If Diana's blog had a family crest
Ok, I'm pretty much ready to wrap up this five-part series on the NCW, its paradosephobic bad theology, its broken Christology, and its natural terminus in pride and injustice. It's long work for you to read and digest, but it's important that we know what we're up against.
In other words, there's a big steaming pile of Kiko we've stepped in, and right now if feels like we're not getting our shoes clean for a while.
But one thing has been bothering me, so I thought I'd put it out there for your consideration.
At every turn, the Diana has latched onto and been critical of virtually everything on JungleWatch that she can get her mitts on. Since ever since, she's declared Tim to be an enemy of the Faith, Chuck a plagiarizing pseudo-scholar, and Frenchie to be, well, Frenchie. She even tried to share the love with me over an innocuous little piece on the origin of the "nation" of Israel. Then confronted with all the evidence in the world that she is wrong, she pitched a fit. Never one to admit she is ever ever wrong, she would not relent.
Her blog's family crest should read: LOCO SANCTO ABSURDITAS. In other words, "ABSURDITY IN PLACE OF HOLINESS." [I was going to say "Loco Sancto Stultitia," which sounds better, but it missed the mark.]
Folks, the obstinate ignorance gets so extreme, I sat back and watched her in the last week or two try to explain that the English word "presbyter" comes from Latin, even though it's a Greek word. No matter that in Greek presbyteros means elder. Why bother consulting a Greek lexicon or etymological dictionary? The Mistress of Monosyllabic Mayhem cited Wikipedia, which said it comes from Greek. No, she asserted, it's still a Latin word since Latin picked it up in the late Middle Ages after 2000+ years as a language without the word.
Kinda like saying fiesta is an English word because I speak English and I say fiesta. It's like arguing with a four year old who swears up and down that the cookie is in fact called a PIG newton.
You gotta hand it to her. She's not one to admit defeat. I'll give her that.
So why the fuss? Well, I was wondering...
Why hasn't Diana posted one thing about anything we've said in this series?
Nothing. Not a word. Her only comment so far was to true to try to call out Tim on a comment based on a comment by Timothy Guile that I picked up as a sideline.
This is a woman/collective/whatever who will make a whole post about someone not knowing that the soldier who pierced the Lord's side is a saint (the hagiographical legend of St Longinus).
This is Pius' mouthpiece who will argue to the moon and back about whether there is really a true "altar" besides Christ Himself.
This is the person who insists that Fr John Hardon, SJ--who authored a solid catechism of the Catholic Church before we had the JP2 Catechism and was persecuted by his own Order for his orthodoxy and devotion to the Faith--didn't know Church teaching.
This is the Wiki expert who will use the Catechism to prove the exact opposite of anything a JW author posts.
This is the Diana, who tried to take Chuck to task on every bit of evidence from Kiko's writings he's put forth.
This is the same Diana who shouts from the rooftops that Tim is single-handedly destroying the Catholic Church as we know it.
And yet, not a word on anything said here about their bad theology and beliefs.
It's strange. On the pages of this blog in the last couple of weeks, we've demonstrated all manner of heresy, bad theology, and incoherence. To make it easy, here's a list of their problematic beliefs. It's own own little 'blacklist" of why the NCW is so far gone:
NCW believe God became man only so men could be in communion with each other .
NCW believe man has no need of reconciliation with God.
NCW believe in Lutheran justification, so God just pretends not to notice sin and evil.
NCW believe that God is ultimately the author of evil since He's the one who allows it and sends it.
NCW believe man is utterly evil in his nature, which is ok since God is ultimately the author of evil.
NCW believe the sacrificial nature of the Incarnation is a lie
NCW believe the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrilege.
NCW believe devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is an obstacle to Christ.
NCW believe the last 1700 years of the Church are worthless and just a paganzied version of Christianity.
NCW believe the culture, life, and spirituality of the last 1700 is without value.
NCW believe there is no unity of the Tradition.
NCW believe they are the fulfillment of the early Church.
NCW believe all of Christian history leads up to them as the fulfillment of Christ's Church
NCW believe Kiko Arguello to literally be the anointed prophet for this age of the Church
NCW believe any obstacle that stands in their way is an attack on Christ
NCW believe the means justify the end in the accomplishment of their goal of domination.
NCW believe that with the buying of bishops and cardinals with modern Church currency (hundreds of badly formed but obedient priests) will buy them the Papacy and force the submission of all Catholicism under Kiko's ideal.
I might have left something out, but that's still a a jaw-dropping list of head-shaking falsehood. So whenever anyone asks you "What is it about the NCW that is so bad?" you now have a list of what's fundamentally wrong--and this list isn't even complete yet and doesn't even tough the issues of liturgy and obedience.
Yet, not a peep from the Diana. So why not?
Yet, not a peep from the Diana. So why not?
I'd love to tell you that I'm a great debater, but that's not it. She never listens to anything anyone says anyway. Besides, she's really skilled at deflection. I'll give her that much too.
Or maybe it's because she's intimidated, but that's not it either. She drops theological bombs all the time, and she has no problem proclaiming Abp Hon guilty of the (mortal) sin of spite due to the removal of Pius the Proboscis Monkey as rector. [NOTE: She didn't say mortal sin, but since the NCW don't believe in mortal sin, I'd say that's consistent anyway.]
And maybe, just maybe, reading a theological post is too long for her or too difficult for such a defender of the Kiko faith. But unless the last book she finished involved making sure she colored the grass with the green crayon, that’s not much of a reason either not to defend her entire way as heresy when she tries to defend it every other time.
So why the silence in the shadows? I'm glad you asked.
The reason, good people, is because there's nothing to dispute. She agrees with every single thing listed above. There's nothing for her to be confrontational about. I think deep down she knows how bad it sounds when the list is read out loud like that, but the fact is, she and Pius and Lurch and Adrian and Apuron and Gennarini and Kiko (as well as those far enough into the cult to know) believe this stuff to be totally true.
There's a good reason they don't talk about all this in clear terms in their Invitation to Joy, and why Kiko definitely doesn't write it all out systematically: the CDF would tear him apart and he'd be rightly branded not only an architect of heresy, but a cult leader. Only the most impressionable or the most damaged would buy into this stuff if it was all laid out clearly at the beginning. Like any cult, it has to gradually grow on you and change your world view. And that need to create a "secret teaching" gives the NCW even less credibility to the rest of us.
So that's that.
I mention all this now because once I start in on bishops, the Diana may well come out to play and start with her bully tactics, decrying any criticism of anything Roman as an insult to the Pope. But since she's called out Hon and says he's a spiteful sinner and therefore implies that Hon leads the charge in their "persecution," I'd say that ship has already sailed. Now she has no room to wiggle, though in Pius' arrogance, I'm sure she'll try.
What a strange power Truth has, yes?
Someone told me this is Pius' high school senior picture, but I can't confirm that.
What, too soon?