Monday, September 12, 2016

KIKO'S DEFORMED VISION (FINALE): A PRIEST-LESS CHURCH

The contents of this post are solely the opinions of myself and do not reflect JungleWatch or anyone else, but only myself. Any error or misstatement is my responsibility alone. 

Kiko Arguello, my hands-down fave for cult leader

By now, we all know that the NCW has built itself into a parallel church, but even more to the point, a competitor church with a competitor Christ. We have discussed not only the grievous heresies espoused by them, but also their guiding principle: that the Church is all about Man, and that the Incarnation has absolutely nothing to do with the reconciliation of God with Man. There is only community, and all of the last 1700 years of Church aren't worth anything now that Kiko's here. 

From there, it’s not a big stretch to convince those caught in Kiko’s web that they are special, that they have some secret, original teaching. This, combined with the equating of the NCW with the One True Church, means for a member to consider leaving them, or even disagreeing or questioning in any way, is abandonment of Christ. 

Then of course the Diana posts screen shots of Popes JP2 and Benedict XVI to justify the NCW position, even though we can show that there's NO WAY either JP2 or B16 knew NCW theology beyond surface stuff (CDF never ever approved it). The NCW also loves winding up with quotes from Pope Francis, who in speaking off-the-cuff betrays serious theological problems. In other words, Francis may well be materially in heresy (it's not up to me to say he is formally so, since I am not competent as a layman). They aren't Magisterial statement, but Kiko relies on the assuming of Magisterium to bolster his position, credibility, and power.

Just take a quick look at THE LIST and you’ll see there’s absolutely nothing Catholic about the NCW—and it’s not even a complete list.

All that's left is to see why the bishops let the NCW and other like them get away with all of this demonic, soul-crushing stupidity? In other words, how can bishops like Apuron and Hon and Filoni rally behind any group who espouses such great heresies?  Are they that galactically stupid, or is there something else there?





NICODEMUS OR JUDAS?

I have a theory on this. Perhaps we can sum up the two generally approaches of bishops as two possibilities: the Nicodemus Option and the Judas Option (NOTE: these two names are restricted to very specific illustrations in the Gospel; Nicodemus himself is considered a saint).

As to the first, perhaps it’s that modernity and its outlook are the problem. Remember Nicodemus in John 3, when Jesus tells him he must be born again, Nicodemus asks him, “How can someone be born when they are old? Surely they cannot enter into their mother’s womb a second time to be born.” The Lord’s response was amazement at his dullness: “You are Israel’s teacher, and you do not understand these things?”

What the problem may be therefore is that modern men and women come to the Lord but can’t understand His language, His parables, His lessons—no, and after the radical break with the past, how can they? Catholic bishops and priests on the whole seem to have begun deconstructing the Church and therefore the Gospel—especially during and after Vatican II, calling it "the spirit of Vatican II-- to make the Lord more comprehensible to modern man. But in doing so, modern man resists things like “tradition” as a throwback to conservatism and therefore as an obstacle to growth. That means we don’t have a rudder, no guidance, no insight but the banal. So many of us have no grasp of what hardly any of it means.

Here’s a very specific, very easy example of this breakdown: The Lord begins Matthew 7 by saying: “Judge not, lest you be judged. For in the same way you judge others, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (v. 1-2). What does that mean? Does that mean say nothing to anyone ever? Does it say that saying something means you’re condemning? After all, Pope Francis has referred to some priests as “animals” because they were being consistent in the application of the sacraments to those not involved in the Church. Isn't that judging? Should we let pedophiles off the hook since we're all sinners? How are we moderns supposed to interpret this passage?

Well, actually interpreting it is not a problem. We have 1900+ years of commentary on this very passage, from Aquinas to Chrysostom to the other Church Fathers to the Popes themselves. It’s always been a consistent teaching: standing for the truth isn't the same thing as viewing someone as worthy of God’s damnation. If it were, it would be impossible to admonish the sinner, and it would be impossible for the Pope or any priest to even teach from the pulpit, animal or not.

That’s what Magisterium does: It teaches the Faith. Consistently.

Back to these modern people for whom the Lord’s words are utterly mysterious:  it’s ultimately about finding a way to make the Gospel relevant to the modern world with its iPhones, TVs, mass media, YouTube loving and pornography-soaked generations. It’s an age where people don’t read, much less think (for themselves or in general), and truth has to be encapsulated into soundbites. This explains the popularity of statements like “Always preach the Gospel; when necessary, use words” (attributed to St Francis).

The problem is St Francis didn’t say this, but it’s pithy enough to be a bumper sticker, and with his name attached to it, it’s a ready quote that substitutes style for substance. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t hold up; the majority of people cannot read nor write with clarity nor precision about anything related to the Faith, so in a way, it doesn’t matter. Just resort to what we think sounds good, and it’ll all work out.


Ok, so that’s one bad way for bishops to be. Then there’s the Judas Option: for Judas, it’s all about an activity, a work, a mission, about being exclusively Martha at the expense of Mary. When the Good Lord had His feet anointed in the house with the nard, Judas was the one who declared that the ointment could have been sold for about a year’s wages and given to the poor (and St John adds that he was in fact greedy and didn’t care for the poor at all). In like manner, we hear time and again about how nuns who run Catholic hospitals are all for ObamaCare because of the “greater good,” and not caring that they are actively involved in abortion services or contraception or even euthanasia. We hear about Catholic charities supporting all manner of immorality in the name of seeking to help the needy. And we hear about certain communities that declare how wonderfully better than the rest of us are because they “evangelize,” yet without having the slightest idea about the heresy and evil hide behind their competing notion of Christ and His Church.

In other words, faith is reduced to activity, plain and simple. Do do do.

So what does this have to do with the priests and therefore the bishops? Simple: most priests (and therefore bishops) are in one of these two camps. On the one hand, we have tons of local diocesan bishops who declare the pious platitudes of the Nicodemus method because they have nothing else to says half the time they copy from the internet). The spiritual life to them is one of vocabulary and homiletics. On the other hand, we have Apb Apuron and Apb Hon who declare how wonderful the NCW is and how it will solve all our problems with its "evangelization" and "community." Likewise for Apb Chaput in Philadelphia, who showed real promise at first and then fell into a whole “program of programs” for the conversion of the world.

We must understand that both of these options are doomed to fail, and more to the point, the Nicodemus almost always leads us to the Judas mindset. It’s just human nature to allow that general skepticism of the intellect to bring to bloom evil flowers of a programmistic agenda. And that’s crucial to what's happened to our Church. Both of these deny the real truth of things. They do assert true propositions like “God is love” and “Love thy neighbor” and “Who am I to judge?” But the truth of things in themselves is nebulous to worry about; instead, just say something clever or start a non-profit.


Cardinal Dolan of NY yucking it up with multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg and abortion-loving Sen Chuck Schumer


WANTED: BISHOP WITH SOUL FOR SALE OR RENT

So what is the third option? My friends, it’s not a middle-ground; it’s radically different. It’s the living out of the Gospel in the truest way possible. For parents, it means living the family life as Christ would have us. For workers, it means living the noble life of labor as Christ would have us. For priests, it means living the life of Christ as Christ would have us. And we simply cannot do these things without clear knowledge of the Magisterial teaching of the Church in all her wisdom and Divine assurance.

This isn’t hard. In a way, it’s what the NCW purports to do in our place by their "evangelization." That’s part of their marketing strategy. But bishops and priests need solid formation grounded in the Sacrificial nature and purpose of the Incarnation. From this Sacrifice flows all of that “horizontal” stuff like community, and even the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. Otherwise, it’s just being a do-gooder.

That’s been the point we’ve been making all along in an open letter to priests and likewise a warning to pastors on Guam that they are now responsible for stopping this evil from spreading further. People may be sick of hearing me hammer away at this, but I don’t care: once you break with the Sacrifice, you’ve broken the Church. Period.

But the fact of the matter is that bishops are the virtual “popes” of their diocese and cannot be removed or deposed without a grave reason—in other words, something detrimental to the Faith. So it’s up to bishops to be fathers to us all, without making excuses about how we don’t understand their job and its problems. In my experience, strong fathers are men who guided, loved, and (yes) disciplined their children with prudence, justice, courage, and temperance. And their kids knew their fathers loved them and wanted the best for them, even if they didn't understand the decision at the time.

But this weakness on the part of some bishops to be loved—nay, adored!—is precisely part of the problem. Apuron had this in spades, and anyone who knows him knows this to be true. Hon by all accounts wants to be loved just as much, or at least regaled and esteemed. Being the Curial man he is, however, he fancies himself to be BMOC judging by his Nietzschean He-Man “I have the power!” declaration. Only hubris would assume that this small group of manamko was all there was to CCOG and LFM support. Only ego would make him think we would just let child rape slide. He thought we would just fade away under the weight of his ecclesial majesty. It's just child rape and theft of millions of dollars. No biggie.

The point then is that bishops in particular have the enormous responsibility for tens of thousands of souls and more; there is not a margin for error. If I had been given that kind of responsibility, I’d be spending the night in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel (and all of the day I could), where this sacrificial love is manifested right there, blody blood soul divinity. THAT’S the source of strength, not communities or even fiestas. In fact, there would be a holy terror in me at the prospect of that much responsibility for the souls of the Faithful.

As it is, we have to accept the fact that European and American bishops are, on the whole, bad men with corrupted faith. There, I said it. They allow themselves to be weak in the face of scandal and heresy and perversion and do nothing, while letting the name-brand bishops who can help their careers be their leaders. That’s why I call them morally flaccid. That’s why I constantly call them effeminate, which Aquinas defines as the unwillingness to do what is arduous because it is arduous. Better yet, let's call it what it is: a complete lack of Catholic manhood and all the ethical homoeroticism that implies.

Quick example to make this clear: as I recall, when the same-sex marriage debate was unfolding in New York in 2011, the bishops there said almost nothing. Then, the day it became law, all of a sudden they clamored about what a travesty this was and undoing of natural law.  But that’s not a protest; there were no secret cabal to get around the bishops’ conference. It was just a sales gimmick to protect their moral authority with the faithful, yet actually doing nothing to disturb their profoundly rich benefactors to Catholic charities who supported same-sex marriage. Money talks.

Yeah, they’re for sale--just ask Cardinal Dolan. Apuron has been too.  For years. And I wouldn't be surprised if Hon is on someone’s payroll. You don’t get that high up in the Curia just on your looks.


THE PRICE OF PRIESTHOOD

So how does this impact the Vatican itself? Simple: there’s a river of money flowing through Rome, and we all know it.

But in truth what buys power better than fundraising is the production of priests. In this way, those bishops who want to be like Apuron or Chaput see their upward mobility as inseparably linked to the NCW and its whole system of RMS presbyter-mills.

And for all I may say about the men who are ordained from the RMS on Guam, if they were ordained validly by Apuron, then they are ordained. It’s that simple. Unfortunately, in Apuron’s lust to pump up the numbers as fast as possible, he promoted a system whereby the seminarians are so poorly formed as to be unqualified (in most cases, though I won’t say all). Not only are they not adequately screened or vetted or tested, but once “enrolled,” their formation amounts to little more than regular work within a community and meager classes by perhaps an actual professor or two occasionally. That bad formation needs to be corrected and is another expense the Archdiocse should incur; but if they belong to us, we must do it (we can call it another part of Apuron's patrimony).

In other dioceses, of course, this is not the case. Their training for priests--regardless of diocesan or RMS or whatever--is far more rigorous and demands genuine philosophical, theological, and moral formation. Anything short of this not only cheats the seminarian, but also the Church who will rely on this man to be the sacramental instrument to the people.

So it is this cheating, this twisting of facts as well as truths, that provides a currency every bit as corrupt and evil as bribery in our own government. This is part of why Filoni and others in Rome are so protective of the NCW, regardless of all the bad formation and everything else.

But again: why? Think of it as being in-with-the-in-crowd. Nobody bishops with no discernable talent beyond fundraising and having good connections find a sort of fraternity, a club, a cult, on whom they can hitch their wagon. The NCW is all of these and much more. The NCW provide power based on their “presbyterial numbers.” They generate enormous income, especially from their preaching that anything not given over to them is an idol (particularly when preaching to the affluent).

And what’s more, the NCW appears to be doing exactly what other NCW-supported bishops are ultra-liberals already support: taking the Vatican II “reforms” and gutting the Church of anything resembling the Church. And by gutting it, I mean reducing the Mass to a picnic with the presbyter as the waiter/bartender. 

After that--remember this well, folks--there's no need for a priest.  If it's not an actual sacrifice, then you don't need a priest. And that's ultimtely the object, where worship doesn't need a priest, but administrative power does. That's a huge, and demonic, difference. 

I warned a few posts ago that the architect of the “Vatican II Mass,” or Novus Ordo, was Annibale Cardinal Bugnini, and he expressly stated that his intent in inventing the “new mass” was the removal of anything from the Mass that makes it stand against Protestantism, especially Lutheranism. Even Lutherans agreed it wasn't remotely Catholic anymore. By attempting to remove all mention to the sacrificial nature of the Mass (see especially the old Eucharistic Prayer “B”), and emphasizing the community of believers, faith community, “love feast,” and “ministry,” we almost became full-on Protestant Catholics in our worship. And we always—ALWAYS—believe as we worship.

The great de-priestification of the Church is the only thing that makes sense for the rest of Kiko's theology, his ecclesiology, even his own NCW structure. It should come as no surprise that he himself is the leader. Priests and bishops answer to him. Because the hierarchical nature of the Church is itself only a pointing hand that indicates the future of presbyter/waiters are a means of  administering rites in service to the charismatic leader proclaimed as a prophet. 

In its way, that's what Adrian is referring to when he says that the diocesan priesthood is no more on Guam; there is only the Neocatechumenal Way. 

And that’s just it: most of our bishops wouldn’t know the difference, and that’s a crucial problem since those who DO know mostly don't care. Most people don’t know either. For my part, one of the biggest helps for me understanding better was attending the Extraordinary Rite Mass. The difference was profound. One Mass there heard well and with attention brings it all to light. It's not a matter of attendance, but perspective--rather like finally stepping into a sudden cool breeze in the heat of the day.

And Pope Francis has shown no desire to slow this roll into Protestantism. He repeatedly expresses himself in ways that give support to name-whatever-movement, but the average, everyday faithful Catholics like me are called Pharisees for not supporting admitting the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist or whatever else the Church tells us.

[Note: the last time I checked, the Pharisees in fact had no problem with divorce, and it was Jesus who told them this remarrying was adultery, plain and simple. So by being faithful to Christ, I’m now being a Pharisee? Give me a break--back to this later]

The Pope declares that the priests aren’t there to give permission to people to partake of the Eucharist and not to interfere in the moral lives of others. But that’s not true. If the priest knows for a fact that there’s a question, he has to say something. Such is the price of the priesthood. Such is the price of being Christ-like.

The priest is not the presbyter, nor an elder. He is not the congregation leader or even the celebrant or whatever you call it. He’s the priest. He must act like one.  And this quest to annihilate any meaningful notion of priest is precisely (to my mind) the smoke of Satan that entered into the Church (to use the phrase of Bld Paul VI). That's the animus of the spirit of Vatican II, and Kiko bother embodies it and revels in it. 

Between bishops being skeptical or utilitarian, they fall in with the (condemned) Modernist movement to be like any other religion, to makes the Roman Catholic Church to be in fact a religion-less religion. This is the real goal of the NCW. That's Kiko's direction for the Church. And Hon knows exactly what I'm talking about. 

The rest of the bishops are too spineless to do anything either, for the most part. That’s why the notable ones like Raymond Burke stand out so much (and are basically banished for Rome for it); they have balls, theological balls that won’t let them back down from loving the Lord’s Church as fully as possible in all Her glorious Tradition.

As it is, some people just want to become Cardinal Hon, just like Brother Tony lusted to be Cardinal Apuron. Maybe it will happen for you. I hope it's worth it. 

As it is, everything is for sale to most of these bishops, especially the Truth. It won’t be until the laity demand that our bishops get back to the Faith that they are supposed to safeguard that times may change. If not that, we may see an awful lot of bishops populating hell with those they deceived. We smell the smoke of Satan in our nostrils every day. Pray we do not each find ourselves headed to hell with that Satanic smoke having filled not only our lungs but our minds.





9 comments:

  1. I mostly agree; but you exagerate condemning - even if you avoid to tell this - the 2° Vatican Council. Also condemning all of it is an heresy. I hope you dont belong to the extremist bishops who left the comunion with the Catholic church (Lefèvre).
    We cannot know if history will lead us to a scism. I fear so. It is not the first one. Let us do everything possible to avoid it, until the center of our faith, the sacrifice of Crist Jesus and his resurrection is not toched by the Pope and must bishops.
    I give one exampel of your exageration: Many of the anaforas recomandeted are ortodox, I mean catholic, not heretical. Heretical is the second one, and this is the reason why Kiko and Carmen introduced it in the NCW as the only one to be proclaimed. The reason: it only slightly in a little word alludes to the sacrifice of Jesus. This is also the reason why Kiko "composed" the music for this Anafora, so that NCW members for all their lives only here the Second Canon, in kikotical version.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your comment. I am not part of the SSPX or any other schismatic group, and I certainly don't condemn Vatican II. On the contrary: the problem with V2 is the profoundly vague language used in the documents--language which gave bishops all kinds of room to demonstrate this betrayal that was already simmering underneath. A very small example: the minute the Novus Ordo went into effect, quite literally overnight priests stopped saying Mass ad orientam. Just because. That wasn't part of any reform. And bishops led the way.

    No sir, to condemn the Council would be to condemn the driver's license exam for someone's bad driving. Rather, I'm trying to see the problem for what it is.

    To your example: the anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer, that you refer to is B, particularly before the 3rd Edition of the Missal. I didn't say it was heretical, and it is valid because the words of consecration are there. But there can be no doubt that the language of B is so profoundly different from the Roman Canon as to see very little resemblance, and the key and substance of the changes are the Sacrificial. That use by Kiko exclusively don't prove my point, but it certainly demonstrates it well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: I misspoke. When I said above " to condemn the Council would be to condemn the driver's license exam for someone's bad driving," that should read:

      "to condemn the Council would be to condemn the requirement for a driver's license exam for someone's bad driving."

      It the exam is vague, off-point, and taught by someone not qualified, that would certainly explain bad driving.

      Delete
    2. Either Vatican II changed doctrine or it did not. If it did, it is not a valid council and should be ignored. If it did not, there should be no problem in adhering to the doctrine of the Church as presented before Vatican II.

      Delete
    3. That would seem to be the case, but why do both the "traditionalist" Catholics and "progressive," modernist Catholics both claim Vatican II was a radical break?

      Benedict XVI worked hard on the problem while at the CDF and proposed that there's an inner continuity. With all respect, I don't see it as continuous, but not because of an actual "change" in doctrine.

      I don't see doctrine having changed, but rather "explained" in "modern language" (as though we didn't understand before). That involved ambiguity of phrase, equivocal terminology and a fluid vocabulary that allows for all kinds of interpretation. By doing this, they opened all kinds of doors that culminates in the "making" of a new Mass, rather than making small adjustments, as has been done in the past.

      Delete
  3. Dear Glaucon,

    To follow you in detail, I would like very much for you to provide an example from a Vatican II document which "explains" in "modern language" using "ambiguity of phrase, equivocal terminology and a fluid vocabulary that allows for all kinds of interpretation." Such a citation would help a lot. Thank you in anticipation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why, what a delightful request, although I know perfectly well this request--coming from you in particular--is not one of a gadfly but rather of one who likes to be Socratic and rattle his interlocutor on the off-chance he hasn't done his homework, yet who then disappears into the night once the case is made. Hence, the would-be dissimulation, which is a little disappointing since I know perfectly well that you know what I mean.

    Even so, I'll be happy to oblige when I get home from work and settle in. Have a fine day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Glaucon,
      If I disappear into the night, it is because my follow-up comments were reviewed and deemed unacceptable by the blog administrator. I am not one to disappear, but like the Scarlet Pimpernel, will appear now here, now there.

      Furthermore, if you judge me (cf. Mt. 7, 1 and following) as a dissimulator, then judge me, with St. John Chrysostom of the Tradition, with mercy, compassion and forgiveness, for this is the measure by which you, I presume, wish to be judged.

      Delete
  5. Timothy,
    There is no judgment here, so there is no need to cite the Sermon. Dissimulation is a tactic used to draw out one's interlocutor, and I have no problem with it (in that context) as a way of getting to the truth, not in winning a debate. It's only disappointment that you might be inclined to do so with me.

    But as you will. Since comments are far too small to give adequate treatment, I'll do a short post by tomorrow morning (tonight if time allows after home duties). Peace.

    ReplyDelete