Grave Fear, indeed: “Things that one couldn’t imagine are perpetrated within the Church.”

Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malicesubstantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

Grave or Unjust Fear are concepts that run throughout canon law. In each and every case, the existence of this condition always nullifies whatever action the fear induced — BY THE LAW ITSELF. That last phrase means we need not get into the detail, we need not determine degrees of culpability, and we need not any sort of judicial ruling to bring the nullification into effect: The mere existence of the nullifying condition brings about the nullification of the action. Go ahead and click on any of these links to the other canons if you need it splained moar.

 1    1,    0,  125|         act placed out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted, or
 2    1,    0,  172| directly or indirectly by grave fear or malice to vote for a
 3    1,    0,  188|   resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly
 4    2,    3,  643|         induced by force, grave fear, or malice, or the one whom
 5    2,    3,  656|       made without force, grave fear, or malice;~5/ the profession
 6    4,    1, 1103|       because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally
 7    4,    2, 1191|         out of grave and unjust fear or malice is null by the
 8    4,    2, 1200|         malice, force, or grave fear is null by the law itself.~
 9    6,    1, 1322|      who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively
10    6,    1, 1323|        who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively
11    6,    1, 1344|       committed the delict from fear, necessity, the heat of
12    6,    1, 1359|       penalty extorted by grave fear is invalid.~
13    7,    2, 1538|      extorted by force or grave fear.~
14    7,    2, 1548|      this secrecy;~2/ those who fear that from their own testimony
15    7,    2, 1620|       coerced by force or grave fear;~4/ the trial took place

 

And now Lifesite brings word that the man Pope Benedict brought in to reform the Vatican Bank in 2009 was in actual fear for his life and the lives of his family, and was ultimately ousted from his position in 2012 when he got a little too close to the truth, and various Curial officials moved against him.

Vatican Bank ex-chief: I feared Curia could order my assassination while I cleaned up corruption

ROME, Italy, April 5, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The former president of the Vatican Bank says that he almost lost his faith and feared he could be assassinated at the instigation of some members of the Roman Curia, the Church’s administrative body, as he attempted to tackle corruption within the banking organization.

Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, a banker, economist, and theologian, headed the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), popularly known as the Vatican Bank, from 2009 until he was forced out by its board in 2012. He gave an interview to the Le Iene news company in March in which he said that he believed members of the Roman Curia, the governing body of the Vatican, were capable of murdering him.

In both the headline of this blog post and in the following quote, Tedeschi is basically daring you to dream up the most monstrous crimes you can think of, and it would be nothing compared to what is truly going on in the Curia:

“It’s about the Vatican Curia. There is everything that you can imagine inside it.”

Read the whole thing HERE.

Now it goes without saying that Pope Benedict failed to properly manifest his resignation in discord with Canon 332.2 by resigning only the ministry and not the office. It also goes without saying that we’ve already checked just about every box on Canon 188 when it comes to said failed partial abdication, and we’ve always suspected that grave fear was also part of the mix. But now we have what seems to be definitive proof. If the man assigned by Benedict to clean up the corruption in the Vatican Bank was literally in fear for his life, how much more danger would be facing the man who appointed him?

You’re going to be called a crazy chemtrail chasing faked moon landing flat earther. Get over it, and start serving Christ through loyalty to His True Vicar.

St. Vincent Ferrer, Angel of Justice, pray for us.

“The truth is not a defense. The truth is simply not relevant and will not be heard by this Tribunal.”

The first place I saw this was from Mundabor HERE.  Following is from the Lifesite article he links to:

VANCOUVER, March 28, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A B.C. human rights tribunal has ruled that a Christian activist discriminated against a man who claims to be “female” by distributing flyers that referred to the man, who was running for political office at the time, as a “biological male.”

The court ruled for transgender activist “Morgane” Oger, born Ronan Oger, and against Christian activist Bill Whatcott by declaring it’s discriminatory not to accept transgender people as the gender they claim to be…the tribunal further declared there’s no room for any public debate in the matter, according to theVancouver Star.

The tribunal also ordered Whatcott to pay Oger $35,000 in compensation for injury to his “dignity, feelings and self-respect,” and an additional $20,000 to Oger for Whatcott’s alleged improper conduct during and before the hearings, it reported.

Mundy rightly points out the insanity happening before us:

“Not even Orwell would have imagined such a monstrous deformation of reason to take place in countries holding free elections. But the free elections are of little value if those who dare to even mention facts of life are threatened with ruin or incarceration. Such societies are not free, because they do not allow the free circulation of ideas and opinions. They are merely the prison a number of people have decided they can live with.” (emphasis in original)

The money quote comes from the Tribunal judge in the case, which is paraphrased in the title of this post.

Whatcott’s lawyer, Dr. Charles Lugosi, intended to give evidence that Oger was, in fact, a biological male as a defense.

Tribunal judge Devyn Cousineau, however, ruled “the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defense.”

“Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses to establish the truth of his impugned publications, that evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue and will not be heard by this Tribunal,” she wrote.

God help us. The farther we travel into the land of anti-reality, the worse it’s going to be when the rubber band snaps back. But before that happens, they’re coming after all of us.

Reblog: Let’s Play ‘Kiss the Ring’

Below is a reblog from June of last year, where I pointed out some glaring incongruities in the two pope sitch involving new cardinals, rings, and Benedict’s not-retirement. One thing I failed to mention in the below post is the ontological reality of what we see happening in the photograph from Frank Walker’s tweet linking the Zenit article. Why is the supposed “Supreme Pontiff” kissing the ring of a mere bishop/former pope? A superior does not kiss the ring of a lesser ranking prelate. Huge red flag. “Oh, it’s just a sign of respect, it doesn’t mean anything, yadda yadda.” No, I’m sorry, but it DOES mean something. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?

For some reason in the same post I introduced y’all to AOC, with some commentary that has aged remarkably well nine months hence. Enjoy!

—————————————

Fake pope kisses real pope’s Fisherman’s Ring. Also, Leftists gonna Leftist.

I have written previously about Pope Benedict’s decision to retain the Fisherman’s Ring after his faux abdication HERE. At the end of every pontificate, without exception, the ring is smashed… with a special silver hammer that is made for this exact purpose and this purpose only. Several writers described the procedure in the days following the Declaratio. Then Benedict came out and corrected them. Oh no, dear friends, he’s keeping it. Huge red flag, along with retaining the form of address “His Holiness,” and all the other papal vesture, you know, because no other clothes were available.

The occasion itself is also very interesting. Did you know that antipope Bergoglio has always brought his newly minted cardinals in front of Pope Benedict for his blessing? After the first consistory, which Benedict attended in person, Benedict receives the new cardinals at his residence/monastery, where he imparts the his blessing. Could it be any more obvious that he’s not really retired?

2018.06.28 Concistoro CPF

 


Anyhoo, there’s a lot going on in the world, boys and girls. Some pretty big  SCOTUS wins, the biggest being Kennedy’s retirement. The last few days have seen the Left, with now yet another thing to lose their minds over, descending further into chaos, hypocrisy, and hate. Their only acceptable immigration policy is now we must let everyone in. Most of the bishops are with them. I tried to explain to a liberal friend this week that a sovereign nation has both the right and the duty to regulate immigration. She said that doesn’t matter because these people need us. I said, well we have a formal process for that, and it starts by presenting yourself at a legal border crossing, instead of sneaking in and getting caught. That’s when the shouting started.

It’s going to be a long hot summer, folks. Be prepared.

If you want a glimpse into how far the divide is yet to go, check out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28 year old Latina Democrat in Queens who just beat out the 56 year white guy Democrat Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful congressmen in the House. Her campaign was openly racist, basically claiming she was the better choice because she wasn’t white. She won with virtually zero campaign spending, running on a platform of a federally mandated jobs guarantee, and the abolishment of ICE. Sounds like a pure socialist utopia.

At least the ICE guys would be guaranteed a job in another agency, right?

While Ocasio-Cortez has no chance of being beaten in the General, other Dems in other districts will be hurt as the party turns harder and harder left. That’s a good thing, although this is such a powder keg, I hate to think about what might happen if some sort of trigger event takes place. What I do know, because they write it on twitter using their reals names, is that the left wants you dead. Not silenced, dead. They think you deserve death. it’s right there out in the open.

Engage with me in a one minute thought experiment

On 10 February 2013, you suffer an accident and enter into a deep coma.

Today you awoke, miraculously cured.

You know absolutely nothing about what has transpired in the world since the day of your accident, at which time all of the following statements were demonstrably true:

Hillary Clinton is against so-called “gay marriage.” The mere idea of Donald Trump as POTUS is laughable. Also, Donald Trump is not a Russian asset. No one has ever heard of “Fake News.” CNN is a marginally credible news source. The UK is part of the EU. The Philadelphia Eagles have never won a Super Bowl.

All of these things are now demonstrably false, except one, and that is Donald Trump is still not a Russian asset. Well, that’s assuming Brexit is “allowed” to happen. Tell me, which of these things would you be most surprised about? Probably that Donald Trump is POTUS, but I bet the Eagles are also high on the list.

Okay, that was a diversion. On with the thought experiment.

On 10 Feb 2013, Benedict was pope. But what if the first thing you saw upon awakening was this video of another prelate in white, yanking his hand away as the faithful try to reverence the ring, the symbol of the papal OFFICE. HERE  and then I explained to you that yes, shockingly, this really is the guy currently recognized as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.

Watch the video, if you haven’t already. Remember, these people are NOT reverencing the person, they are reverencing the OFFICE. Except he doesn’t hold the OFFICE. You don’t think there is some sort of significance to him doing this so publicly, with the camera literally three feet away from him? Dare I say, even something supernatural, perhaps?

If you have ever done any kind of television work, or done any sort of public speaking that involves cameras, you know that no matter how many times you’ve done it, you are always keenly aware of that camera being right there, almost like a violation of personal space. There is an inescapable and constant awareness of its presence. There is absolutely no way to “forget” you are on camera, and mistakenly get “caught” doing something you didn’t want people to see.

The video is jarring, isn’t it? There is something that makes it very uncomfortable to watch. It’s almost like watching an act of violence, in a sense.

There is another thing to watch for, which was even clearer in a longer version of the video that now I can’t find: He not only yanks away the ring hand, but he also redirects the faithful reverence to his OTHER HAND. The effect is that they are reverencing the man, not the office. Mafia style.

Don Bergoglio, having been informed of the disturbance caused by the video, sent out an underling yesterday to report to the world that this “amused” him. He finds it amusing. Knowing that biggest rush for a diabolical narcissist is not in committing the criminal act, but in the GETTING AWAY WITH IT, how much more obvious could he be making it for us?

Now what if I told you that the guy in the video usurped power via a “conclave” where a group of thugs conspired to rig the “election,” that Benedict is very much still alive, living inside the Vatican, wearing white and called “His Holiness”, because he believes the acceptance of the papacy is “always and forever”, and that he did not resign the papal munus in his abdication speech, but only tried to resign the active ministry, which means the abdication was defective and not properly manifested and likely with substantial error and under grave fear, all of these being violations of canon law, which means the conclave never took place but only appeared to, and then what if I gave you just a generalized rundown of the Bergoglian antipapacy heretical proofset of him NOT enjoying the supernatural protection promised by our Lord in Luke 22:32, and then I threw in the reminder about Matt 24:22.

What would you conclude, based on the evidence which you’ve been presented?

Thus ends today’s thought experiment.

image1 (1)

Guest Post: A Friendly Challenge to Robert Siscoe

From frequent combox contributor, “Smith.”

——————————–

A Friendly Challenge To Robert Siscoe

I have the book True or False Pope, and have read it a couple of times. I think it is literally monumental; an extremely scholarly work, upon which extraordinary diligence has been exercised.
In spite of the huge respect I have for it I must admit that there were a very few assertions made therein that seemed to me to be lacking the necessary support of fact and/or logic.
One of these was the claim that, once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity of the Church, that very fact guarantees the validity of his election.
For the sake of furthering public debate, with a view to clarifying this issue, I think myself obligated to rebut this position.
I will not be preaching or pontificating here, just stating what seem to be facts, and questioning your position.
Let me say beforehand that I am personally quite comfortable with the situation in the Church, only insofar as it does not in the least shake my Faith. Moreover, it is perfectly clear to me that the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, and all Her dogmas, are perfectly safe regardless of whether Francis is really a pope or not. There are perfectly good arguments, in either eventuality, to show that neither case impugns the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church.
That means that I have no emotional investment levering me toward one conclusion or the other.
Let me begin.
If I have your position correct, the guts of it all is this:
1) Assertion: It is a dogma that once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity by the Church, he is a valid pope, regardless of any antecedent irregularities.
Justification:
A) It was defined as such by Martin V (Dz 674)
B) It is the unanimous teaching of the Church’s theologians
2) The arguments of said theologians run as follows:
A) M — Dz 674 is infallible; it is a dogma that once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity by the Church, he is a valid pope, regardless of any antecedent irregularities.
m — Francis has been accepted with moral unanimity
c — Francis is the pope
B) M — If the Church were mistaken about a rule of faith it would not be infallible, and we know that cannot happen due to Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her.
m — The pope is the rule of faith.
c — In saying Francis is pope, the Church is not mistaken.
3) All this means that it is a heresy to say that Francis is not a real pope.
I respond:
Firstly, and by far most importantly, it is utterly impossible that a determination of the *present* juridical status of anyone can be a matter of divine Faith. The thing itself is obviously not comprehended among the two primary objects of Faith; matters of doctrine and morals. It is simply a question of present juridical validity. For instance, it is certainly not recorded in either Scripture or Tradition (which obviously concern the past) that Francis is a real pope. Neither has any past pope (again, obviously!) declared that Francis’ election has been valid.
But your contention is not this, but that it is a matter of the *secondary* object of Faith; that is, you say it is a dogmatic fact. But this does not work for present popes, only past ones. Why? A dogmatic fact is one that is so connected to a *primary* fact of faith that, without it, that primary fact becomes impossible. In the present question, we can take as an example the dogmatic fact that Pius IX was a real pope. Why is this a matter of divine Faith? There are two reasons:
First and most important is that he himself defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If he wasn’t a real pope, that is no longer, and never was, a dogma. If the Church were to come to believe a “dogma” through a supposed solemn papal declaration that never occurred because the supposed pope was not a pope at all, it wouldn’t be a dogma, so the Church would be in error on a matter supposed to be infallible, thus the Church would be fallible, which would mean the Church had defected.
Secondly, the indefectibility of the Church is a primary dogma, but that requires an unbroken line of popes, because a pope is an essential requirement in the constitution of the Church as such, as decreed by Divine Law. If Pius IX were not a true pope, the line of succession would have been broken (especially considering his long reign).
But there HAVE been interregnums, and no one knows exactly how long one could last before it constitutes a break in the line. It could be as long as a generation, and probably not longer. But therefore, as long as a *current* putatative pope reigns, there is the possibility that his election was invalid, regardless of universal acceptance. If he is a fraud, and exposed as such, there is no great difficulty in reversing all his “papal” acts. Therefore, none of his acts can be a matter of dogmatic fact; there are no dogmas whatever that depend on *the present pope* being a valid pope. Neither can his standing as a link in the unbroken chain of popes be definitively established, because if he is not a real pope then, even assuming that Benedict XVI is not still the pope, we are simply in an interregnum. Thus the current pope’s validity cannot be a matter of dogmatic fact in that regard either.
MAJOR POINT: The designation of dogmatic fact as to the validity of a papal election can only apply to *past* popes.
Your Assertion (1) is faulty on both counts (both A and B)
Re/ 1,A — It was most certainly not defined as a dogma by Martin V that a pope accepted with moral unanimity by the Church is definitely a valid pope, because:
Firstly, ALL dogmas must be stated in clear terms as to what exactly is being defined (Cartechini, De Valore, ch. 3, part I, Tradibooks ed.). But Dz 674 does not do so. It says that a Hussite recanting of his heresy must be asked: “Whether he believes that a pope, canonically elected, who lived for a time, his proper name being expressed, is the successor of Blessed Peter…”
What exactly does “who lived for a time” (quo tempore fuerit) mean?
Literally it means “in the time which he *was* [pope]”. This probably is referring to former popes, excluding the present one. In any case, it is not clear what we are being asked to believe here. As Cartechini says: “Lex dubia nulla est” (a doubtful law is null).
There are many other reasons that I could quote from Cartechini to show that Dz 674 cannot be a dogma, but I don’t want to get bogged down in details right now. Let me just add a quote from your own book, True or False Pope, p. 440, footnote 8: “A dogma…means a clear cut proposal, as we have previously explained…”
Secondly, there is grave question as to whether Francis was “canonically elected”. In fact, that’s the whole thrust of the Substantial Error argument; that he was NOT canonically elected. Dz 674 then, far from militating against that position, actually supports it, since it requires canonical regularity in an election of a valid pope.
Re/ assertion 1,B — I would like to know how one can speak of the “unanimous teaching of theologians”. You only cite five. How does such a small number constitute unanimity? Besides, excepting John of St. Thomas, all these theologians were active in modern times; there is no real theological tradition on this point, so far as I am aware, and without it we cannot speak of unanimity in any meaningful sense.
Firstly, your citation of Berry is not to the point, because the context of his discussion concerns PAST popes, not present ones. Scratch Berry. He seems to support my position, not yours.
Secondly, your citations of Van Noort:
The first citation clearly also addresses past popes, not present ones.
The second one does indeed concern present popes. His book was published in 1957, and therefore written before that, and Pius XII died in October of 1958. Here, Van Noort claims that Pius XII is guaranteed to be a valid pope by the infallible Ordinary Magisterium, as follows:
“The Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths:..Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter.”
Most unfortunately, there is a completely irredeemable and fatal flaw of fact in this reasoning. What Van Noort seems to forget here is that the Universal Ordinary Infallible Magisterium requires universality not only in space, but in time. In other words, the bishops’ unanimous teaching of a particular truth must be not only something they, worldwide, are agreed on NOW, but also something which they have Traditionally always agreed upon.
In support of this I have to adduce your OWN exposition of this fact, given in True or False Pope, pp. 439ff, in particular p. 440: “Ordinary acts of the magisterium…to be considered as belonging to the Church’s [infallible] teaching…are infallible only insofar as they fit into the constant teaching…reflect or echo the permanent teaching and unchanging Faith of the Church.” (Canon Berthod)
I am afraid that this does not at all jive with Van Noort’s exposition. You have to pick one or the other; it’s either Van Noort or your own opinion as supported by other authorities. Since your teaching in ToFP is consonant with the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article, Infallibility (V. 7, p. 800), which you also cite, not to mention many other authorities that could prove that this is the Traditional teaching of the Church on the OUM, I suggest you go with Tradition, and your own previous position, and chuck Van Noort here.
So scratch Van Noort too. It seems you aren’t even sure if you agree with him.
What about your next theologian, Card. Billot?
His thesis certainly supports your position. (NVP: perhaps not. It seems ++Billot was selectively quoted)
Let’s move on to Cardinal Journet.
First of all, let’s just note that he’s not exactly a paragon among theologians. And though he had the reputation of being conservative in his day, he went along with Vatican II. Call that an ad hominem if you want, but aside from that, while the quote you give from him does indeed support your position, so far as I can see, it really offers no arguments, or even authorities, just assertions. I find the citation valueless. I could explain why in detail, but I think the reader should not be subjected to such a waste of time.
Cardinal Journet is on your side too then, though I think his opinion here is worthless.
So far, I believe that theologians are *not* unanimous in agreeing with your position. We are about to find that John of St. Thomas most likely is not on your side either. If I am right, we have a grand total of two theologians that support your contention.
Now what about John of St. Thomas?
An examination of the quotes you cite from him reveals that most of his argument hinges upon a seeming presumption that the teaching of Martin v in Dz 674 is de fide.
I want to keep this as short as possible, leaving details for later if necessary, so I’m going to stab at the vitals of the matter.
1) That Dz 674 is simply not de fide, I’ve explained above. It is doubtful if John of St. Thomas even claims Dz 674 is infallible. Since he seems to be speaking of past popes, not current ones, the basic perennially known dogma of the indefectibility of the Church could be the dogma he is referring to, and he may only quote Dz 674 as support for this.
2) If he claims that universal acceptance guarantees validity, John’s whole treatment speaks not of a presently reigning pope, but only of past ones.
As to the second point, let me give a few quotes:
Quote 1: “we discuss whether or not it is de fide that this specific person, who *has been* legitimately elected…”
Note the past tense. And please don’t suggest that it is past *progressive*, thus implying something that has occurred and is continuing up to the present. I do not have John’s original Latin text, but I don’t need it in order to eliminate this possibility. I don’t need it because there is no such *thing* as a past progressive tense in Latin. This is past tense, period.
Quote 2: “It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church (past tense), is the supreme pontiff…”
One may say that the present tense “is” in the last clause qualifies the entire statement as speaking of a pope that *was* elected, but is *presently* pope. That would be hasty. Latin has no articles. Therefore, “is *the* supreme pontiff” could just as legitimately be rendered as “is *a* supreme pontiff”. The first usage would imply that we are speaking of the pontiff currently reigning. The second that we are speaking of pontiffs in general, and thus possibly past cases only. This quote is not clear enough to show anything.
As an aside, note also that, in the following context, John says “although it [the certainty of validity of election] is made much more manifest…when de facto the pope defines something.”
And you yourself correctly comment on this: “the Pope acts as the rule of faith only when he defines a doctrine to be believed by faith.” In other words, when he makes a solemn, ex cathedra definition of a dogma.
This last observation is pertinent to my point above, that it could only be a dogmatic fact that a *current* pope is a valid pope if he *has* at some time already made a dogmatic definition, as did Pius IX or others. Otherwise, all bets are off, since the only other way is for him to pass away and be dead for some decent length of time.
Quote 3: “…this matter — namely, whether a particular man has been (past tense) lawfully elected and canonically established (past tense) as the rule of faith — is something that the Church can determine as a truth of faith.”
This clearly means that the Church can determine as a truth of faith (more exactly, as a dogmatic fact), that a *past* pope has been a real pope. Again, I say this is simply because the indefectibility of the Church requires an unbroken succession of popes. It is not because Dz 674 is a dogma; Dz 674 merely gives authoritative support to that dogma, which has always existed in the Church.
Given the facts about the quotes just given, let’s come back to Cardinal Billot’s teaching.
As far as I can tell, he truly does think that the valid election of a *present* pope is a dogmatic fact. As I believe I have definitively shown, that is completely impossible. Therefore, Cardinal Billot is just plain wrong.
We have to admit that he is one theologian who is clearly on your side.
One could speculate that he read John of St. Thomas with an ultramontane prejudice. After all, he was a Jesuit, and of the good old school. He no doubt took very seriously that fourth vow of the Jesuits: to serve the pope in whatever way asked. And he was asked to serve as a papal theologian. It is not at all hard to imagine that he just went overboard a bit here.
I have completely ignored John of St. Thomas’ discussion concerning whether lack of the necessary conditions for a papal election could invalidate it. This is because I see nothing wrong whatever in his treatment — whether here or elsewhere — PROVIDED we are speaking of a pope who has already passed into history.
I conclude that it is an extravagant statement to say it is a heresy to deny that Francis is pope. While it is in normal times not prudent to question the validity of a papal election, these are most certainly not normal times, and there are very good reasons to question this one in particular. All the faithful should feel no scruples in doing so, provided they do so with prudence, with serious and objective reasons, and out of a love of the Church.
I would be very interested to hear your sed contra, if any. As I said, I am not stuck on the Substantial Error theory, or any other. I must say, however, that I don’t presently see how it is even POSSIBLE to mount a serious argument against my MAJOR POINT. I would find it fascinating to be proven wrong.
Thank you once again for that excellent book, True or False Pope.

Quick lesson in humility

By the grace of God, I’ve managed to get back into the habit of daily Mass. It really is a wonderful thing. Sometimes it can be difficult with my travel schedule, and it’s easy to make excuses for yourself if you want to.

Today my only option was an N.O. parish of the Strict Observance. Pictures of liturgical dancers and Santa on the altar promoted on their website, which I was tempted to post the pics but I will spare you. Presider/masonic sanctuary set-up in a once beautiful old church with the high altar ripped out. Confession Saturday only, 3:30-3:45pm (I’m not making this up).

I really didn’t want to go.

Then the thought dawned on me (grace): “You pathetic, pride-filled monster.”

I mean, if our Lord and Savior still lowers Himself to come down on that altar in that setting, and my response is that He’s not worth it if I have to endure even the slightest tinge of suffering or discomfort? Effeminacy much? And I seriously think I’m really prepared to be a martyr?

Anyway, I went. He was there. He helped me grow a little closer to Him today.

AMDG