CathInfo.com

Wanna bet whether he has had a call from the Pope already, and is keeping it under wraps while he works out the bugs? I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a cassock-clothed guy with a glasses-mustache-nose disguise skulking around Rome while +F is incommunicado.

Can anyone come up with one good reason why anyone should listen to anything that he has to say?

Can anyone show what is a logical purpose in the resistance doting upon all of the nonsense of nothingness that the Bishop is so adept at pouring out?

It really is time to find another place to park the car. This lot is no longer secure and its attendant no longer reliable.

Oh!  Oh!  I can!  I can!


I know you mean well, J.Paul, and I appreciate the challenge.  But I'd like to ask you:  How Do You Like Apples?  



The problem here is, we have to recognize the CODE LANGUAGE that XSPXHEBF employs.  And we can do this by recalling when he used it in prior times.  Been there done that, so to speak.  

So, when has he done this before?  Well, that's a long story.

The point is, he is giving us here a prelude for what is coming next.  He is telling us that something is absolutely impossible for us to accept, so that it sets there and moulders in our mind, and then later, maybe a few months down the road, he will pull it out of the hat like a magic trick, and expect everyone to ACCEPT IT --- because he SAYS we should accept it --- but IT is going to be the SAME THING that he is here complaining about .......................

An unchanged situation

This is an atmosphere that has come alongside the real situation of the Church, but the situation itself has not changed.  We have gone from one pontificate to another, and the Church’s situation has stayed the same.  The basic lines remain the same.  On the surface there are variations:  one might say that these are variations on a well-known theme!  The basic assertions:  we find them, for example, about the Council.  The Council is a reinterpretation of the Gospel in light of contemporary or modern civilization—the pope has used both terms.

I think that we should begin by very seriously asking for a definition of what contemporary, modern civilization is.  For us and for average mortals, it is quite simply the rejection of God;  it is “the death of God”.  It is Nietzsche, it is the Frankfurt School, it is an almost universal rebellion against God.  We see this almost everywhere.  We see it in the case of the European Union which in its Constitution refuses to acknowledge its Christian roots.  We see it in everything that the media propagate, in literature, philosophy, art:  everything tends toward nihilism, to the affirmation of man without God, and even in rebellion against God.

Then how can we reread the Gospel in that light?  It is quite simply not possible;  that is squaring the circle! We agree with the definition just given and from it we draw consequences that are radically different from those of Pope Francis, who goes so far as to show, to expose the continuation of his thought by saying:  “Look at the fine fruits, the marvelous fruits of the Council:  look at the liturgical reform!”  Obviously that sends a chill down our spine!  Since the liturgical reform was described by his immediate predecessor as the cause of the crisis of the Church, it is difficult to see and to understand how all of a sudden it should be described as one of the finest fruits of the Council!  It certainly is a fruit of the Council, but if this is a fine fruit, then what is beautiful and good or bad?  It makes your head spin!

This is XSPXHEBF's way of announcing to us what he plans to ask us to accept:  We will soon be asked to SQUARE THE CIRCLE and to to read the Gospels with nihilism in mind, with an almost universal rebellion against God, and as man without God.  

So hang on tight, because that's the next phase.

You heard it here first.

Please note:  while he would SEEM to denounce this concept, try as you may, you will not find any clear words of condemnation from him about it.  What you DO see is him saying that Pope Francis is not a Modernist in his doctrine, in his principles.  He is only a PRACTICAL Modernist, which is apparently quite tolerable to XSPXHEBF, for it allows for him to imitate his practical Modernism and therefore allows him to act like one too, and hey, maybe one day he'll be canonized a saint, along with Francis!!  


How do you like THEM apples?


.