Featured Post

The "Rights of Englishmen" Series

This is a list of the posts from my "Rights of Englishmen" series, as well as some others: - The Rights of Englishmen Part 1:...

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Laramie Hirsch: Still at Te Deum

Allow me a moment to stop "pushing my brand," so that I can push someone else's.



To everyone and their mother, it seems as though I am throwing the Te Deum forum under the bus in the last blog post.  I did not see it that way as I wrote it, and I do not see it that way now.  But perhaps what I meant never really came across in what I actually stated.  Fair enough.

This week, in the first of a three-part post, I spoke of some kind of problem between the poster named rum and the Te Deum forum.  Was rum's problem because of sedevacantism, or was it because of a personal matter?  I originally thought the former.  And thus, the entire (attempted) conversation formed about a non-sede among pro-sedes.  My usual navel-gazing ensued, which no one heard, and meanwhile, tensions were raised about whether or not I was making fun of the Te Deum forum.

It is fair enough to say that I didn't take the time to make that distinction.  Let there be no misunderstanding: I mentioned the incident because I saw it as an incident about a non-sede among sedes.

Before, I said that "Rum, my good ol' buddy who I've hardly ever shared a single sentence with online, was recently banned from Te Deum."  This is a joke.  I do not know rum well at all.

It probably also doesn't help that the first section of the blog post is an attempt at an objective conversation, while the second two sections of the blog post were not objective at all, but clear, direct, and outspoken public rebukes of two public people--Kaesekopf and Jayne.  Mix one part objective speculation with two parts public rebuking, and you get...misunderstanding.  

I fully expected to hear from Jayne (who, might I add, is doing interesting work at the blog I was just involved with).  But I did not expect backlash about that first section.  It seemed like dry coverage on the matter.  (That is, dry coverage on my end of things.)  Whatever impressions I gave were unintentional.  

* * *

So, my thoughts about Te Deum?  

There are people friendly to sedevacantism there, to be sure.  I disagree with them, to be sure.

But, as I stated in my first announcement of locating at Te Deum, I like the variety and the familiar faces, in spite of differences.  And as Tmw89 joked, it has been, if nothing else, interesting.  And, as I stated in my first review of the forum, I gave it a positive report.  There have been good conversations, and the moderators have kept the place from being dulled down into a weird pseudo-liberal stew.  

On the Feast Day of St. Nicholas, I will have been at that forum for an entire year.  Sbyvl and Voxxpopulisuxx have given me a fair shake.  They've put up with me, and they probably had my back a few times.  It's my hope that I'll get to see other colleagues from SD visit Te Deum more often, as they are more tolerable and welcoming towards zeal than the moderators of SD.  (That much is clear when examining Geremia's situation.)  

Sbyvl and other moderators have even stated that Te Deum is not a sedevacantist forum.  Of course, sede-friendly people tend to congregate there, because their impassioned views are tolerated, rather than penalized.  Discussion is more free there than elsewhere.  The forum is not as punitive as other places I've been in the past.  (Hello Catholic Answers Forum.)  If you are online for conversation, and you don't feel like being struck by a hammer if you raise your head, then I'd say it's a good forum to take a look at.  At least, from my experience so far.

Any misunderstandings to the contrary, hopefully, have now been repaired.     


Sunday, November 15, 2015

Turmoil on Catholic Forums and Blogs

So, there's been a bit of intra-forum news lately. So let's recap, shall we?

Rum: Banned From Te Deum, and The Elephant in the Room

Rum, my good ol' buddy who I've hardly ever shared a single sentence with online, was recently banned from Te Deum.  This is being discussed publicly over at Cathinfo, in a post where he questions why Sedevacantists aren't more impressive.  I checked to see if rum's Te Deum banishment was officially mentioned at Te Deum, but I haven't seen anything as of the writing of this blog post.

While, in truth, I hardly know rum at all, his situation brings up a few interesting discussion topics worthy of examining.  I do not think that rum is against the sede position, exactly, as he has stated that "I'm not criticizing the sede position."  But he was definitely confused as to why they dropped him.
If any of you care to take a look at my archive of posts over there I'd be surprised if you found anything that made me ban-worthy, or anything that made me warrant the constant attacks from VoxPopulisuxx and the silence of the other mods and admin.
While it was speculated that they booted him for saying things over at Cathinfo, and that perhaps the lack of an announcement was an oversight, I'm sure that the Te Deum leadership will get around to mentioning the reasoning at some point in the near future.

Often, when I try to imagine running my own hangout place for you folks, I imagine myself being so laid back about it, that I might accidentally be unintentionally lax in important announcements.  (Such is my respect for you all to have your public say and discussions in a place that announces itself as a "discussion forum.")

A few posts later in that thread, however, revealed some unfortunate words passed from rum to the Te Deum moderator, likely explaining the ban.  I think one of those words was "nutball."  (Once again, my dear friends.  Should I ever decide to open up for business, you can call your beloved leader a nutball all you want.  I'll even wear clown noses to your weddings for photo ops.)

But if rum was in disagreement with the personalities of Te Deum, then why would he continue posting there?

And, of course, this brings up the question of questions for Laramie Hirsch.  If I'm not a sedevacantist, then why do I continue to post or involve myself on a forum of people who are friendly to sedevacantism?

I've been avoiding this topic for a year or so.  I suppose now is the time to broach the matter.

I still disagree with the idea of sedevacantism.  I still think everything I thought about sedevacantism two years ago, when I was invited by TCat to form some opinions on the matter.  The idea is abhorrent to me, and it strikes me as a sort of Protestantism.  I also have an opinion about what sedevacantism will do to the psyche of a person who buys into it.  My colleagues at Te Deum disagree with me strongly about what I think of sedevacantism.  We have fought over the subject and traded insults.  It was great fun for a pugnacious person such as myself.  WitchHunt Wednesday was a hell of a time!

Again, apologies to Father Cekada for referring to him as an insect.  I was informed by several priests that he was an actual priest, and I meant no disrespect to his office.  Shortly after, I apologized to him, and any other priest I could think of who I insulted.  As I stated in that apology: The office of priests demands respect. If there are any other priests, bishops, or cardinals that I have called names, I apologize for them as well.  And as someone recently pointed out, Our Lord told St. Catherine of Siena the following:
But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him."
So, once more, I wish to acknowledge the proper respect of priestly authority of Father Cekada.  People at the time thought I was insincere, but they were wrong in assuming that of me.  And I will restate that I revere the office of any other member of the clergy, wherever he is in the cosmos, if I have in any way derided the priestly authority that God has bestowed upon them.  Pray for the Pope.

Where were we?  Ah yes.  I'm at odds with the philosophy of Te Deum members.  

So why stay there?  Well, in spite of dustups, I am a grown man who has the ability to recover after a fight and get along with people.  I've always looked at such a thing as a necessary act of maturity if you are to function in the adult world.  

I've gotten along with the moderators of Te Deum in the past.  We have history.  We've agreed on one thing or another.  So why not?  No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  It's a discussion forum, and if we have a disagreement...discuss it.  They haven't banned me for who I am or what I believe, so I trust that the good will of my colleagues is mutual.  

After all, aren't we "modern" Catholics supposed to be all "ecumenical" and stuff?  It's the internet.  It's conversation. Be honest, be sincere, and have a good time.

I'm curious to know if this statement will generate some conversation over at Te Deum.  Time will tell, I suppose.  I'm not really seeking attention because of this phenomenon, but I am positive that different people have already asked for an explanation.

Also, before I forget, special thanks to my colleagues at Te Deum for letting me bounce off my dilemma with where to go for Mass.  I felt pretty damned lost this summer, but I am content now with the Society Mass that I have discovered.

Next...


Geremina: Banned from The Echo Chamber for Sensationalistic Posting

Sorry XXXXXXX, you are banned from using this forum!
Banned for 3 days for continual over-the-top and sensationalistic posting with no provided justification.
This ban is set to expire November 07, 2015, 01:14:23 AM.
Catholic doctrine must be "over-the-top and sensationalistic" to Modernist ears.

Sensationalistic?  Well, it's a real word, I suppose. Not a popularly used one, I don't think.  I'm sure that "sensational"--or even "outrageous"--would have conveyed KK's misplaced contempt for zeal a bit better.

Okay, so, apparently, Geremia was banned from a Catholic discussion forum for daring to discuss a Catholic current event.  How dare he!

What with the current modernist confusion coming out of this current pontiff, Geremia reasonably demonstrates his own confusion, as he speculates whether or not the Synod on the Family was attempting to make adulterers (divorced and remarried, and probably gays) appear as if they are actually in some sort of state of grace.

A full THREE pages of conversation passed from the moment of Geremia's disputed statement before You-better-worship-me-I'm-Kaesekopf decided that Geremia wasn't echoing back what he wanted to hear.  And what was within those three pages?  The fingers of a parasite, seeking out whatever way she could find to tear at someone else's or everyone's credibility, complete with official backups, qualifiers, and her standard humble-but-not-humble apologies that serve to only draw attention to herself and cause other people to receive negative or even punitive attention.

This, after the Parasite stoked the fires and helped encourage moderator opinion against him, as is the old woman's evil hobby.  Jayne proceeds with her self-serving tattle:
Geremia has a history of misleading and sensationalistic subject lines. He has received moderator warnings for this.
Because it's your job to discuss for one and all the legitimacy of people in their conversations, right Jayne?  You're like an elementary school hall monitor who complains to the teacher for every perceived wrong that could be construed as detention-worthy.  Pulling old history up for the sake of tarnishing your name is a relished skill for the malignant polyp that is JayneK.  She breathes catty behavior.  And, of course, Greg managed to state what is obvious to everyone on the forum:


Would that we were all held account for our posting histories.  
 Ha!  This is why people like Greg.  There's nothing like good ol' wry English sarcasm to spice up a conversation.

The Tumor's history is loaded with contradictions, betrayals, brown-nosing, insincere apologies and self-victimizing statements--generally, anything that will get her attention.  I am certain that she has prepared qualifiers for just about every true accusation that can be held against her.  

She has, without a doubt, an insidious influence over moderators at The Echo Chamber, who always seem to view Her Royal Shiftiness with starry eyes, covered over with rose-tinted glasses.  As for KK's knee-jerk decision to ban Geremia, it obviously came out of nowhere.  If you look at the thread in question, not too many people were bothered with Geremia's Catholic discussion on the Catholic discussion board.  Everyone seemed content with the conversation, and if anyone was riling emotions, it was the latter woman who I've named already.  Indeed, the ban came from out of the blue, demonstrating KK's usual over-the-top tendency to be emotional, agenda-driven, and continually sensationalistic for actions that always appear to lack justification.

But speaking of the Coat-Tail Rider...


Fiddling About

A Cathinfo poster named Loys, in my earlier mentioned Cathinfo thread, reminds us that in Dante's Inferno, flatterers are immersed in a river of excrement for eternity.  This will all take place within the Second Chasm of Hell. 

And, of course, by talking about flatterers, you all know that I am leading up to a discussion about JayneK.  Who else?  I try to be silent about this woman, but she has this tendency of relapsing into her fire-starting habits of old, and she has made the mistake of mentioning me somewhere.

Jayne the meddler, brown-noser extrordinaire, has once more attempted to assemble one of her time-cherished witchhunts.  Whether she's teaming up with sedevacantists in one moment, or siding with Novus Ordo fans of Pope Francis the next moment, it does not matter--so long as she gets the attention she craves.  Even today's blog post, with it's red-flagging of the-road-hazard-that-is-JayneK--even all of this bad press from me likely fills her ego with glee.

Even now, as she reads this post, she is smiling and nodding her head in agreement.

Jayne mentions me in spite of THE FACT THAT I HAVE PUBLICLY REQUESTED FOR HER TO LEAVE ME ALONE, TIME AND TIME AGAIN.  I have told her clearly, repeatedly, and unmistakably.  Yet, her unrepentant scab-picking hobby continues--in spite of the fact that I've even gone so far as to block her on forums.

Do you understand this?  I am so disinterested in having anything to do with Jayne, and I am so disinterested in hearing anything that she has to say, that I have blocked myself from even seeing her words.  Because she is a highly-contagious virus that eats at the soul of the Online Traditional Catholic Community.

What happened, you ask?

Over at another blog, I have come to a disagreement with a blogger.  I will not refer to her or link to her blog, but you can probably guess who it is by reading the post before this one.  She has asked me to not have anything to do with her, and for the moment, I am respectfully complying with her request.

Jayne does not know how to respectfully comply with requests.

After bowing out from my argument with the blogger, Jayne The Meddler wormed her way through the path I followed and found her way to my discussion.  Her interjection was this:


Hi CIB,
Like you, I have been a target of hateful comments on Laramie's blog, so I can empathize. Unlike you, I still consider myself a traditionalist. I think your criticisms against traditionalists would be more reasonable if you were clearer that your comments only apply to some rather than to all trads. As a traditionalist I feel unfairly attacked by what you said about us. 
I came here from following links so I do not know if you have dealt with this elsewhere, but are you interpreting St. Catherine in light of Canon Law? I'm thinking specifically of Can. 212 §3. "According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige...
It almost seems as if you are coming to my defense with your posts on this lady's blog.  It is regretful and baffling to observe the blogger proceed to disagree with you over and over.  I thought you made good points.  Too bad you started off the exchange with your typical manipulation.  Had you simply left the first sentence out, I would not say a thing, and probably quietly appreciate your "getting my back."  

But your motivation was not to "get my back," and perhaps not to even defend Traditionalism.  You just want to meddle.  When you take little field trips like this outside of the forums, you typically tend to fool everyone--even the atheists--to welcome you with open arms.  It disgusts me to watch it.

But your faux claims of victimization in the first sentence are yet another wretched example of your two-faced nature.  "Oh!  Yes!  I'm a victim, too!  Let's be friends and show that asshole Laramie that he's the hatingest hater that ever hated!"  You raise yourself and your newly-acquired host up, and you lower down the "mutual" enemy.  You co-opt your host and lead them towards your own ends.  Much as you have done at the Echo Chamber, the Gay Sewing Circle, and elsewhere.

But every now and then, your smug arrogance takes a peek out from your various disguises.  Here's a point in conversation where Jayne--revealing her true self for a split second--laughs at the low reputation of another person on Cathinfo.



Jaynek said:
Maybe he just wanted to see how quickly he could get his reputation down to zero.  :)

Kick em while they're down, eh, Jayne?  Pile on!  Everyone else is!  No one will notice you doing it!  It's justified in this case, so why not?  Every day is Witchhunt Wednesday for her!  Is playing groups against one another a genetically Jewish trait?  I don't know, but the case could be made for that with Jayne's online actions. 

And here you are, teaming up with the vulgar man who claims to be Catholic but acts far from it, OHCA, whom I've also blocked:


Wow! This is just like the ending of Casablanca.  Laramie is flying off in his airplane, leaving OHCA and me behind in his ignore file.  Goodbye, Laramie, we'll always have the Hirschfiles.  OHCA, I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Damn straight.  We'll always have the Hirsch Files.  My little spot on the interwebz will remain here for folks like Geremia, rum, TCat, or whoever...that they may say what they've been wanting to say, but refrained for fear of raising their heads and getting targeted.  Conversation has always been welcome with me.  

Jayne says that she is a "target for hateful comments" on my blog.  She is absolutely wrong.  I am not stating this about Jayne with the specific intention of harming her reputation--though this and other posts most certainly do.  No.

My statements about her infiltrating personality are a harbinger.  Road signs.  Flares.  Warning beacons in space to keep your craft out of the asteroid field that is JayneK's manipulations.  Too many people who don't know the woman will swing by with their default good will, and they will automatically assume that this woman is filled with the same good will that they have.  People often cannot comprehend that certain people in society exist at a baser level than they do.

However, we are to be harmless as doves and as wise as serpents.  And so, for the umpteenth time, I warn you people to avoid JayneK.

I will continue to block her (and OHCA) on Cathinfo.  I have no interest in having anything to do with her.  At all.  In the past, I have repeatedly asked her to "get out" of my conversations, yet she obstinately refuses to respect my sincere request.  I am certain she will obstinately refuse to leave me alone in the future--thus revealing her duplicity.

When that time comes, and she rears her head in my life again, I will tell you all about it.  That way you will know that her evil continues.

Here is a picture of Two Face.



UPDATE 11/16/15:  So, Jayne's decided to carry on and engage the Novus Ordo Catholic at her blog, earning herself a post typed out to her specifically.  Just like yours truly.  It should be an interesting discussion to read.

Unfortunately, she remains unrepentant and nasty as ever:
CIB, I hope you don't mind if I leave a message for Laramie here. He has forbidden me to mention his name and is terribly offended that I included his name in a comment here. He has written a long rant on his blog about how evil I am in order to punish me for committing such a terrible crime. (Although he actually did agree with my comment.)
I just want to go on record that I am unmoved by his tantrums and will mention his name whenever I wish. Laramie. Laramie. Laramie.
Thank you, CIB.

The co-opting continues.  I was actually awaiting your response here at homebase--if you dare approach.  There will always be an open comment form waiting for your apology and your pledge to keep away.

She further stated:

I was being childish and petty to make a point of mentioning Laramie like that. I would have deleted it if you had not already responded to it. I look forward to your new post.

Yes, you were.  Just as you were childish with the former comment to CIB.  I only want one thing from you, Jayne.  Leave me be.  Go, and leave me be, and I will reciprocate.  Be a Catholic for a change, and conduct yourself as one.  If you don't mention me anymore, then I will eventually, in the fullness of time, forget about your whole shenanigan.  Otherwise, if you keep pestering me, I will continue to casually catalog your nonsense for the world to see and enjoy.


Thursday, November 12, 2015

LH vs CIB: Part 3

This reply to Catholic in Brooklyn is a part of a continued conversation about whether or not The Dialogues of St. Catherine of Siena condemn Traditionalist Catholic criticism of clergy. I've maintained that they do not, while Catholic in Brooklyn argues that The Dialogues do condemn such criticism.

In this reply, I will limit myself to responding to her blog post--which focuses on responding to me personally. I will not be responding to the comment box, except for one particular comment.

Cecil Kennedy, in arguing for the Traditionalist's cause, began by telling Catholic in Brooklyn (CIB): 

"What Hirsch, myself, and other traditional Catholic posters in the past have been trying to get across to you--" 

 Stop right there. Let's be realistic. There is no getting anything across to CIB. By discussing various errors on her part, each tangent splits into two or three more tangents. Convincing and "getting across" was never my expectation, anyway. There is always hope for that. But I--and hopefully CIB--look at this conversation as an opportunity to flex the mind's muscle and to put our beliefs and knowledge to the test. 

Conversations such as this are good for refining arguments. For you and I, CIB's presentation of St. Catherine of Siena is an opportunity to critically look at an erroneous conclusion. I expect more arguments of this very kind to emanate from other modernist and Freemasonic-friendly Catholics in the future. Someone needs to break ground in addressing this, however, and it started with me. It won't end with me, though, to be sure.

Yes, CIB, I disagree with just about every point you make. Though, there is a moment or two when we actually agree on something, but it seems as though you were talking past me or just looking for things to needlessly pick at.
 
You state that you love Traditional Catholicism. Yet, you continue to demonstrate that you do not understand it. It seems as if you are one of those people who says: "Oh, yes. I think the Latin Mass is beautiful. But I much prefer my weekly Protestantized Mass with 'Father Love Everything.'" It is as though the Tridentine Latin Mass--and the 2000-year historical traditions of the Church--are just some kind of a porcelain doll to put on a shelf of keepsakes. Adding insult to injury, you state: "My problem is with traditionalists." This is clear and obvious. You're basically stating that you find Traditional Catholicism quaint, but you hate everyone who practices it.

Please do not be surprised that I am disinterested in answering all of your points in every blog post involved, and every comment that you make. I've not the time to behead a hydra. However, your out-of-context statements about St. Catherine of Siena merit some academic attention from my part. Others will contribute in the fullness of time.  (This has already begun.)

I will refer to your disputed sections from my previous blog post according to their number. I will mark the new sections of this current blog entry with letters, instead of numbers. 


St. Catherine before Pope Gregory XI at Avignon
By Sebastiano Conca



* * *
 
A. Your first contention with my blog response to you is about my point #1. You quote and then argue the following:
"Christ on earth, then, has the keys to the blood. If you remember, I showed you this in an image when I wanted to teach you the respect laypeople ought to have for these ministers of mine, regardless of how good or evil they may be, and how displeased I am with disrespect. . . . These are my anointed ones, and therefore it has been said through Scripture, 'Dare not touch my christs.' Therefore, a person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers."
You correctly point out that this portion which I omitted contains the statement, "Civil law has no power whatever to punish them; this right belongs solely to the one who has been appointed to rule and to serve according to divine law.
 
But do you honestly believe that God the Father was referring only to civil government entities in this passage? If that is the case, who is the Father referring to when he says, "I wanted to teach you the respect laypeople ought to have for these ministers of mine"? Your implication is that the Father is saying that it is wrong for civil authorities to oppose the priesthood, but Catholic laypeople are free to treat priests in whatever manner they choose. God the Father plainly says that laypeople are to respect priests "regardless of how good or evil they may be." There is nothing to indicate here that this is referring only to civil authorities.

MY RESPONSE: Yes. Study history. Understand St. Catherine of Siena's time. It was the 1300s. In just two centuries, the strife and greed of local kings would eventually lead up to the Protestant Revolt, which has been eroding the Western World ever since. You are the one who implies that I argue that laypeople may treat priests in whatever manner they choose. But, I do not argue for that at all, nor have I read any Traditionalist Catholics who argue for that end. It was important that the people of that time retain an awareness of the priest's authority under God to issue out the Sacraments, in order that no one lose sight of that fact and end up becoming a Martin Luther. Unfortunately, Martin Luther's rebellion happened anyway.

B. You draw from my point #2, and you begin to quote me. 
"These words from God to St. Catherine are discussing how His ministers—his christs—are not to be subject to the secular authority. God's ministers are not to be either punished or persecuted by them."
You then make a very confusing statement:
"Now, what did these persecutions of priests by secular authorities resemble? Well, we know that they lost an appreciation for the reality of the Eucharist. God expresses great concern that His children have turned away from that sacrament."
If I understand correctly, you are saying that the government's persecution of the Church resulted in a loss of "appreciation for the reality of the Eucharist" and caused "His children" to turn away from the sacrament. I think you are saying that this is why God the Father was so upset with the persecution of the Church. Where do you get that from? It just makes no sense to me. 
 
MY RESPONSE: Where do I get that from? I get it from opening a history book and studying the Avignon Papacy. This is the time of the oft-nicknamed "Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy." 

St Catherine Exhorting Gregory XI to Return to Rome
by Calvi Allesandro
 The Dialogues were transcribed during this conflict between the pope and the French crown, among other royal secular powers. When taking in the historical context of St. Catherine's time--a woman who worked hand-in-hand with pope Gregory XI to move the papacy back to Rome--it is obvious that God Himself was also working hand-in-hand with St. Catherine to achieve a positive end. 
 
Indeed, there was most definitely a loss of appreciation for the Eucharist. Just look at how the papacy was being passed around in Southern Europe like a trifle. Recall what I showed you in my last response, about how the Florentines received St. Catherine. Consider how seven popes during this time in Avignon fell under the influence of the French Crown, like some kind of an annexed kingdom. What were the popes of that day to the French crown? Jesters? 

 And finally, consider the petty incident of the antipopes who came after pope Gregory XI and Urban VI. The papacy--the respect that the clergy ought to have commanded--was turning into a ridiculous disgrace. How could the people NOT lose sight of the priest's authority in this climate? How could Martin Luther and King Henry VIII NOT emerge as rebellious victors from this toxic stew? Europe had lost sight of who God and His priests were.
 
Civil authority lessened the importance of the priest and his role with the Eucharist.

C. Still on my point #2, you cast the typical smug and baseless offense that is expected in these conversations.  CIB begins, stating:

You try to prove your point by using this partial quote from the Dialogue:
"It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them, not for what they are in themselves, but for the power I have entrusted to them, if you would receive the holy sacraments of the Church. For if you refuse these when it is in your power to have them, you would live and die condemned."
You accuse me of taking statements out of context, but here you have shown us how it is really done.
MY FIRST RESPONSE IN PART C: Wrong, Catholic in Brooklyn. I have provided a complete quotation, from the beginning of the sentence to the very end of it.  For transparency's sake, I've even provided a completely transcribed copy of the passage in question on my blog--for one and all--so that people can read the entire disputed section. 
 
You make sort of the same point several times from here. Rather than cutting and pasting an entire passage, and in the interests of keeping this shorter and tidier, I will mimic your style select some key statements that you have made on your blog post to me. Brace yourself, for I shall now jump forward a few times, and I will use ellipses, as you have. However, this should not be a problem, since your argument with me is public and available to everyone, should they want to read the greater context.

CIB states:

First of all, if the Father was talking about civil authorities, he would use the word "they" instead of "you." He is clearly talking to anyone - be they laity of the Church or civil authority - who reads His words to St. Catherine...

...As can be plainly seen when the two sentences you reference are put into context, it is clear that God the Father is talking about lay people in the Church as well as civil authorities.

...However, you conveniently omit the other reference in this footnote. That is Luke 10:16, which says:

The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.

Laramie, do you really expect us to believe that this refers only to civil authorities and not to every person on earth, including, and maybe most especially, the laity of the Church?
St. Catherine Assaulted by Florentine Soldiers
by Galgano Perpignani
MY SECOND RESPONSE IN PART C: 

Yes. I expect readers to understand that God is referring to the civil turmoil that St. Catherine was enmeshed in. God was not making brand new public revelations through St. Catherine. Public revelation ended with the last book of Sacred Scriptures. In order to make His point about St. Catherine's dilemma, the Lord directed a general truth towards the secular authority. That was the whole issue--the whole problem that St. Catherine was trying to deal with. Was God telling everyone to never ever criticize or publicly call out priests who are erroneous in their duty? No. Erroneous and heretical priests were not the problem in the 1300s.  Priests had yet to be as heretical and revolutionary as Luther.  The problem was corrupted, sinful, worldly priests--priests who were worldly enough to not have their God-given authority taken seriously by the likes of Florentine politicians.  The problems of erroneous and heretical priests--the kind that leave us no choice but to publicly call them out--are problems belonging to our time, as well as the time of the Arian heresy.
D. Still trapped on point #2 from my original rebuttal, CIB quotes Laramie:

So, the civil authority is lessening the importance of the priests' ability to consecrate the Eucharist.
That really makes no sense. Where do you read that because the Church was being persecuted, the laity no longer saw the importance of the Eucharist?

MY RESPONSE: This makes perfect sense. A reading of St. Catherine's life, her letters, a look at the recorded history of the Avignon Popes, and a knowledge of the resulting Protestant Revolution just two centuries later--very much--demonstrates to us that the West lost an emphasis on the reality of the Eucharist. The entire existence of the heretical Protestant sect is a testament of open protest towards priestly authority to consecrate bread and wine. Europe had a millennium of Christian rule, but the by the 1300s, Christian monarchical influence was beginning to teeter, and would eventually fall over into the din of Freemasonic republicanism and Marxism.

When putting The Dialogues into the context of history and the events that surrounded St. Catherine, it is quite obvious that my knowledge on this matter is completely accurate.

E. This next contention is with my point #3 in my rebuttal. This problem that you have with me here, I think, arises from a lack of critical reading skills. I will do my best to keep this clear by simply cutting and pasting the entire dilemma from your blog. CIB begins by saying:

In your (Laramie's) third point, you accuse me (CIB) of making an out-of-context statement when I wrote:

"Through St. Catherine of Siena, God the Father then gives three reasons why persecution of His christs is worse than any other sin: 'The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me.'"

You try to prove your point with the following:

"If you had simply quoted the leadup to this 3-part list of God's reasons, people would see that there is a bigger picture, as is evident here:
"There are many reasons that make this sin more serious than any other, but I will tell you of three principal ones. The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me."
"So, when God says "reasons that make this sin more serious," we ask "what sin is God talking about?" The answer: Irreverence towards the priest's ability to consecrate the Eucharist. Again, there is a difference between a priest's priestly ability and his mortal, sinful inclinations."

Again, Laramie, I have no idea how you come up with this conclusion, because the context doesn't bear it out at all. How does "reasons that make this sin more serious" translate to "irreverence towards the priest's ability to consecrate the Eucharist"? Where does God the Father say this?

MY RESPONSE:  That is exactly what God the Father states.  However, I did not include the entire passage from The Dialogues in point #3. The post was already long, and I had assumed you had your own copy of Suzanne Noeffke's translation at your disposal. Perhaps I assumed too much. I thought that you read most of the passage, and that you would not require me to make these connections for you. 

To spell it out as plainly as I can, God is talking about "reasons that make this sin more serious." So, we are left with a bit of a puzzle if we don't have the entire passage. What is "this sin" referring to? We are left with an abstract noun. The antecedent of this abstract noun--the phrase that describes "this sin"--is found in the previous parts of the passage. I will provide the entire lengthy passage below, and I will highlight the antecedent in blue and the abstract noun in red.
But by not paying me reverence in the persons of my ministers, they have lost respect for the latter and persecuted them because of the many sins and faults they saw in them. If in truth the reverence they had for them had been for my sake, they would not have cut it off on account of any sin in them. For no sin can lessen the power of this sacrament, and therefore their reverence should not lessen either. When it does, it is against me they sin.  There are many reasons that make this sin more serious than any other, but I will tell you of three principal ones.
The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me.

The second is that they are violating my command, for I forbade them to touch [my christs]. They scorn the power of the blood they received in holy baptism, for they disobediently do what I have forbidden. They are rebels against the blood because they have become irreverent persecutors, like rotten members cut off from the mystic body of holy Church. And if they persist in this irreverent rebellion and die in it, they will end in eternal damnation. Still, if even at the end they humble themselves and admit their sin and want to be reconciled with their head--even though they cannot do it actually--they will receive mercy. But let no one count on having the time for this, since no one can be certain of it.

The third reason this sin is more serious than any other is that it is committed deliberately and with selfish malice. They know they cannot do it in good conscience, but they do it nonetheless and sin. And it is a sin committed in perverse pride without any bodily pleasure. Indeed, both body and soul are eaten up by it. Their souls are eaten up because they are deprived of grace and chewed up by the worm of conscience. Their material possessions are consumed in the service of the devil. And their bodies die of it like animals.
When not paying God reverence in the persons of his ministers, and when assuming that the power of His Sacrament is lessened, the Florentines and other authorities sinned.

Anyone who fails to revere the proper authority of priests to consecrate the Sacrament have sinned.  This fact extends all the way from Talmudic Jews, to Mohammed, to Martin Luther, to John Hagee.  In other words, as I stated before, "[W]hen God says 'reasons that make this sin more serious,' we ask 'what sin is God talking about?' The answer: Irreverence towards the priest's ability to consecrate the Eucharist." 

* * *

And now, to address some points that do not deal with St. Catherine of Siena.

F. CIB: Laramie, I know you read the traditionalist blogs.  You said so in your comments to me.  You know that Louie Verrecchio has accused Pope Francis of hating the Church and trying to destroy it.  You know that Mundabor calls Pope Francis an evil clown and also accuses him of trying to destroy the Church.  You know people like Michael Voris are constantly attacking the bishops and priests of the Church, calling them wicked and quite literally condemning them to hell.  Just read Pewsitter.  The entire purpose of that site is to link to the Catholic bloggers who make the most vicious attacks against the Church.

MY RESPONSE:  If the clergy are behaving  heretically, the laity have a right to defend themselves--as St. Thomas Aquinas will attest.  Please point out statements from any of these sources in which these laymen are telling the rest of the faithful to ignore the priestly authority.  Please point out where Verrecchio says he wants to ignore Apostolic succession and start his own brand of Lutheranism.  Please show me where Voris tells us that, since the priests are abusing their authority, we should stop recognizing their authority to consecrate the Eucharist.

G. CIB QUOTES ME AT LENGTH:
Traditional Catholics do their best to exercise charity towards both God as well as their neighbors by informing society of the constant Modernist heresies exercised by clergy in the various levels of the Church's hierarchy—since so many priests are modernists and do not warn their flock about such dangers. In fact, it is a Spiritual Work of Mercy when Traditionalist Catholics attempt to right the wrongs of Modernist priests.
In fact, I daresay, the Traditionalist Catholic is fulfilling several spiritual works of mercy when attempting this kind of duty. Consider them: instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, admonishing sinners, bearing wrongs patiently (as I do from your posts), to forgive offences willingly, comforting the afflicted, and praying for the living and the dead.
CIB THEN CONCLUDES:

Do you see what you are doing? You are setting up the traditionalists as the Magesterium of the Church.

MY RESPONSE:  No.  I am not setting up Traditional Catholics as the Magesterium of the Church.  I am setting up the Traditionalist Catholics as the correct witnesses of an ongoing 60-year corruption--that even the Holy Mother Herself has warned us about.  Again, I boldly argue that my side is right, and that your embrace of modernist New World Order novelty is wrong.

H.  CIB STATES:  You are telling people that if they are looking for spiritual guidance, then they need to forget about the priests, bishops and pope.

MY RESPONSE:  Again, you are wrong.  Traditional Catholics are generally known to go to Mass every week, if not every day, where they are offered the Eucharist by a Catholic priest, who was ordained by a Catholic bishop, who is ultimately selected by the Pope.  Your conclusion is ignorant and emotional.  Michael Voris was right when he said that "Not everyone in the world has the intellectual heft to understand some of the nuances involved in these things."

I.  CIB ACCUSES TRADITIONALISTS OF TWISTING ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, AND YOU PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION FROM HIM.  (THE BOLD IS MY EMPHASIS.)

To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith.  But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."
MY RESPONSE:  You quoted St. Thomas Aquinas, giving the full quotation--as though the entire quotation will somehow abrogate the truth that is drawn from it:

J. BUT YOU ARGUE:  Traditionalists make the judgment that every time they perceive a wrong in the Church, that means the faith is endangered and they, therefore, have a right to condemn Church authority.

MY RESPONSE:  This is because every time there is a wrong in the Catholic Church, the faith is endangered.  And, again, Traditionalists are not condemning Church authority.  They are condemning heretical "pastoral approaches," the soft Marxism, and the imprudent decisions of the men entrusted with that authority.  Traditionalists, largely, have the ability to distinguish between a priest's authority, and the man who is the priest.

Your ignorance on this passage betrays your larger ignorance of the Church's current dilemma.  What Traditional Catholics--and this includes priests, mind you--have recognized since 1968 (and before) is that the Church is truly in a state of emergency.  You might be enjoying ballerina clown Masses, but most laity in the times before ours would recognize such things--including the near-acceptance of homosexuality and divorce from our cardinals--as an utter sacrilege.  The faith is endangered.  Falling numbers of practicing Catholics since "The Summer Of Love" will attest to that.

Again, our Lady has warned us time and again that this Freemasonic rot would infiltrate the Church, and that there would be a point at which it would seem as if there were no Christians left.  Priests who are not New World Order sell-outs will tell you this.  There are many.

Your embrace of Cardinal Kasper and your condemnation of Cardinals Pell and Burke are cartoonish, funny, and typical.  Where is your "respect for Magisterial authority" when it comes to your criticism of the latter two?  You are being one-sided and utilizing a double-standard.

K. YOU CLAIM: We as laity have not been given special graces to understand every situation and see exactly how Christ is working in the Church and the world.

I RESPOND: Even when you say this, you are still wrong to a degree.  True, neither laity, nor anyone, has the graces to understand every situation.  But it was Father Paul Ripperger, exorcist--a confronter of the demons themselves--who informs us that "it is a gift from God to have this awareness of Magisterial problems, and it is up to an individual to figure out what to do with/how to handle such a gift."  You are quite wrong on this.

Will you also consider Fr. Ripperger, an exorcist priest who successfully drives away demons, as "a danger to the Faith?"  Will you, yet again, hypocritically "condemn Church authority?"


L. I POSIT THAT: Traditionalists are the best of Catholics, and not the worst, as you continue to maintain.  They do have a superior understanding of the Faith.  They are stronger, to be sure.  And others are too weak to deal with troubling realities.  That much has been proven.

Too many Westerners carry a weird guilt complex around that makes them feel as though they owe the world reparations, and this effeminate attitude towards life has created a generation of impotent "men without chests."  I, however, refuse to be numbered among such people, and I will boldly tell you and all other enemies of Traditionalists that we are right, and that you are wrong.  Our numbers are growing, and the New Church is shrinking.  When Pope Benedict XVI's vision of the future Church comes true--and we find that the Catholic Church is smaller and stronger than its previous over-inflated, shallow self--you will find that the core of that remnant will be comprised of Traditionalist Catholics.

If, as you say, you've heard this all before, and this all "tires" you, then return to watching that hideously vulgar "Deadwood" series on HBO.  It's not something I typically would watch or recommend to my kids, but if it suits your fancy, then, as the hell-bound occultist Aleister Crowley once said, "Do what thou wilt."



M. YOU CONCLUDE:  I find it interesting that you do not use this statement from God the Father as recorded by St. Catherine of Siena (Section 116, page 216)
For this reason, no one has excuse to say, "I am doing no harm, nor am I rebelling against holy Church. I am simply acting against the sin of evil pastors." Such persons are deluded, blinded as they are by their own selfishness. They see well enough, but they pretend not to see so as to blunt the pricking of conscience. If they would look, they could see that they are persecuting not these ministers but the blood. It is me they assault, jut as it was me they reverenced. To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to me. For I have said and I say it again: No one is to touch my christs. It is my right to punish them and no one else's. 
Laramie, we know that a priest can validly celebrate Mass, consecrate the Eucharist, give us absolution and perform his other priestly duties no matter what the state of his soul.  That is because the priest is not doing it.  Jesus Christ is doing it through him.  That is why God the Father says that when you persecute the priest, you are persecuting Him because you are persecuting His Son who is working through the priest.

MY RESPONSE:  Well, thank Heavens, then, that Traditionalist Catholics are not persecuting priests at all.  We are charitably calling them out--as well as modernist laity--for their public errors, and we are warning each other of these errors.  Barack Obama's social policies, Hollywood, Islam, and China, on the other hand, tend to persecute priests pretty damned hard.  Perhaps you should redirect your consternation towards them, the actual villains of our age.

I SHALL END ON THE FINAL QUOTATION THAT YOU PROVIDED FOR ME.
“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him." 
Thank God that Traditional Catholics do not rebel against the Pope!  Hooray that Traditional Catholics have the grace to collectively stay on the narrow path and continue to be obedient and subject to the princes of the Church!  I will leave the rebelling to the Protestants and the Sedevacantists.


 

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

The Great Replacement

“Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian faith is lost, like your false prophet Muhammad.”
-St. Peter Mavimenus


While I don't intend to be a copycat, this video absolutely deserves to go viral.




My thoughts?

The West absolutely deserves this.  I watch this horror with delight, and I take comfort that our freakish system is being so violently devoured.  The Freemasonic Trojan Horse created over the last two centuries deserves--at the least--this soft invasion that we are witnessing today.

Particularly amusing are all of the cut scenes of the politically correct morons who continue to push this insanity on the citizens.  These silver-spoon liberal elitists wouldn't know an invasion if it fell on them.  And it has, by the way.

This invasion of the West is precisely what you get when you mock Jesus Christ and throw your bi-millennium heritage in the garbage.  I mean, honestly, there is a section in this video where the people of the town decide to rally against the Islamic invaders...by having a gay parade.  Such a generation absolutely deserves to be overtaken and replaced by Muslim infidels.  Watching pope after pope kiss a koran is like a continuous repeating image of a king abdicating his throne to the invading barbarians.  Indeed, give up if you aren't even going to bother, then just walk over into that ditch, sit down, and wait.

The continuous barrage of white guilt and lecturing about how Westerners need to find the good in Islam is a river of capitulation.  Such fools laugh at Christ, embrace sodomy, and have no concept whatsoever of Divine Punishment.  Islam is being used as a punishment upon the West.  It is a fitting punishment, in my opinion.  If neither Europe or the Westerners of North America will even screw to save their own species, then they ought to be overcome.  If the West wants to throw away every sensible lesson that men fought and died to learn, then they ought to be overtaken by a society who has never learned those lessons in the first place.  If Westerners are going to throw out their virtues, then it is just that they are replaced by Marxists and Muslims.

The environment of modern-day Western "Civilization" is a fatal blender for the surviving non-contracepted dumb white scumbags and effeminate liberals.  They will be ground up and forgotten.  This is a simple fact.  Having a few religious experiences in a largely secular lifestyle, and only having a kid or two (if even that) before you die from cancer isn't going to cut it.

Face it.  You've lost, people.

The only way you might be able to even resist--not win everything back (you've lost everything)--is to embrace fourth generation warfare and open your dull-witted minds to Christian Monarchy.  This is a measure that Europeans mock and Americans despise.  In fact, I'd swear that I hear a demon howl in the room every time the idea of Christian Monarchy is brought up.  But that makes sense, as America is a Satanic Freemasonic land of evil, amounting to nothing more than a glorified Jewish colony, and a laboratory for liberalism.  So, yes.  Fourth generation warfare and Christian Monarchy are out, here in the land of precipitously dropping IQs.

You won't even be able to go to the store unless you're with a group of people.  So enjoy that.


Only Israel is entitled to have walls :)
"Israel for the Jews!  South America for the South Americans!  Africa for the blacks!  Asia for the Asians!  The West...for Everyone!"

Friday, November 6, 2015

Aurini Listens to Catholics

Congratulations to Davis Aurini for siding with the faithful in the Catholic Church in their battle against the powers of darkness.


Davis Aurini, fighting off a pack of zombie assholes

I've been a fan of Aurini for over a year, now.  His podcasts and other videos have always been fun and amusing to listen to.  Some will argue that the man is pretentious as all get out.  I'd argue that he specifically carries himself in such a way, as it usually upsets the SJWs and limp-wristed gamma liberals.  It is good to have such a spirited, smart, and in-the-game mind to join our ranks in this everlasting Culture War that has been at a fevered pitch for the last two centuries.

Aurini, should I warn you that even the Church is as divided as politics?  That we have Traditionalists who proudly inherit the wisdom of their fathers, versus Modernists who are all too happy to throw out every piece of dogma that predates the 1960s?  Or do you already know this?  I know you follow Ann Barnhardt, so perhaps you already have your head in the game.

Whatever the case, don't lose heart, my friend.  You're a born fighter for this sort of thing.  I'm eager to hear your developing insights in the course of the next few years.




Hirsch out.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

A Disputed Section of The Dialogues

Since an on-going conversation about The Dialogues is occurring, it would probably do to have the complete passage available for the complete context of what God told St. Catherine of Siena.

I've therefore typed out the passage from Noffke's translation below.  This should enable easy cutting and pasting.  Also, it seems as though the passage that we are discussing begin and end at the mentions of St. Sylvester, and so it was his name that I used as my guideline for what to cut out.  The mentioning of St. Sylvester was "the dotted line where I should cut" as it were.    

Refer to this passage, if needed.




* * *

From Susanne Noffke's translation of The Dialogues


Consider those who have gone before them: the gentle Gregory, Sylvester, and the other successors of the chief pontiff Peter, to whom my Truth gave the keys of the heavenly kingdom when he said, "Peter, I am giving you the keys of the heavenly kingdom; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."


Listen well, dearest daughter. By showing you the magnificence of their virtues I shall show you more fully the dignity to which I have appointed these ministers of mine. This is the keyto the blood of my only-begotten Son, that key which unlocked eternal life, closed for so long a time because of Adam's sin. But after I gave you my Truth, the Word, my only-begotten Son, he suffered and died, and by his death he destroyed your death by letting his blood be a cleansing bath for you. Thus his blood and his death, by the power of my divine nature joined with his human nature, unlocked eternal life.


And to whom did he leave the keys to this blood? To the glorious apostle Peter and to all the others who have come or will come from now until the final judgement day with the very same authority that Peter had. Nor is this authority lessened by any sinfulness on their part; nor can that sinfulness deprive the blood or any other sacrament of its perfection, I have already told you that no uncleanness can defile this Sun, nor is its light lost because of any darkness of deadly sin that may be in the minister or in those who receive it. Their sin cannot injure the sacraments of holy Church or lessen their power. But grace is lessened and sin increased in those who administer or receive them unworthily.


Christ on earth, then, has the keys to the blood. If you remember, I showed you this in an image when I wanted to teach you the respect laypeople ought to have for these ministers of mine, regardless of how good or evil they may be, and how displeased I am with disrespect. You know that I set before you the mystic body of holy Church under the image of a wine cellar. In this wine cellar was the blood of my only-begotten Son, and from this blood all the sacraments derive their life-giving power.


Christ on earth stood at the door of this wine cellar. He had been commissioned to administer the blood, and it was his duty to delegate ministers to help him in the service of the entire universal body of Christianity. Only those accepted and anointed by him were to thus minister. He was the head of the whole clerical order, and he appointed each one to his proper office to administer this glorious blood.


Because he has sent them out as his helpers, it is his task to correct them for their faults, and it is my will that he do so. For by the dignity and authority I have bestowed on them I have freed them from slavery, that is, from submission to the authority of temporal rulers. Civil law has no power whatever to punish them; this right belongs solely to the one who has been appointed to rule and to serve according to divine law. These are my annointed ones, and therefore it has been said through Scripture: "Dare not to touch my christs." Therefore, a person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers.


And if you should ask me why I said that this sin of those who persecute holy Church is graver than any other sin, and why it is my will that the sins of the clergy should not lessen your reverence for them, this is how I would answer you: Because the reverence you pay to them is not actually paid to them but to me, in virtue of the blood I have entrusted to their ministry. If this were not so, you should pay them as much reverence as to anyone else, and no more. It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them, not for what they are in themselves, but for the power I have entrusted to them, if you would receive the holy sacraments of the Church. For if you refuse these when it is in your power to have them, you would live and die condemned.


So the reverence belongs not to the ministers, but to me and to this glorious blood made one thing with me because of the union of divinity with humanity. And just as the reverence is tone to me, so also is the irreverence, for I have already told you that you must not reverence them for themselves, but for the authority I have entrusted to them. Therefore, you must not sin against them, because if you do, you are really sinning not against them but against me .

This I have forbidden, and I have said that is is my will that no one should touch them.


For this reason, no one has excuse to say, "I am doing no harm, nor am I rebelling against holy Church. I am simply acting against the sin of evil pastors." Such persons are deluded, blinded as they are by their own selfishness. They see well enough, but they pretend not to see so as to blunt the pricking of conscience. If they would look, they could see that they are persecuting not these ministers but the blood. It is me they assault, just as it was me they reverenced. To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to me. For I have said and I say it again: No one is to touch my christs. It is my right to punish them, and no one else's.


But the wicked show how little they reverence the blood, how little they value the treasure I have given them for their souls' life and salvation. You could receive no greater gift than that I should give you myself, wholly God and wholly human, as your food.


But by not paying me reverence in the persons of my ministers, they have lost respect for the latter and persecuted them because of the many sins and faults they saw in them. If in truth the reverence they had for them had been for my sake, they would not have cut it off on account of any sin in them. For no sin can lessen the power of this sacrament, and therefore their reverence should not lessen either. When it does, it is against me they sin.

There are many reasons that make this sin more serious than any other, but I will tell you of three principal ones.

The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me.


The second is that they are violating my command, for I forbade them to touch [my christs]. They scorn the power of the blood they received in holy baptism, for they disobediently do what I have forbidden. They are rebels against the blood because they have become irreverent persecutors, like rotten members cut off from the mystic body of holy Church. And if they persist in this irreverent rebellion and die in it, they will end in eternal damnation. Still, if even at the end they humble themselves and admit their sin and want to be reconciled with their head--even though they cannot do it actually--they will receive mercy. But let no one count on having the time for this, since no one can be certain of it.


The third reason this sin is more serious than any other is that it is committed deliberately and with selfish malice. They know they cannot do it in good conscience, but they do it nonetheless and sin. And it is a sin committed in perverse pride without any bodily pleasure. Indeed, both body and soul are eaten up by it. Their souls are eaten up because they are deprived of grace and chewed up by the worm of conscience. Their material possessions are consumed in the service of the devil. And their bodies die of it like animals.


So this sin is committed directly against me. It is unmitigated by any profit to the sinner or any pleasure except the sooty spite of pride -- a pride born of selfish sensuality and of that perverse slavish fear that led Pilate to kill Christ, my only-begotten Son, rather than risk losing his power. So do these behave.


All other sins are committed either through stupidity or ignorance or through the sort of malice that, though conscious of the evil being done, sins for the sake of disordered pleasure or profit. Such sinners bring harm to their own soul and offend me and their neighbors -- me because they are not praising and glorifying my name, their neighbors because they are not giving them the joy of their charity. But they are not actually persecuting me, because while they are sinning against me, it is themselves they are harming, and their sin displeases me because of the harm it does to them.


But this is a sin committed directly against me. Other sins have some pretext; they are committed with some excuse, with some middle ground--for I told you that every sin as well as every virtue is realized through your neighbors.

Sin is committed through lack of charity for God and your neighbors, and virtue is practiced out of the warmth of charity. If you sin against your neighbors, you sin against me through them.


If you sin against your neighbors, you sin against me through them.


But among all my creatures I have chosen these ministers of mine. They are my anointed ones, stewards of the body and blood of my only-begotten Son -- your human flesh joined with my divinity. When they consecrate they stand in the place of Christ, my Son. So you see, their sin is directed against this Word, and because it is done to him it is done to me, because we are one and the same. These wretches persecute the blood and so deprive themselves of the treasure and fruit of the blood. Thus I consider their sin, committed not against my ministers but against me, the more serious because the persecution as well as the honor is not (nor do I consider it) owed to them but to me, that is, to this glorious blood of my Son, for we are one and the same. Therefore, I tell you, if all the other sins these people have committed were put on one side and this one sin on the other, the one would weigh more in my sight than all the others. I have shown you this so that you would have more reason to grieve that I am offended and these wretched souls damned, so that the bitter sorrow of you and my other servants by my kind mercy might dissolve the great darkness that has come over these rotten members who are cut off from the mystic body of the holy Church.

But I find hardly anyone who will grieve over the persecution that is waged against this glorious precious blood, while there are many who persecute me constantly with the arrows of disordered love and slavish fear and self-conceit. Blind as they are, they count as honor what is shameful, and as shame what is honorable, that is, to humble themselves before their head.


Through these sins they have risen up and continue to rise up to persecute the blood. I spoke the truth when I told you that they are persecuting me. So far as their intention is concerned, they persecute me in whatever way they can.

Not that I in myself can be harmed or persecuted by them, for I am like the rock that is not hurt by what is thrown at it, but glances it back at the one who threw it. Just so, the impact of the filthy sins they hurl can do me no harm, but their arrows glance back at them poisoned with guilt. This guilt deprives them of grace in this life because they lose the fruit of the blood, and in the end, unless they change their ways through heartfelt contrition and holy confession, they will come to eternal damnation, cut off from me and bound over to the devil. They have, in fact, made a compact, they and the devil, for as soon as they have lost grace they are bound in sin with the chain of hatred for virtue and love of vice. And this chain they have put into the devil's hands with their free choice. This is what he binds them with, for in no other way could they be bound.


This chain binds the persecutors of the blood one with the other, and as members bound up with the devil they have taken on the function of the devils. The devils make every effort to lead my creatures astray, to lure then away from grace and drag them down into the guilt of deadly sin so that others may share the evil that is in themselves. This is what such people do, neither more nor less. As the devil's members, they go about undermining the children of the bride of Christ, my only-begotten Son, undoing them from the bond of charity and binding them up in the wretched chain where they will be deprived of the fruit of the blood along with themselves. The links of this chain are pride and self-importance along with the slavish fear that makes them lose grace rather than risk losing their temporal powers. So they fall into greater confusion than ever, since they have forfeited the honor of the blood. Their chain is welded with the seal of darkness, so that they do not recognize into what great trouble and wretchedness they have fallen and are making others fall. this is why they do not change their ways. They do not know themselves, but blind as they are, they take pride in their own spiritual and bodily ruin.


O dearest daughter, grieve without measure at the sight of such wretched blindness in those who, like you, have been washed in the blood, have nursed and been nourished with this blood at the breast of holy Church! Now like rebels they have pulled away from that breast out of fear and under the pretext of correcting the faults of my ministers -- something I have forbidden them to do, for I do not want [my anointed ones] touched by them. What terror should come over you and my other servants when you hear any mention of that wretched chain of theirs! Your tongue could never describe how hateful it is to me! And worse still, they want to take cover under the cloak of my ministers' sins so as to cover up their own sins. They forget that no cloak can hide anything from my sight. They might well be able to hide from creatures, but not from me, for nothing present nor anything at all can be hidden from me.

I loved you and know you before you came into being.


And this is one reason the wicked of this world do not change their ways: they do not believe in truth, by the light of living faith, that I see them. For if they believed in truth that I see them and their sins, and that every sin is punished and every good rewarded, they would not commit such evil but would turn away from what they have done and humbly ask for my mercy. And I, through my Son's blood, would be merciful to them. But they are obstinate, and so they are rejected by my goodness and because of their sins fall into the ultimate disaster of losing the light and, blind as they are, becoming persecutors of the blood. But no fault on the part of the ministers of the blood can justify such persecution.


I have told you, dearest daughter, something of the reverence that ought to be given my annointed ones no matter how sinful they may be. For reverence neither is nor should be given them for what they are in themselves, but only for the authority I have entrusted to them. The sacramental mystery cannot be lessened or divided by their sinfulness. Therefore your reverence for them should never fail--not for their own sake, but because of the treasure of the blood.


Looking to the contrary, I have shown you ever so little how grave and displeasing to me and how harmful to themselves is the irreverence of those who persecute the blood. And I have shown you the compact they have made against me by binding themselves together in the service of the devil, so that you may grieve the more.


I have told you specifically about this sin because of the persecution of holy Church. And I tell you the same of Christianity in general: anyone who lives in deadly sin is scorning the blood and letting go of the life of grace. But much more displeasing to me and serious for themselves is the sin of those of whom I have spoken specifically.



# # #


Now I would refresh your soul by softening your grief over the darksomeness of those wretched ones with the holy lives of my ministers. I have told you that they have taken on the qualities of the Sun, so that the fragrance of their virtues mitigates the stench, and the lightsomeness of the dark. By this very light I would have you know more deeply the sinful darksomeness o fthose other ministers of mine. So open your mind's eye and contemplate me, the Sun of justice, and you shall see these glorious ministers who by their stewardship of the Sun have taken on the qualities of the Sun.



I have told you about Peter, the prince of the apostles, who received the keys of the heavenly kingdom. Just so, I am telling you about others who, in this garden of holy Church, have been stewards of the light, that is, the body and blood of my only begotten Son. He is the one undivided Sun, and all the Church's sacraments derive their value and life-giving power from his blood. All these of whom I am now telling you were appointed by rank according to their state to be stewards of the Holy Spirit's grace. How have they administered it? By the gracious brightness they have drawn from this true light.



Does this brightness exist by itself? No, for neither can the brightness of grace exist by itself nor can its light be divided: One must either have it whole and entire or not have it at all. Anyone living in deadly sin is by that very fact deprived of the light of grace. And anyone who has grace is spiritually enlightened by knowing me, for I am the giver of grace and of the virtue by which grace is preserved. It is in this light that the soul recognizes the wretchedness of sin and its source, sensual selfishness, and therefore hates it. By hating sin and its source she receives the warmth of divine charity into her will, for the will follows understanding. And she receives the color of this glorious light by following the teaching of my gentle Truth, whence her memory is filled in pondering the blessing of his blood.



So you see, it is impossible to receive this light without also receiving its warmth and color, for all three are fused into one and the same thing. Thus it is that the soul cannot have one of her powers disposed to receive me, the true Sun, unless all three of her powers are disposed together in my name. For as soon as the eye of understanding rises above physical sight by the light of faith and contemplates me, the will follows by loving what the eye of understanding has com eto see and know, and the memory is filled with what the will loves. And as soon as these three powers are ready, the soul shares in me, the Sun, by being enlightened by my power and the wisdom of my only-begotten Son and the mercy of the Holy Spirit's fire.



So you see, the soul's powers have taken on the qualities of the sun. In other words, once these powers have been filled and clothed with me, the true Sun, they behave as the sun does. The sun warms and enlightens, and with its heat makes the earth bring forth fruit. So also these gentle ministers of mine, whom I chose and anointed and sent into the mystic body of holy Church to be stewards of me the Sun, that is, of the body and blood of my only-begotten Son along with the other sacraments that draw life from this blood. They administer it both actually and spiritually by giving off within the mystic body of holy Church the brightness of supernatural learning, the color of a holy and honorable life in following the teaching of my Truth, and the warmth of blazing charity. Thus with their warmth they cause barren souls to bring forth fruit, and enlighten them with the brightness of learning. By their holy and well-ordered lives they drive out the darksomeness of deadly sin and unfaithfulness, and set in order the lives of those who had been living disordered lives in the darkness of sin and the cold that came of their lack of charity. So you see how these ministers of mine are suns because they have taken on the qualities of me the true Sun. By love they have been made to be one thing with me and I with them.



They have all, according to the positions I have chosen them for, given light to holy Church: Peter with his preaching and teaching and in the end with his blood; Gregory with his learning and [his knowledge of] Sacred Scripture and the mirror of his living; Sylvester by his struggles against unbelievers and above all in the disputations and argumentations for the holy faith that he made in deeds as well as in words with the power he received from me...

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

St. Catherine of Siena Does NOT Warn Traditionalist Catholics

This blog post is a reply to a blogger named Catholic in Brooklyn.  I've stopped by her blog a few times during the 2015 Synod, and her vitriolic stance against Traditional Catholicism has compelled me to answer her in at least two of her blog posts.

But this most recent reply is more of a general act for posterity, than a reply to her.  I refuse to allow someone to utilize The Dialogues of St. Catherine of Siena to attack well-meaning faithful laity.  There is much more that can be said in reply to her February 2015 blog post, but I am one man with a limited amount of time.

I've taken my stance, I'm saying what I'm going to say, and that's it.  I've not the time to drag this out, and I've got to be careful how I choose my battles.  I have a lot on my plate in life, so hopefully this will suffice.  And if others want to pick up the torch and further scrutinize the errors of what Catholic in Brooklyn has said, then you are welcome to it.

Now, a more comprehensive outline of how this argument started will be stated later on.  Furthermore, the font, spacing, and indentations will be adjusted in a later update of this post.  So check back in later for the complete narrative.  For now, I merely intend to provide Catholic in Brooklyn with my spotlight, and the rebuttal I have prepared.  If she considers it TL;DR, I wouldn't be surprised.  But what must be said is being said right now.

St. Catherine of Siena

* * *


Dear Catholic in Brooklyn,

I would first like to thank you for setting me on a course of study of St. Catherine of Siena in the past handful of days.  Be assured that I have taken seriously your presentation of the miraculous revelations that God shared with that saint, so much so that I've delved deeply into reading up on the matter.  In fact, this experience has likely set me on a course to continue study of St. Catherine in the foreseeable future. 

First, I must agree that I enjoy the newer translation that you quoted from.  The translator, a Dominican nun named Suzanne Noffke, is the clearest one for the modern ear.  Also, she is well-studied, as her footnotes will attest.  (If anyone is interested in hearing more discussion about what Noffke's research has turned up, might I direct readers to an EWTN program about St. Catherine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvlA9FBAk24 )  I will admit, I was at first cautious about Noffke's work being feminist/modernist spun.  But I am moving away from that conclusion today.

Now, you provided a link to one of your posts which quotes a great deal from Noffke's translation of The Dialogues.  I take God's words to saints very seriously, so I was not going to be rash and cast a quick answer at what you said to me.  Instead, after setting your quotations aside for awhile, and after looking for quite a long time at the material itself (Noffke's translation, Thorold's translation, St. Catherine's letters, etc.), I have concluded that, as a blogger, you tend to take things out of context quite a bit, and your February blog post about Michael Voris is a perfect example of this. 

I will enumerate my different points, so that there is a clear distinction between them and to make reading easier.  I am certain this reply to you will exceed the limit of the permitted comment length.  By the way, the length of this reply—an in-depth rebuttal of only SOME of what you have stated—is precisely why I do not go into the nitty gritty details of every other erroneous statement you make.  I've not the time for it all, as I would then be devoting my life to repairing the errors of Catholic in Brooklyn.

1.  Let's return to the very beginning of your series of quotations of God through St. Catherine of Sienna in The Dialogues.  You state:
"God the Father tells us there is an even worse sin than homosexuality among the clergy.  Beginning on p. 215, St. Catherine quotes God the Father as saying:

'Christ on earth, then, has the keys to the blood. If you remember, I showed you this in an image when I wanted to teach you the respect laypeople ought to have for these ministers of mine, regardless of how good or evil they may be, and how displeased I am with disrespect. . . . These are my anointed ones, and therefore it has been said through Scripture, "Dare not touch my christs." Therefore, a person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers.'
 
However, if we include the missing part of this passage—the section you replaced with ellipses—we get a fuller picture of what God is telling St. Catherine:
" Christ on earth, then, has the keys to the blood. If you remember, I showed you this in an image when I wanted to teach you the respect laypeople ought to have for these ministers of mine, regardless of how good or evil they may be, and how displeased I am with disrespect. You know that I set before you the mystic body of holy Church under the image of a wine cellar. In this wine cellar was the blood of my only-begotten Son, and from this blood all the sacraments derive their life-giving power.

Christ on earth stood at the door of this wine cellar. He had been commissioned to administer the blood, and it was his duty to delegate ministers to help him in the service of the entire universal body of Christianity. Only those accepted and anointed by him were to thus minister. He was the head of the whole clerical order, and he appointed each one to his proper office to administer this glorious blood. 
Because he has sent them out as his helpers, it is his task to correct them for their faults, and it is my will that he do so.  For by the dignity and authority I have bestowed on them I have freed them from slavery, that is, from submission to the authority of temporal rulers.  Civil law has no power whatever to punish them; this right belongs solely to the one who has been appointed to rule and to serve according to divine law.  There are my annointed ones, and therefore it has been said through Scripture: "Dare not to touch my christs."  Therefore, a person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers."

The ellipses between your quotations betray crucial missing information.  Our God is talking to St. Catherine in the context of what was going on in 14th Century Italy.  This was a time when royalty and the Church were intertwined, and abuses between the two were occurring frequently.  Kings often felt they had the right to name bishops, the bishops and cardinals felt they had the right to make kings, and so on.  The Church tried meddling in state affairs, and vice versa.  At that point in time, the pope was not even based out of Rome.  There were many tensions occurring in those days, and St. Catherine was attempting to heal these wounds between the secular civil society and the Church as she stood beside Pope Gregory XI, whom she endearingly referred to as her sweet "Babbo." 

2. These words from God to St. Catherine are discussing how His ministers—his christs—are not to be subject to the secular authority.  God's ministers are not to be either punished or persecuted by them.  Now, what did these persecutions of priests by secular authorities resemble?  Well, we know that they lost an appreciation for the reality of the Eucharist.  God expresses great concern that His children have turned away from that sacrament:

"It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them, not for what they are in themselves, but for the power I have entrusted to them, if you would receive the holy sacraments of the Church.  For if you refuse these when it is in your power to have them, you would live and die condemned."

So, the civil authority is lessening the importance of the priests' ability to consecrate the Eucharist.  You know, many scholars of St. Catherine have expressed amazement of this formerly illiterate woman for having the sophisticated ability to separate 1. the priest's God-given authority and powers from 2. his prudential judgements as a fallible human being.  As I read your posts, I am uncertain that you have the ability to distinguish these two aspects of the men who make up the priesthood. 

3. In your February post, you make this out-of-context statement:
"Through St. Catherine of Siena, God the Father then gives three reasons why persecution of His christs is worse than any other sin: 'The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me.'"

If you had simply quoted the leadup to this 3-part list of God's reasons, people would see that there is a bigger picture, as is evident here:

"There are many reasons that make this sin more serious than any other, but I will tell you of three principal ones.  The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me."

So, when God says "reasons that make this sin more serious," we ask "what sin is God talking about?"  The answer: Irreverence towards the priest's ability to consecrate the Eucharist.  Again, there is a difference between a priest's priestly ability and his mortal, sinful inclinations.

4. If we look at Suzanne Noeffke's translation, and we read the sentence you quoted: " The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me," we can see that Noffke provided a footnote.  In this footnote, if you check the "Classics of Western Spirituality" book you are quoting from, you will see that Noffke relates to events that transpired around an event in Florence, in which St. Catherine and Pope Gregory XI was being snubbed by the officials there.  Here is a copy of what transpired, in a book of her collected letters, titled, "St. Catherine of Siena as Seen in Her Letters": 

"All now depended upon the arrival of the Florentine ambassadors ; but these gentlemen failed to appear, while Florence continued to pursue a contumacious policy. The insult, alike to the Pope and to Catherine, was obvious. Avignon jested, shrugged shoulders, finally sneered. Gregory gently told Catherine the truth — that her friends had played her false. Few more mortifying situations than that in which she found herself could be conceived.

"The spirited letter which follows was written ten days after her arrival. She speaks, as usual, without reserve, but it is noteworthy that the letter contains no word of personal reproof beyond the quiet statement : " You might bring great shame and reproach upon me. For nothing but shame and confusion could result if I told the Pope one thing and you another." When at last the ambassadors arrived, they brought small comfort, for they refused to confer with Catherine. In the second letter, written after they had come to a personal friend in Florence, she tells the situation frankly, and with dignity, but still with remarkable freedom from personal bitterness. In this time of test, no lower element than sorrow for the failure of her cause appears to have been present in her mind."

Okay, so, persecution?  Certainly.  The Florentine officials were quite rude and irreverent to the Holy Father and St. Catherine.  I have yet to see any Traditionalist Catholic publication encourage this kind of smug practice towards any prelate.  I would most definitely say that the Florentine officials on that day were "irreverent persecutors" of the Holy Father, Pope Gregory XI.

5. The third part of your quoted 3-part list of God's reasons has another footnote attached.  Noffke refers to another letter of St. Catherine, in which she is remembering the dreadful behavior she has been witnessing from the secular civil powers of her day.  While Noffke is quoting a different section from St. Catherine's letter, I think that the following passage from the same letter to Pope Gregory XI will demonstrate the point:

"Yours we are, father! I know and recognize that they all feel that they have done wrong; but although they have no excuse for their evil deeds, nevertheless it seemed to them that they could not do otherwise on account of the many sufferings and unjust and iniquitous things that they endured from bad shepherds and governors. For, breathing the stench of the life of many rulers whom you know yourself to be incarnate demons, they fell into the worst of fears, so that they did like Pilate, who, not to lose the government, killed Christ; so did they, for not to lose the state, they persecuted you."
    
St. Catherine is bemoaning the irreverence of "many rulers whom You know yourself to be incarnate demons" –irreverence towards the priests—and she is also mourning those people who are trapped in the perverse fear of losing their government jobs, should they defy the civil power.  Once again, if we consider the full context of what God was saying to St. Catherine in The Dialogues, an entirely new picture unfolds before us. 

6. Here is another quotation that you provided:

"Other sins have some pretext; they are committed with some excuse, with some middle ground--for I told you that every sin as well as every virtue is realized through your neighbors . . . If you sin against your neighbors, you sin against me through them."

Once more, your ellipses cut out an important sentence.  God states: "Sin is committed through lack of charity for God and your neighbors, and virtue is practiced out of the warmth of charity."

Traditional Catholics do their best to exercise charity towards both God as well as their neighbors by informing society of the constant Modernist heresies exercised by clergy in the various levels of the Church's hierarchy—since so many priests are modernists and do not warn their flock about such dangers.  In fact, it is a Spiritual Work of Mercy when Traditionalist Catholics attempt to right the wrongs of Modernist priests. 

In fact, I daresay, the Traditionalist Catholic is fulfilling several spiritual works of mercy when attempting this kind of duty.  Consider them: instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, admonishing sinners, bearing wrongs patiently (as I do from your posts), to forgive offences willingly, comforting the afflicted, and praying for the living and the dead. 

The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.  And if a Traditionalist Catholic were to refuse the latter spiritual works of mercy that I mentioned, then I would hazard to guess that such a person was either intentionally or inadvertently being indifferent towards their fellow laity, most of whom are confused in these Freemasonic times of ours.        

7.  Traditionalist Catholics are not guilty of the sin of detraction when publicly discussing the public errors of priests.  We have already discussed the circumstances that justify public criticism of bishops and even the pope.  St. Thomas Aquinas provides those justifications. (“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”) But furthermore, when a priest's public misdoing is already notorious, or their sentence has been passed by a competent legal tribunal, then we can refer to that priest's error unless, of course, the priest has reformed himself.
 
Traditionalist Catholic journalists are not committing detraction.  They are within their rights to inveigh against corruption.  Historians, also, have an even greater latitude to talk about the errors of past prelates.  Neither class is committing detraction—and this includes Michael Voris, by the way.  I would recommend a good hard look at the definition of detraction over at New Advent. 

8. Even if we want to apply God's standards for the civil authorities of St. Catherine's day to just regular laymen, we can still see that good Traditional Catholics do not violate God's commandments. 
Traditionalist Catholics do not disrespect priests.  They call them out for their public errors, most certainly.  But we all know that erroneous priests require respect—and if we don't know this, then other Traditionalist Catholic voices tend to police one another, when the occasion arises.  Traditionalist Catholics do not try to "touch God's christs," nor call out for any kind of mob violence whatsoever.
  
Nor do Traditionalist Catholics seek to personally punish God's ministers.  We all await the day for the Church authorities to get their act together so that they reign in the Freemasonic corruption that has been spawning in the hierarchy for well over a century.  In fact, this is why we pray for the Pope—even at SSPX Mass. 

Prayer for our troubled clergymen is often called for amongst Traditionalist Catholics.  Consider this recent public statement by Charles Coulombe:

"The tragedy of this Pontificate thus far is that the people His Holiness cozens up to are those who will happily betray him; the ones he abuses or neglects would gladly die for him. But this is far from the first time we have seen this in the history of the Papacy. Bl. Pius IX followed a similar path from the time of his election - until he saw his Prime Minister slaughtered in front of him, after which he became the stalwart Pontiff we know. It may be that this latest betrayal of the Pope by people in whom he reposed trust shall perform the same service for him. But in any case, we need to pray very hard for the Holy Father. It is not just that he is surrounded by wolves as his predecessor was (and for whom we did not apparently pray enough). It is also that he appears, thus far, unaware of who they are. May he suffer no further unpleasantries of this sort. "

Today's Traditionalist laity assume no right to authority whatsoever.  Traditionalists do not persecute the Holy Church; we only want to see it righted back onto Her course—and She will be righted, one day, we have no doubt.  But we will fight and carry the banner for the sake of God and His Truth.  We understand the reverence that a priest's authority requires—even if he is a pedophile.  A priest is a priest forever, even in Hell.  This is without doubt.    

I have yet to see a Traditional Catholic disgrace a clergyman in the manner that Pope Gregory XI was disgraced in Florence, Italy.  I have yet to hear of physical abuse of a priest by a Traditionalist Catholic.  Much of the derision and slander about clergy come from sedevacantists who do not believe His Holiness is even the pope, and that some of the cardinals and bishops are not even cardinals.  This group is considered schismatic, and they are a minority.  Within the bounds of clergy and laity who are in union with the Catholic Church—and I include the SSPX in this group—derision and slander are, again, policed.  People are often corrected on the forums; I can personally testify to this.  As for the mainstream Traditionalist Catholic media sources, while they are astounded by the levels of abuse they are witnessing, they maintain their respect for the holy offices—separating men's prudential opinions from their priestly authority to administer the sacraments.

Traditionalist Catholics do not seek out to persecute the clergy in whatever way they can.  When we see an abuse, we call it out, we counsel one another when we see despair arise, and we discuss what the Church authorities ought to do.  And we long for God's hand in this matter, for we often think that only He can clear up this mess—a mess that many non-Traditionalist Catholics either do not see or refuse to see.

Yet, even though it may be God who clears up this mess in the end, Traditionalist Catholics will not refuse to carry His standard. 

# # #

So, there you have it.  These are just some of the many points that could be raised about your out-of-context quotations. 

But about that last point I made—about the Catholics who refuse to see the crisis in the Church—I have a little more to add. 

You know, a couple of weeks ago, I was discussing with some colleagues the possibility that some people simply have too weak of a faith to be confronted with these monstrous problems in the Catholic Church right now.  I was beginning to conclude that, perhaps, some simply have weak faith and can't handle it.  After listening to a talk given by Fr. Ripperger, I began to conclude that "it is a gift from God to have this awareness of Magisterial problems, and it is up to an individual to figure out what to do with/how to handle such a gift."

Perhaps I was onto something.  I mean, with this state of emergency that the Church is in, the faithful are walking on a narrow path, to be sure.  And when confronted with the abuses stemming from Vatican II (let alone the Freemasonic infiltration that preceded it), people fall off of this narrow path on either one side or the other.  You have sedevacantists—who are so sensitive and outraged by the abuses they see, that they believe that the Church has collapsed.  And these are the people who tend to cast aspersions and bad nicknames to the pope and the hierarchy.  And on the other side of this narrow path, you have people such as yourself.  You fell off of the path, and close your eyes to the problems, and you mock and disparage those Catholics who keep up the good fight and carry God's banner.  The veracity with which you mock Traditional Catholics is equal to the measure of hostility sedevacantists cast towards the Conciliar clergy.  And this is something you have in common with sedevacantists. 

You know, Christ Himself said that the majority of people were going to go to Hell.  With that in mind, there is a precedent to conclude that the majority of people are either ignorant, or they delude themselves when it comes to reality.  They simply cannot handle it.  You mock—with a broad brush--the idea that Traditionalist Catholics consider a large portion of the clergy to be corrupt:

" But what I see on the Catholic blogosphere is the wholesale condemnation of the Magesterium of the Church. We are told over and over again that the vast majority of these men are evil and are trying to destroy the Church. Therefore, we must rise up in rebellion against them."

First of all, and though I know you won't hear or register this, again, Traditionalist Catholics are not calling for a rebelling against the Church.  We want the Church reformed.  Yes, we call for a counter-revolution.  That is because there has been a modernist Freemasonic revolution unraveling in the Church for generations.  The Church must be restored, not rebelled against.  Yet another out-of-context conclusion of yours.  Secondly, the old saying "The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" is a statement coming from several Church fathers: St. John Chrysostom, St Athanasius, and St. John Eudes.  Of course the majority of our clergy is in serious trouble.  For you to bury your head in the sand when this possibility is presented is not a noble thing for you to do.

I've said all of this before.  I'll say it again.

 In the whole of human history, there have been people who simply could not be faithful to the Catholic Church unless they were living within a few miles of the local parish or Cathedral, they were able to attend Mass every day, there was a monastery or a cloister nearby, most of the community was Catholic, there'd be village festivals and community dinners, marriages arranged, and not too many evil outside sources.  Their priest knew the Faith, and his bishop knew more, confessions were consistent and meaningful, and the Church did not have such Freemasonic problems as She does today.

I believe that God had those people placed specifically in Medieval Europe.

Our time, is different however.  And yet, we still have people who are trapped in that notion that they require the Catholic community of old.  They do need it, actually.  We were made to be social creatures.  But to turn against that in any way seems like poison to them, even if it is necessary.  To be counterrevolutionary, to reject a community that is poisonous for the sake of finding Christ, that is beyond a lot of people.

It is difficult enough just to try to be Catholic.  But then, to split hairs and recognize that the Church is in a state of emergency, that there is a crisis, and that some priests are good while others are bad--clearly that is difficult for liberal Catholics.  Liberal Catholics love their self-congratulatory Masses where they talk about NPR topics.  But conservative Catholics, also, are too afraid to consider the possibility that Lefebvre could have been right.  I think that most conservative Catholics have been too afraid to consider: what if the Church is in a state of emergency?  What if there has been Freemasonic corruption within the Church, and it is trickling from the top down?  What if it is true that many prophecies have described our difficult times, and we are being called to stand against evil powers within the Church?  What if it is emotionally easy to slam the Society as schismatic, while it is intellectually difficult to accept the possibility that yes, technically and perhaps spiritually, the Society has been right since the beginning?

When I think of all of this, I begin to have some sympathy for Michael Voris' position to refuse criticizing the pope.  It is because people, such as yourself, cannot handle the reality that Pope Francis could be the source of many problems in the Church today.  Consider an old March 17th, 2014 video titled, The Pope is Different (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyH2hMdg73w ).  Voris states:
" [The pope's] case must be treated differently because to openly and publicly go after the pope is perceived as going after the Church Herself."

This is certainly true in your circumstance.  Here you are, lambasting all Traditional Catholics for scrutinizing corrupt clergy, and you think we are going after the Church Herself. Voris continues:

" Not everyone in the world has the intellectual heft to understand some of the nuances involved in these things – not necessarily because they are stupid or something, but because they don’t have their noses stuck in this 24 hours a day."

Nuance.  This is the opposite of generalization.  Nuance is the opposite of painting people with broad strokes, as you have.  An awareness of nuance would prevent a person from cherry-picking quotations out of The Dialogues to prove her point.  More from Voris:

"They aren’t historians or philosophers or authors or theologians. THEIR faith is more tender, or perhaps they are recent converts to the One True Faith and this kind of public non-stop attacking, where the Pope is even mocked and coarse terms are applied to him like 'Pope Humble the First' can damage their new found or tender faith."

Ask yourself: is your faith tender?  I may have been right that people have weak faith, and such folks just can't stand the immense pressure of the Church's emergency.  How would the majority of Catholics handle the Arian heresy?  I do not know.  Perhaps this current crisis is giving us a window to see that old heresy once again.  But it is clear you cannot stand either the non-stop attacking from modernists within the clergy, nor the fierce defense of the faithful Catholics who stand for the Church's doctrine.

And yet, Michael Voris and his people will continue to fight the good fight against corruption.  Because it is a spiritual work of mercy to do so.  Many ignorant people will not have their faith shaken in the face of this diabolical deception from corrupt clergy.  Those people are asking for something substantial.  They sense that something is wrong.  It would be indifference—the opposite of love—to leave people hanging when you could help them. 

Voris states in his most recent video, "New Territory" on Nov 2, 2015:

"Do nothing.  That seems to be the only response that is ever considered by churchmen.  But these days do nothing, don't draw attention, don't rock the boat, ignore the controversy, and so forth.  It is precisely this mindset so dominant in the church since at least the end of Vatican II that has contributed to the wreckage we see now."

Wreckage is right.  And now, the Traditional Catholic laity get to act as janitors and clean up a mess that other people made.  People who were more interested in "partying it up with modernism" than they were in keeping the Faith.  I would much rather be creating, inventing, and exploring—rather than fixing the screw-ups of previous generations. 


But so long as other people continue to practice indifference, there will have to be others who mop up the mess.  Thanks a lot for that.