Author Topic: Cletus' blog rantings... (Read 1927 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **on:** August 18, 2007, 06:24:33 PM »

http://boomapox.blogspot.com/search/q=Traddies+as+Baddies

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2007, 06:48:15 PM »

I know it is a long piece, but there are some comments of note.

Cletus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 18, 2007, 06:50:09 PM »

I welcome comments from people who are not malevolent idiots. But they are blocked until I let them go through.

I think that a lot of what I write on THE APOCALYPTIC BOOMER would be lost on people who are not of that (my)generation. But I also think that my savage attacks on Traditionalism (NOT true Catholic Tradition) would be just what the doctor ordered for some youthful lost souls who started out just wanting Holiness and Grace and orthodoxy and somehow ended up as mere hapless bystanders in the midst of endless gut-churning controversies among the supposed children of light, unsure of what to think of the Pope or the New Mass or the Indult or the Motu or the Jєωs or anything else.

I have no use for so-called Traditionalism and all its chapels and feuding societies and TLMs. I think that it is all a horrible mistake. I think that I put it best when I said that what is wrong with the Traditionalist religion, which was created in the early 1970s, is that it brings poor disoriented souls all over the Catholic historical map. To the 1710s and a contrary indication when it is a question of nullifying Pope Pius XII's strong urging that all Catholics read the Bible, and to the 400s or 1300s or 1920s when it comes to saying nasty things about Jєωs which run contrary to the 1950s Mind of the Church.

My purpose here is to talk some sense into young Traddy minds full of noisome mush and show them the true glories of 1950s Catholicism. It was in line with REAL Catholic Tradition, that blossoming of enlightened humanism.

The Traditionalist religion lends itself to all sorts of neo-nαzι and rightwing extremist cranks. They show up after Mass and say, "Yeah, love that Green Scapular. And I'm trying to raise funds to print THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION in Latin...."

So now I put a question to the scrupulous thread beadles around here: is this thread about my blog, or just one post on it, or the person named in general?

dust-7 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2007, 07:48:36 PM »

Quote from: Cletus

I have no use for so-called Traditionalism and all its chapels and feuding societies and TLMs. I think that it is all a horrible mistake. I think that I put it best when I said that what is wrong with the Traditionalist religion, which was created in the early 1970s, is that it brings poor disoriented souls all over the Catholic historical map.

The point of 'TLM', The Holy Mass, is that this is what Catholics do. It's the point of the Catholic priesthood. The Eucharist is at the very heart of The Church. It IS God. That's not so in the Pauline services, as few even claim at this point. The point of the SSPV and certain independents is that - this is what The Church has always taught. Listen to their sermons on wftsradio.com. This is just classic Catholic teaching.

What we see in the seizure of the formerly Catholic institutions by Roman Protestants is something that was foretold. It was similarly foretold that a remant would be disorganized, leaderless, and generally mistrustful of each other. That does tend to describe the situation.

There still needs to be a shakeout of various orders, particularly the SSPX. Fellay has his agenda. And it cannot be followed by faithful Catholics. So some will have to leave, as the SSPV before. Other 'indult' orders may have those who would indeed confess Catholicism, at this point, if they broke clean. And some 'indy's need to re-assess their views. And so on.

But as a larger core of priest and bishops come together, the next step, while there still will be disagreement and accusations, and all sort of orders and groups, would be to continue The Vatican Council of the 19th century, which was interrupted. And they can also then put to rest the phony Vatican II, in the process. Dogma needs to be reasserted. The heresy needs to be put down, even if it's some time before Catholics return to the Vatican (that will probably take an external intervention by force, not from the orders themselves). And we still await a Pope. We need to elect a Pope. How God moves him back to the Vatican, if He does, that I don't know. But if Providence seems to open the way to a council, that would at least answer which side one is on, regardless of the heresy and apostacy of the Roman Protestants.

So . . anyhow.

Cletus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2007, 08:15:19 PM »

I can't get into any of these questions now. I wasn't the one who linked to my blog. I was just trying to let people know what to expect if they follow the link and make the acquaintance of the Apocalyptic ranter. I don't like the idea of people getting nasty surprises. Not that anyone would be TOO surprised after some of my rhetorical flights here.

Now this would be real Christian chivalry: if NO ONE who was curious about what might be so "bad" there followed the link just as a matter of principle.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** August 19, 2007, 08:02:26 AM »

Is the matter of the diatribe not fit for polite society, Cletus?

Would you, when talking to the BVM, call St. Robert Bellarmine "clueless", or the "Clueless Doctor"?

Would you, when speaking with Our Lady, throw in a comment about how big her Son's nose is?

Would you, when speaking to Our Lord, say "Yeah right" when He spoke of Himself in His mystical body or the Blessed Sacrament?

Many of your comments are spot on, in a way. Others are highly problematic, to put it kindly.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** August 19, 2007, 08:06:59 AM »

Quote from: Cletus

I wasn't the one who linked to my blog.

No, I did. You wrote the words, though, and placed them up for public consumption. Now, the public is consuming them, and comments will naturally follow.

Cletus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2007, 01:59:30 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Is the matter of the diatribe not fit for polite society, Cletus?

Would you, when talking to the BVM, call St. Robert Bellarmine "clueless", or the "Clueless Doctor"?

Would you, when speaking with Our Lady, throw in a comment about how big her Son's nose is?

Would you, when speaking to Our Lord, say "Yeah right" when He spoke of Himself in His mystical body or the Blessed Sacrament?

Many of your comments are spot on, in a way. Others are highly problematic, to put it kindly.

I would say all those things to the Blessed Virgin and in front of the Blessed Virgin.

This is because I think of her above all as a perpetually outspoken and opinionated Jєωιѕн girl who gave short shrift to the mighty on their thrones. I think of her as something of an inconoclast. Who would have dreamt that she could sound so subversive and savvy? According to the Old Guard sociopolitical norms of traditional sappy Marian piety she should have put into the Magnificat a plug for Obedience To the Roman Emperor, Her Lawful Superior.

I doubt very much that the "public" is consuming my golden words of wisdom elsewhere. Five or six people I know, and now two or three curious types from here, tops. Maybe one who is looking for more "evidence" against me.

Cletus · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2007, 02:02:29 PM »

"Spot on, in a way."

What is "spot-on" is simply "spot-on." "In a way' renders the use of the term "spot-on" inane.

It should not kill us, absolutely kill us, to concede something to our enemies.

Back-handed compliments are rude.

Cletus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2007, 02:04:40 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Is the matter of the diatribe not fit for polite society, Cletus?

Would you, when talking to the BVM, call St. Robert Bellarmine "clueless", or the "Clueless Doctor"?

Would you, when speaking with Our Lady, throw in a comment about how big her Son's nose is?

Would you, when speaking to Our Lord, say "Yeah right" when He spoke of Himself in His mystical body or the Blessed Sacrament?

Many of your comments are spot on, in a way. Others are highly problematic, to put it kindly.

My diatribes are fit for polite society.

I am not so sure about some of the sermons of St Bernadine of Siena on the subject of impurity. He goes into great detail about the nuts and bolts of how sins against purity are committed.

Cletus · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2007, 02:13:22 PM »

I am very interested in the Holy Shroud of Turin.

I have a blow-up of the holy face above my desk. But I seldom look at it. Maybe for the same reasons why Catholics in general never much cottoned to it, though they would travel land and sea to venerate relics of the Passion that are dubious at best.

Jesus had a big nose. I won't say HAS. We don't know how the Resurrection affects the reality and perception of these things.

The fact (I take it as a fact) that He had a big nose sticks in my mind. It goes against my grain. It led me to speak of Apocalypse as His way of "sticking His Nose into" human affairs.

I think that I could justify this remarkable freedom of expression and familiarity on the basis of things St Therese said about His being bad at Math (because He loses count of our sins) and so forth.

Ironically, I would agree that St Aloysius would have agreed with you here. And St Therese went on record as saying that there were things about St Aloysius she just could not understand. She preferred Ven Theophane Venard.

Some things are a matter of taste. Some are not. You would do well to learn the difference, gladius.

The only "Victorian lady" whose opinion I care about is on the side of remarkable freedom and familiarity when it comes to speaking to and of God and Christ.

I think that I capitalized the N in Nose. Maybe this is all a bit "precious" on my part. A bit too whimsical. But I don't think that it is irreverent and I wouldn't change it.

The tradition that Jesus had chestnut hair and a beautiful face goes back to a Dark Ages hoax.

The most ancient traditions about looks among the holy ones of Christian faith have the Lord with a big nose, St Paul as short and bald, and -this is the odd one- St Mark as "stubby-fingered."

In any case, I would not speak of Jesus' sticking His Nose in human affairs outside my own blog because as a rule I think that it is rude to be "showy" and "quirky" in a forum as one member among many. This thread about my blog which has been allowed to stand is a different matter.

Miss_Fluffy · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2007, 07:54:56 PM »

Cletus, I would highly recommend "Imitation of Mary" by Thomas Kempis. It goes into great detail about how one should approach Our Lady.

Cletus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2007, 08:03:01 PM »

I'll think about it.

How is Thomas on how to approach purity in speech?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2007, 09:22:01 AM »

Quote from: Cletus

How is Thomas on how to approach purity in speech?

He is an advocate of silence.

Author Topic: Cletus&#039; blog rantings... (Read 1927 times)

Author Topic: Cletus' blog rantings... (Read 1927 times)