment, and the kind words.

aly said...

I get it. Most people understand the need of the emphatic vocabulary.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...