CAST OF CHARACTERS - The people bringing about tyranny in the New Church
By Cesare Baronio - lunedì, dicembre 10, 2018
Et effeminati dominabuntur eis.
Is. III, 4
In my last article [here] I mentioned several parallels between the story of Lucius Sulla and the things happening today to bring about a new tyranny by the progressive sect. As Archbold says [here], “It is commonly remarked by some, myself included, that the Church has been in a de facto state of schism for some time, only that those who no longer hold to the Church's teachings refused to leave. Now, they are not just here but they are in charge. They didn't seek their own alternative church or power structure, they instead took the long view and were covetous of the name Catholic and its power structure. They didn't want their own Church, they wanted ours. Now they have the power and they use power.”
For all this to happen, you have to know the dramatis personae (the cast of characters), those who have allowed such a tyranny to come into force. I think these people - except the Traditionalists, who are the victims of the new tyrant - can be classified as the fearful, the obsequious, those with something to hide, the ideological accomplices, and the actual perpetrators.
The fearful keep quiet and try not to stand out, thus giving their implicit acceptance to the tyranny. They just hope nobody will ask them to show their explicit approval. These are usually the largest group, but it is clear that with their silence the fearful become the tyrant’s accomplices and make any dissent much more difficult. Even if they theoretically wish to see the end of the tyranny, they do nothing to bring this about and are often the first to run away when called upon to do something. They are overwhelming. Within the new church, examples of fearfulness can be seen as those whose cowardice becomes sloth, that deadly sin which is the opposite of the cardinal virtue of fortitude. In the current crisis it is mostly the clergy who commit sins of cowardice and sloth, especially those Prelates who, when faced with the truth, keep quiet; when they see an abuse, they look somewhere else; when they see an injustice, they think only of themselves and try to pass unnoticed so they are not ostracised by the men in power, or retaliated against. Generally speaking, the Bishops can be as orthodox as you like, but they will never criticise or report error. If they do report some error, they will never say who actually committed it, nor will they take any measures to ensure it does not happen again or to eradicate it.
The obsequious, who acquiesce so that the men of power will notice them rather than actually approving of what they do but merely because they are powerful. Obsequiousness seems to be a sort of vocation for many, and whereas some people enjoy the libido dominandi of the tyrant, they necessarily prefer a libido serviendi with absolutely no dignity, purely to gratify their masters. The obsequious do not hold to any principles, and are often completely unprincipled. Very often a courtier has to show his subjection as proof of a faithfulness which nobody sees in him, for example when he moves to the other side. An example of vile obsequiousness before the powerful was given by the crowd at the Sanhedrin before Pontius Pilate: “Non habemus regem, nisi Cæsarem.” Inside the Church, we have seen it all before. The obsequious cleric shields himself under the cloak of obedience, which is not understood in its Catholic sense but rather as uncritical and unconditional collaboration with authority, wherever it comes from and whatever it does. Remember that the obsequious cleric is also an opportunist. Such as the new Monsignor who wore a cassock with a watered silk sash and sat in raptures at a Pontifical mass under Benedict XVI, but who now wears a clergyman’s suit and walks up and down the corridors at Santa Marta with a book by Cardinal Ravasi or the latest Encyclical under his arm. Or the Bishop who lavished praise on the hermeneutic of continuity wearing a rocchetto and a purple cassock, but who now wears a black cassock and a conciliar-style ring while he sits in the front row at a meeting of the Bishops’ Conference. Among the obsequious are to be seen many deserters from the Society of St. Pius X, formerly such bitter enemies of Rome and who are now such bitter enemies of the Lefebvrian Movement. Their well thought-out consistency in the fight against modernism passes, in the twinkling of an eye, to the most untiring and well thought-out defence of Vatican II and the need for faithfulness towards the See of Peter; their bitter invectives against the New Rite of Mass suddenly change into an impassioned advocacy for the post-conciliar liturgy. Clearly, their contempt towards the community they have just left continues. This category obviously contains all those fifth columnists (whether they realise it or not) in the various traditional or conservative institutes or institutions. Here every possible assistance is given to the tyrant, such as by asking for an Apostolic Visitation.
Those with their own interests are unfailingly found at all levels, because they are only interested in their own greed. These are the people who, whether for selfishness or for avidity, only ever look after themselves at any time and in any place. Those with their own interests look after themselves whoever is in charge and whatever situation is to be found, because all they want is money and a good career. The tyrant knows only too well that these men are completely amoral, but he uses them for his own ends because if they have something to hide they are clearly motivated by the basest of passions. All heretics have always made the utmost use of them, starting with Luther: to garner support among the princes of Germany for his rebellion against Rome, he encouraged them in their craving for more property and allowed them to seize churches, convents, monasteries, estates and properties belonging to dioceses, religious orders, or other church bodies. The same happened in England at the time of the Anglican schism. All in the name of the Church of the poor, clearly. During the reunification of Italy, religious orders were suppressed in 1866 and church property was seized in 1867. This put immeasurable riches into the hands of the state, and some of them were sold on to rich merchants. The Freemasons, acting against the Church, bargained with the Savoy dynasty who had absolutely no scruples. They removed almost all Church property, most of which still belongs to the Italian state. To reach their evil aims, as we have seen, they took advantage of those with their own interests at heart, those with no scruples, who wanted to take economic advantage of the difficulties faced by the Church. The same sort of thing was happening in France, in Portugal, and all those countries where the Freemasons had reached positions of power. In the new church the people with only their own interests at heart can be seen everywhere as they go about their dirty business selling off vestments and Church furnishings. Along with the purges of so many Prelates from the old school, we have seen the promotion of those known for their ambition, whose cursus honorum equals their consentaneity with the men in power. Antique dealers have pulled out their cheque books to buy all the precious items which, in the name of the Council and its spirit of aggiornamento, have been sold by the progressive clergy so they can rid their sacristies of reliquaries, monstrances, fiddle-back chasubles, altar rails, altars, and church fittings. It was an operation begun by Paul VI, who sold off all the old furnishings in the Apostolic Palace to dealers in Via del Babbuino and then had them all replaced with that horrible, worthless, veneered furniture and those brown carpets that are only found in the Hôtel de la Gare. This sacrilegious act of iconoclasm was only possible because all the religious and state authorities gave their approval. Nobody reported the loss of so many priceless works of art. Here, too, the avidity of the Clergy provided a perfect ally for those with evil aims.
Those with something to hide are another category to be found at all levels, including those who have done wrong or have something to lose. They will thus bend to the will of the tyrant, or at least be faithful to him under the threat of something unspeakable being revealed about them, perhaps some little or not-so-little scandal or some unspeakable vice. Where they stand politically is unimportant: since he holds the sword of Damocles over their heads, the tyrant is assured of his fidelity. Unless the one with something to hide knows some secrets about the tyrant. The usual areas where there are things to hide in the Church are corruption and sodomy. Unnatural money and sex, in other words. Once again, avarice and lust are the favourite vices. And remember, too, that for many decades now a widespread practice is that, the more a cleric has something to hide, the better are his career prospects. In this way he will always be useful; not just at the bottom of the greasy pole, but especially the higher and higher he reaches. It often happens the somebody with something to hide is given a cloak of invisibility, so he will always be thankful because there was no scandal. At the same time, he will be even more faithful to his protector. Occasionally a tyrant can be found who secures the absolute fidelity of absolutely everyone in his entourage because absolutely everyone has something to hide. The entourage becomes a sort of lobby group which looks after its own interests (career, sex, money), and its members hold out their leashes to their master so he can lead them wherever he wants. The person with something to hide can occasionally be found in the enemy camp, and is therefore used as a spy or fifth columnist. An enemy with something to hide will never be allowed to live very long. He will be one of the first to be thrown to the lions, because when the scandal comes out he will lose all credibility. Finally, even someone who is all right and proper can be used as someone with something to hide: if he is made to believe that if he does not obey orders it will be the end for him, and fake - but perfectly believable - news will be spread, he will find it impossible to defend his good reputation. Especially in matters concerning the sixth Commandment. One final note. Homosexuality is so widespread among the Clergy, even among those at the very top, as are financial scandals, so blackmailing someone is the easiest thing on earth. Not just within the Church, but also with Her enemies. The consequences are very easy to imagine.
Ideological accomplices share the tyrant’s opinions and are happy to give him power. They are the ones who always say “there’s no going back.” They are all heretics, these believers in Permanent Revolution: Voltaire, Montesquieu, Diderot, Rousseau, and D’Alembert, not to mention Danielou, Congar, De Lubac, Schillebeeckx, Küng and von Balthasar. As are all those who have expressed this idea and justified it, and who have set it out in all its various forms to convince moderates as well as extremists. Support from the modernist intelligentsia has helped tyranny to succeed, starting with their poisonous input into the distortions of Vatican II, the preparatory drafts or schemata for which were completely different from the ones the Council Fathers finally saw. By the same token, all opposition expressed by Catholic intellectuals was actively and continually ignored by the Authorities. They saw them as terrible adversaries, and could deal with them as they wished since the Authorities still had the power to approve and appoint lecturers at Catholic Universities, editors of Catholic newspapers, and Superiors of Religious Orders such as those who had confuted all error for centuries. Especially the Dominicans and the Jesuits. Ideological accomplices are usually the ones who draw up lists of public enemies.
Actual perpetrators are the tyrant’s closest entourage, those who are asked to fulfil his wildest plans and coordinate their implementation. They are the passage from potentia to actus, in all its many and various declinations: those who obey orders from above and put them into practice, the sundry men called João Braz de Aviz or José Rodríguez Carballo, who dismantle Contemplative Religious Orders. Those called Fidenzio Volpi or Noris Calzavara, Commissioners for the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Those called Carlo Redaelli who cast doubt on the Motu Proprio at meetings of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. Or Vito Pinto, who want to see the Purple removed from those who wrote those Dubia. They include those at the Vatican Secretariat of State who forbid Bishop Schneider from leaving his Diocese. It is difficult to believe that they do all this without sharing their ideological bases and motives. Clearly the tyrant draws down with him all those ideological accomplices and actual perpetrators, just as Lucifer dragged down to Hell all those fallen Angels in an inexorable theological patronage system.
After examining the stages on the way to tyranny and classifying its cast of characters, I wonder how are we ever going to get out of it? How can we escape from something so apparently inevitable and irreversible? I think I have found the answer. I shall share it with you in my next post.
For all this to happen, you have to know the dramatis personae (the cast of characters), those who have allowed such a tyranny to come into force. I think these people - except the Traditionalists, who are the victims of the new tyrant - can be classified as the fearful, the obsequious, those with something to hide, the ideological accomplices, and the actual perpetrators.
The fearful keep quiet and try not to stand out, thus giving their implicit acceptance to the tyranny. They just hope nobody will ask them to show their explicit approval. These are usually the largest group, but it is clear that with their silence the fearful become the tyrant’s accomplices and make any dissent much more difficult. Even if they theoretically wish to see the end of the tyranny, they do nothing to bring this about and are often the first to run away when called upon to do something. They are overwhelming. Within the new church, examples of fearfulness can be seen as those whose cowardice becomes sloth, that deadly sin which is the opposite of the cardinal virtue of fortitude. In the current crisis it is mostly the clergy who commit sins of cowardice and sloth, especially those Prelates who, when faced with the truth, keep quiet; when they see an abuse, they look somewhere else; when they see an injustice, they think only of themselves and try to pass unnoticed so they are not ostracised by the men in power, or retaliated against. Generally speaking, the Bishops can be as orthodox as you like, but they will never criticise or report error. If they do report some error, they will never say who actually committed it, nor will they take any measures to ensure it does not happen again or to eradicate it.
The obsequious, who acquiesce so that the men of power will notice them rather than actually approving of what they do but merely because they are powerful. Obsequiousness seems to be a sort of vocation for many, and whereas some people enjoy the libido dominandi of the tyrant, they necessarily prefer a libido serviendi with absolutely no dignity, purely to gratify their masters. The obsequious do not hold to any principles, and are often completely unprincipled. Very often a courtier has to show his subjection as proof of a faithfulness which nobody sees in him, for example when he moves to the other side. An example of vile obsequiousness before the powerful was given by the crowd at the Sanhedrin before Pontius Pilate: “Non habemus regem, nisi Cæsarem.” Inside the Church, we have seen it all before. The obsequious cleric shields himself under the cloak of obedience, which is not understood in its Catholic sense but rather as uncritical and unconditional collaboration with authority, wherever it comes from and whatever it does. Remember that the obsequious cleric is also an opportunist. Such as the new Monsignor who wore a cassock with a watered silk sash and sat in raptures at a Pontifical mass under Benedict XVI, but who now wears a clergyman’s suit and walks up and down the corridors at Santa Marta with a book by Cardinal Ravasi or the latest Encyclical under his arm. Or the Bishop who lavished praise on the hermeneutic of continuity wearing a rocchetto and a purple cassock, but who now wears a black cassock and a conciliar-style ring while he sits in the front row at a meeting of the Bishops’ Conference. Among the obsequious are to be seen many deserters from the Society of St. Pius X, formerly such bitter enemies of Rome and who are now such bitter enemies of the Lefebvrian Movement. Their well thought-out consistency in the fight against modernism passes, in the twinkling of an eye, to the most untiring and well thought-out defence of Vatican II and the need for faithfulness towards the See of Peter; their bitter invectives against the New Rite of Mass suddenly change into an impassioned advocacy for the post-conciliar liturgy. Clearly, their contempt towards the community they have just left continues. This category obviously contains all those fifth columnists (whether they realise it or not) in the various traditional or conservative institutes or institutions. Here every possible assistance is given to the tyrant, such as by asking for an Apostolic Visitation.
Those with their own interests are unfailingly found at all levels, because they are only interested in their own greed. These are the people who, whether for selfishness or for avidity, only ever look after themselves at any time and in any place. Those with their own interests look after themselves whoever is in charge and whatever situation is to be found, because all they want is money and a good career. The tyrant knows only too well that these men are completely amoral, but he uses them for his own ends because if they have something to hide they are clearly motivated by the basest of passions. All heretics have always made the utmost use of them, starting with Luther: to garner support among the princes of Germany for his rebellion against Rome, he encouraged them in their craving for more property and allowed them to seize churches, convents, monasteries, estates and properties belonging to dioceses, religious orders, or other church bodies. The same happened in England at the time of the Anglican schism. All in the name of the Church of the poor, clearly. During the reunification of Italy, religious orders were suppressed in 1866 and church property was seized in 1867. This put immeasurable riches into the hands of the state, and some of them were sold on to rich merchants. The Freemasons, acting against the Church, bargained with the Savoy dynasty who had absolutely no scruples. They removed almost all Church property, most of which still belongs to the Italian state. To reach their evil aims, as we have seen, they took advantage of those with their own interests at heart, those with no scruples, who wanted to take economic advantage of the difficulties faced by the Church. The same sort of thing was happening in France, in Portugal, and all those countries where the Freemasons had reached positions of power. In the new church the people with only their own interests at heart can be seen everywhere as they go about their dirty business selling off vestments and Church furnishings. Along with the purges of so many Prelates from the old school, we have seen the promotion of those known for their ambition, whose cursus honorum equals their consentaneity with the men in power. Antique dealers have pulled out their cheque books to buy all the precious items which, in the name of the Council and its spirit of aggiornamento, have been sold by the progressive clergy so they can rid their sacristies of reliquaries, monstrances, fiddle-back chasubles, altar rails, altars, and church fittings. It was an operation begun by Paul VI, who sold off all the old furnishings in the Apostolic Palace to dealers in Via del Babbuino and then had them all replaced with that horrible, worthless, veneered furniture and those brown carpets that are only found in the Hôtel de la Gare. This sacrilegious act of iconoclasm was only possible because all the religious and state authorities gave their approval. Nobody reported the loss of so many priceless works of art. Here, too, the avidity of the Clergy provided a perfect ally for those with evil aims.
Those with something to hide are another category to be found at all levels, including those who have done wrong or have something to lose. They will thus bend to the will of the tyrant, or at least be faithful to him under the threat of something unspeakable being revealed about them, perhaps some little or not-so-little scandal or some unspeakable vice. Where they stand politically is unimportant: since he holds the sword of Damocles over their heads, the tyrant is assured of his fidelity. Unless the one with something to hide knows some secrets about the tyrant. The usual areas where there are things to hide in the Church are corruption and sodomy. Unnatural money and sex, in other words. Once again, avarice and lust are the favourite vices. And remember, too, that for many decades now a widespread practice is that, the more a cleric has something to hide, the better are his career prospects. In this way he will always be useful; not just at the bottom of the greasy pole, but especially the higher and higher he reaches. It often happens the somebody with something to hide is given a cloak of invisibility, so he will always be thankful because there was no scandal. At the same time, he will be even more faithful to his protector. Occasionally a tyrant can be found who secures the absolute fidelity of absolutely everyone in his entourage because absolutely everyone has something to hide. The entourage becomes a sort of lobby group which looks after its own interests (career, sex, money), and its members hold out their leashes to their master so he can lead them wherever he wants. The person with something to hide can occasionally be found in the enemy camp, and is therefore used as a spy or fifth columnist. An enemy with something to hide will never be allowed to live very long. He will be one of the first to be thrown to the lions, because when the scandal comes out he will lose all credibility. Finally, even someone who is all right and proper can be used as someone with something to hide: if he is made to believe that if he does not obey orders it will be the end for him, and fake - but perfectly believable - news will be spread, he will find it impossible to defend his good reputation. Especially in matters concerning the sixth Commandment. One final note. Homosexuality is so widespread among the Clergy, even among those at the very top, as are financial scandals, so blackmailing someone is the easiest thing on earth. Not just within the Church, but also with Her enemies. The consequences are very easy to imagine.
Ideological accomplices share the tyrant’s opinions and are happy to give him power. They are the ones who always say “there’s no going back.” They are all heretics, these believers in Permanent Revolution: Voltaire, Montesquieu, Diderot, Rousseau, and D’Alembert, not to mention Danielou, Congar, De Lubac, Schillebeeckx, Küng and von Balthasar. As are all those who have expressed this idea and justified it, and who have set it out in all its various forms to convince moderates as well as extremists. Support from the modernist intelligentsia has helped tyranny to succeed, starting with their poisonous input into the distortions of Vatican II, the preparatory drafts or schemata for which were completely different from the ones the Council Fathers finally saw. By the same token, all opposition expressed by Catholic intellectuals was actively and continually ignored by the Authorities. They saw them as terrible adversaries, and could deal with them as they wished since the Authorities still had the power to approve and appoint lecturers at Catholic Universities, editors of Catholic newspapers, and Superiors of Religious Orders such as those who had confuted all error for centuries. Especially the Dominicans and the Jesuits. Ideological accomplices are usually the ones who draw up lists of public enemies.
Actual perpetrators are the tyrant’s closest entourage, those who are asked to fulfil his wildest plans and coordinate their implementation. They are the passage from potentia to actus, in all its many and various declinations: those who obey orders from above and put them into practice, the sundry men called João Braz de Aviz or José Rodríguez Carballo, who dismantle Contemplative Religious Orders. Those called Fidenzio Volpi or Noris Calzavara, Commissioners for the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Those called Carlo Redaelli who cast doubt on the Motu Proprio at meetings of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. Or Vito Pinto, who want to see the Purple removed from those who wrote those Dubia. They include those at the Vatican Secretariat of State who forbid Bishop Schneider from leaving his Diocese. It is difficult to believe that they do all this without sharing their ideological bases and motives. Clearly the tyrant draws down with him all those ideological accomplices and actual perpetrators, just as Lucifer dragged down to Hell all those fallen Angels in an inexorable theological patronage system.
After examining the stages on the way to tyranny and classifying its cast of characters, I wonder how are we ever going to get out of it? How can we escape from something so apparently inevitable and irreversible? I think I have found the answer. I shall share it with you in my next post.
0 commenti
I commenti sono oggetto di moderazione da parte del proprietario del blog. Contenuti offensivi, volgari o non pertinenti non saranno pubblicati.