Picture this scene: Moslem hordes, bursting into Christian
homes, and trying to force their children
to renounce their faith. If the
children do not, they are beheaded --
right there in front of their parents.
Is this a tale excerpted from Lives
of the Saints, or is it some narrative plucked from another part of the
Church’s past? No, it’s happening right now, even as we speak, over in the Middle East. The “Moslem hordes,” in this case, are
ISIS operatives. And who are their
victims? It turns out that, in the
main, they are the children of Baptist
missionaries over there – you know, those wretched “Samaritans,” looked down upon by traddies, and “for whom there is
no salvation.” In the towns where
ISIS takes over, they systematically go from house to house, asking the
children to “renounce Jesus.” A
Baptist spokesman reports that, to a
child, every one of them chose beheading rather than do that.
The ISIS fighters singled out the children, not the parents – undoubtedly to maximize the grief on
both sides. And it must be
remembered that beheading, “Moslem style,” involves not a mercifully quick stroke
with a large sword, but a slow, ritualistic severing of the head from the body
(by the back-and-forth slicing motion of a knife), while some deranged “imam”
nearby rattles off some satanic Moslem “prayers.” This gives the victim plenty of time to “ponder”
his position -- while his head is slowly being parted from his body. And, to repeat, it was done in front of the parents in order to maximize and prolong their anguish.
Was this
something that was reported in Dannie Dolan’s sermon on the great feast of Christ the King? Or was it in his Bishop’s Corner in that Sunday’s church bulletin? No, it wasn’t. In his sermon, Dannie was too busy
doing his usual “Bergoglio bashing,” and ranting against “modernism.” And his Bishop’s Corner? That was full of his usual
sanctimonious pap: “our perfect action and reaction to the revolution against
morality which just concluded in Rome”; and how
about this for meaningless drivel: “Here, in the shadow of the tabernacle we will dwell in
safety”; or this: “Here, at the Communion Rail,
marriages will find their strength, morality will triumph over moral
relativism, and our innocent children will persevere in virtue”; and
finally, that perennial favorite, “Come, Let us
adore!”
And, of course (since the feast of Christ the King includes Forty
Hours Devotion), Dannie exhorted
his Gerties to “Make a visit this afternoon. Come back
for closing service this evening.”
Then he added, “Great observances such as this demand much preparation and
cooperation for the ceremonies and music and altars and refreshments.” [Oh, how
Dannie loves his “show”!] Now there’s nothing wrong with any of
this per se: adoring our Lord is,
after all, one of the most edifying things we can do. But you and I both know that, with Dannie, it’s not about
glorifying God; it’s about aggrandizing
Dannie;
it’s about “the show.”
What we’d like to know is
this: Dannie, where was your “triumph over moral
relativism” when the school principal’s boys were watching those porn
and animal torture flicks on the school computer (and you called it “boys will
be boys’)? And when they tried to
get younger students to watch them too, how did that help “our innocent children… persevere in virtue”? [Perhaps they were watching them “in the shadow of the tabernacle” where they could “dwell in safety”?] Was this their “perfect action and reaction
to the revolution against morality which just concluded in Rome”? Enlighten us, Dannie, if you will!
But Dannie can’t enlighten
us, can he? Double-standard Dan
only reports others’ sins, not his
own. If he had heard about those
Baptist missionaries and their children, he probably would have berated them, just as he did with that
Kentucky woman who spoke out against homosexual “marriage.” After all, in the pecking order of
“unworthy scum,” Baptists are “way down there,” even below the Novus Ordo. To Traddieland’s chief Pharisee, these people are worse than
Samaritans. But would Dannie have had the same faith and courage as these
folks? We think not. Dannie likes
to “talk brave” here, where he can “dwell in safety”; but we don’t see him going on
any “apostolates” to Iraq or Syria any time soon.
Dannie is too busy condemning people for violating his
“articles of faith.” It was
downright amusing to see how eagerly he reported one of his “brave” culties
(who attends his Milwaukee cult center) dressing down an SSPX bishop for saying
an una cum Mass: “’Why do you put the name of a Satan-worshipping Free Mason
in the Canon of the Mass?’ she politely inquired. The bishop only gave her one of those insipid smiles that bishops are
known for.” Our
italics.] We wonder if she (or Dannie) would admonish a scimitar-wielding ISIS
operative in the same way. Again, we think not. (But we know what Dannie means when he talks about “one of those insipid smiles that bishops are known for.”
Yeah, Dannie, we know that “smile” well -- except that in this case, it’s a
mousy snicker.)
But that’s what happens when the cult mentality takes over. Dannie, Tony, and the fire-breathing
nitwit down in Florida have their followers believing that “”there’s no
salvation outside the cult center”; and they have dreamed up all sorts of
“requirements” for one to be “Catholic.”
The result is that they have split
Catholics into warring factions, all at one another’s throats – even pitting
family members against one another.
And for good reason: the cult masters do not WANT unity, because they
don’t want people to be able to go to just any
Catholic church -- they want them only at their church. Unity is “bad for business.”
Unfortunately, this mentality pervades much of Traddieland: each
warring faction imposes its own set of pet “rules” to keep its followers within its
enclave (and to disqualify everyone else). And while they’re bickering over these petty (and irresolvable) issues, others are taking the lead in what really
matters – those Baptist missionaries, for example. While they are literally
dying for their faith, Dannie only talks about it (usually with a Lives of the Saints anecdote from the
distant past). They gave their
lives; Dannie gives lip service. And sometimes, it’s not even that: when
that Kentucky woman stood up for marriage, Dannie could only criticize her. And while a Novus Ordo
priest was fighting for Terri Schiavo’s life, Dannie and Tony could only offer
reasons why her husband was justified in
having her starved and dehydrated to death (while they were feeding their
faces at their favorite restaurants).
What Traddieland needs is NOT men like these two cowardly,
self-seeking maggots, but men who will UNITE Catholics (instead of inventing
reasons to divide them).
“Sedevacantism” is NOT a criterion for determining if someone is
“Catholic,” nor is it a reason to bar one from the sacraments – and praying for a bad pope does not
make a Mass invalid (or illicit).
Men like Dannie, Tony, and Big Don have absolutely NO POWER (or right) to decree such things as
“prerequisites” for being “Catholic.” Regardless of what people’s beliefs are
on such issues, they are Catholic –
and no self-appointed “theologians” can decree otherwise. These things are not articles of faith; they are private
opinions that ecclesiastical tinhorns like Dannie, Tony, and Bombastic
Don haven’t the juridical authority
to impose on anyone. Dannie, Tony, and Big Don, in short, are FRAUDS.
So, what can one do? How
can one unite with fellow Catholics?
First, start by listening to (and supporting) priests who are saying and doing the right things. This article’s opening remarks about
those Baptist martyrs, for instance: they were excerpted from a sermon given
recently by a priest who is “saying and doing the
right things.” (Click here for the full
sermon.) In it, you’ll find none
of Dannie’s sanctimonious horse dung or Tony’s fallacious tedium, or the
maniacal ravings of Brooksville’s swampland
sadist® – only the simple truth,
intelligently articulated in a straightforward, no-nonsense manner: straight talk about real problems in a real
world. There’s also none of
Dannie’s other drivel: banal banter about the weather and/or the flora and
fauna of the region, or brainless chatter about the grisly habits of one’s pet
cats. Note also that there are no
“funding requests” for “apostolates” to faraway lands (to perform unneeded
confirmations), or any heavy-handed hints about paying for “high heating bills”
or “leaky roofs” (not to mention, raccoon
infestations -- for a facility that, by the way, is less than twenty years old, but already falling apart).
Concurrent with finding (and supporting) worthy priests, concerned
Catholics must rid themselves of illegitimate
parasites like Dannie, Tony, and Big Don, and then strive to find common ground with other
Catholics. They must, again, UNITE
under worthy men; and they must learn to put their differences aside on issues that are not defined dogma (such as sedevacantism),
and concentrate on the ones that are. One of the four marks of the true Church is Unity. And until
“traditional Catholicism” starts working towards
uniting – and under worthy men -- it
cannot hope to become Catholic. Perhaps it is an elusive goal, but it is
the only one with any chance of success.
The path that Traddieland is now on can only lead to failure.
Why do you put a defined dogma in quotations?
ReplyDeleteBY “quotations,” did you mean QUOTATION MARKS? As it turns out, there were MANY words and phrases in the article “in quotation marks.” Your comment is asinine for two reasons: first, you never identified which word or phrase it is that you consider “defined dogma”; and second, the article contains NO DEFINED DOGMA in quotation marks anyway. So, if you want to make a comment, at least send in one that MAKES SENSE – and one that pertains to the article’s SUBJECT, not some tangential issue.
DeleteYA THINK?
DeleteNo kidding I meant quotation marks.
You're the asinine one. I was obviously referring to the bit that says “for whom there is no salvation.” You imply that that is actually not true, that there is no salvation outside the Church because you're obviously referring to Protestants.
Then you also make it seem you agree with Bergoglio's "ecumenism of blood" heresy.
How ridiculous, writing heresies just to get back at the Trio.
I used quote marks, because the blog has no provision for using italics or bold-face in its “comments” section. But from your second comment, I now know that you were referring to the article’s phrase “for whom there is no salvation” [outside the Church]. Well, if you really knew your Catholic theology, you would know that well-meaning people who are ignorant of Catholic dogma CAN be “justified,” i.e., saved, just as the Samaritan in Christ’s parable was, while the “letter perfect” Pharisee WASN’T.
DeleteYou, sir (or madam), are the EPITOME of that Pharisee. You are ready to CONDEMN innocent Baptist CHILDREN who chose to DIE for their faith, because they are “outside the Church” – while you yourself wouldn’t have ONE TENTH the courage that these kids had. So, God help you, you miserable wretch – and please take your pharisaic, letter-of-the-law polemics and CRAM them, Hypocrite!
Everything, we suppose, is a matter of conditioned viewpoint, Tony S. But according to our reading, the "Lay Pulpit" was referring to the rigorists' erroneous interpretation of the dogma *extra ecclesiam nulla salus.* (We employ asterisks because Blogger doesn't accept the italics key-stroke sequence we usually use; the symbols do not indicate any doubt on our part.)
DeleteMany cult-blinded fanatics are unfamiliar with Pius IX's 1854 clarification, so that they wrongly consign to perdition every non-Catholic. Hyper-rigorist cult leaders, the kind whose every Sunday sermon flashes with hellfire and brimstone, fail to teach the pope's careful distinction in order to keep their followers in line and contributing.
Well, if you had said you were referring to the children alone, then that would be one thing, but you didn't specify, so what you wrote looks like you're referring to non Catholics in general.
DeleteAnd how would you know I wouldn't do the same? Aren't you being a Pharisee there?
Actually Reader, the Trio aren't rigorists at all regarding EENS, but instead, the ones like the Dimonds, the Feeneyites, are the rigorists.
DeleteThe Feeneyites actually accuse the ones like the Trio of denying and watering down the dogma.
Actually, “Tony,” you’re wrong on all counts. First, I DID mean to include all well-meaning Protestants, not just the children. It shouldn’t require MARTYRDOM to save one, and exclude the other. Secondly, we have first-hand experience with the “trio.” They’re ALL RIGORISTS. Perhaps the Dimonds and the Feenyites are more so; but Dannie, Tony, and lunatic Don are by no means “moderates.” They, along with the Dimonds et al, belong in the same barrel of rotten apples.
DeleteI don't defend them but how are they rigorists? They seem lax and liberal to me.
DeleteAs has been shown, when it suits them, they don't say anything about immodesty.
They are anything BUT lax and liberal when it comes to their rank-and-file parishioners, whom they control with draconian rules and regulations regarding dress code, bans on “body piercings,” etc. It is only with their “pet” parishioners, i.e., the big donors (and, of course, the school principal’s kids) that they’re lax. (Actually, a better way to put it is that they “look the other way” or “pretend it’s not happening” when one of their “pets” steps out of line.
DeleteIn other words, there’s a DOUBLE STANDARD at SGG – and it’s been that way the whole time. You are partly right when you say, “when it suits them, they don’t say anything about immodesty.” But, again, it’s a SELECTIVE thing. It’s more accurate to say, “when it suits them, they don’t say anything WHEN IT’S ONE OF THEIR ‘PETS’.’ – or when it’s one of themselves.”
Tony, 111:20 AM, Nov 20:
DeleteWe had in mind the Brooksviille cult more than the Dynamic Duo when we made our remark. We were thinking of all their wild rules and fanaticism. (E.g., we heard from one family that they were told they couldn't have non-Catholic friends or friends outside the cult.)
We'd have to agree with you that Tony Baloney and Wee Dan are more opportunists than rigorists, in the classic sense. When they do dig in, it's out of a desire to control or silly pride rather than from deep conviction. In truth, the Gruesome Twosome aren't consistent enough to be be really rigoristic, since consistency demands discipline. Those two slouches just like to make it up as they go along. Far easier, and none of their followers are smart enough to notice the contradictions anyway.