DONATE TO CANON212: 
DELAWARE: SCRANTON BISHOP ‘BAMBI’ BAMBERA’S OLD SEMINARY FRIEND,’ NOW GAY-MARRIED EX-PRIEST, IS NOT SUITED TO DEFEND THE BOND OF MARRIAGE
MUSIC FOR HOLY FRANCISMASSES: IT’S LIKE IF THE ROLLING STONES WERE GAY JESUITS FROM THE MID-WEST
MARK SHEA: I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR FR. MATTHEW SCHNEIDER, LC
WATCH RUSSIAN ORTHODOX PRIEST DROP HOLY WATER FROM PLANE
CALIFORNIA MAY REQUIRE UNIVERSITIES TO OFFER ABORTION PILLS
‘IT’S NOT A NOT A STRANGE ABERRATION, OK? IT’S A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE!’ – SSPX CHIEF, FR. PAGLIARINI BLAMES FRANCIS’ SACRILEGIOUS SOUL-KILLING AMORIS LAETITIA HERESY ON VATICAN II
SSPX CHIEF: CITING THE MAGISTERIUM OF “SAINT” JOHN PAUL II, FOR EXAMPLE, TO OPPOSE FRANCIS’ INNOVATIONS IS A VERY BAD REMEDY, ONE THAT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE. A GOOD DOCTOR CANNOT SIMPLY USE A FEW STITCHES TO CLOSE A WOUND!
DEFEATIST SSPX CHIEF: CONCILIAR PLURALISM MAKES ANY OPPOSITION STRUCTURALLY INEFFECTIVE!
“NO, I WILL NOT CRY A MICRO-TEAR FOR MSSSSS WEN, THE ABORTIONIST NOW IN TROUBLE FOR BEING JUST A BIT LESS OF A DR GOEBBELS THAN HER EMPLOYER”
“CONSERVATIVE” CARDINAL WOELKI’S RADIO, CATHOLICS ARE “CANCER CELLS”
DEATH PENALTY: CARDINAL SCHÖNBORN BLAMES JOHN PAUL II
FRANCIS HAILS “SPIRIT OF ASSISI”, CALLS ABU DHABI HERESY “IMPORTANT STEP”
BELOVED FRANCISCARDINAL MARX: OUR SPECIAL GERMAN SYNOD’S RESULTS WILL BE HELPFUL FOR THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, YA!
ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE – PRAY FOR US!
TRUMP CALLS FOR RESIGNATION OF NYT REPORTERS WHO WROTE KAVANAUGH HIT PIECE
STUDENT FRANCISLEADERS FIGHT ‘HETERONORMATIVITY’ AT NOTRE DAME, CALL TO END SINGLE-SEX HOUSING
WHAT’S MORE VALUABLE? A MASS OR A MCDONALD MEAL
333 YEARS AGO HUNGARY’S CAPITAL WAS FREED FROM THE TURK
THE PREFERENTIAL OPTION FOR THE YOUNG?
EIGHT ‘EMINENT JOURNALISTS’ BATTLE IT OUT FOR THE FRANCISFINALS!
FORMER ALBANY BISHOP HUBBARD DENIES SECOND ABUSE CLAIM
WHERE, O’ LORD, IS THE ROMAN CHURCH?
NOW REMEMBER, I WANT YOU ALL TO OBEY THE UNITED NATIONS!
BISHOPS, MISSIONARIES WHO KNOW THE AMAZON SOUR ON AMAZON SYNOD
I appreciate your critique of the SSPX, Frank. I imagine many are prone to think that, because they’re traditional, what they say is right. But your criticism seems fair.
I stand with the SSPX. The depravities in the Church were a long time in the making. Are they magically going to disappear if we get another JPII-like pope??—fuggedaboutit!!!! Functionally, in the pews, the Novus Ordo was as wacky during the reign of JPII and Benedict as it is now. Catholics contracepted, did in vitro as much under JPII as they do today. Abortion among Catholics was probably even more rampant. Imagine the explosion of sodomites to the priesthood during JPII’s twenty-seven year reign. Abrogate Vatican II. Canonize Marcel LeFebvre. That is our only hope.
Akita: “The depravities in the Church were a long time in the making. Are they magically going to disappear if we get another JPII-like pope??”
Having finished the interview, I’m more sympathetic to Pagliarani (and where I think you might be coming from).
Pagliarani’s right that what we’re seeing today is the effect of something much deeper and decades old. So, of course, to really solve our current crisis, we have to do a lot more than just oppose JPII to Bergoglio.
My own worry, however, is that Pagliarani doesn’t think there’s any value at all in opposing the two, whereas Bp. Gracida’s recent use of UDG shows that there is value. Granted, Gracida’s use of UDG doesn’t solve our post-conciliar crisis, but it sure levels a nice blow to Bergoglio, who’s the de facto leader of the crisis.
On the other hand, Pagliarani’s metaphor gives me pause. The metaphor’s one in which referencing JPII is likened to stiches on a wound and the disinfecting of which is likened to the SSPX’s call to a return to the Council. The analogy makes it look like Pagliarani might think there’s a place for referencing JPII after all, not as the whole remedy to our crisis, but as a part of it.
On Pagliarani’s point about opposition, I might agree. But is he saying that opposing Bergoglio is useless, or that opposing Bergoglio is useless as long as one doesn’t also oppose the very pluralism that let’s Bergoglio ignore his opposition?
I mostly took Frank to read him the first way (I might have too), but I think we should read him more like the second way. Plagliarani holds only that opposition’s made “structurally” ineffective by conciliar pluralism, which appears to mean ineffective within a pluralist structure. That seems right, and the implication seems to be, if you’re going to oppose Bergoglio, to do it the right away and oppose the whole system that supports him.
But AL is but the logical consequence of VII? This didn’t seem right to me at first, but having read better Pagliarani’s way of connecting family life, ecclisology, and the Council, he does look more plausible to me now.
The fact that Vatican II exists, and the modernism behind it, is no reason to blame Francis on them. Those realities would not have life were it not for bishops who follow them. The ‘structural’ problem, even before VII, has been one of personnel, with Francis being the most problematic individual now, today. Can Vatican II be corrected somehow under these conditions? No. But Francis’s validity and heresy could be addressed by a few willing cardinals.
“The ‘structural’ problem, even before VII, has been one of personnel, with Francis being the most problematic individual now, today.”
I wonder if you and Pagliarani are really disagreeing. The structural problem he speaks of is an ‘ism’, so he seems to be looking at the problem conceptually (the ideas behind it all), whereas you’re speaking of the structural problem in terms of individual bishops, which suggests you’re looking at the problem in terms of how the problem historically manifests (the people who put the ideas into practice).
“But Francis’s validity and heresy could be addressed by a few willing cardinals.”
I hope Pagliarani’s not denying that. On the other hand, on one reading, his statement about structural ineffectiveness does indicate that, and so does the fact that the SSPX still hasn’t openly opposed Bergoglio, but only ‘interpretations’ of him (to my knowledge).
But on another reading, it seems Pagliarani might agree with you, Frank. If so, then I think he would just insist that, once a few willing cardinals finally do address Bergoglio, they are thereby attempting to work from outside the system of conciliar pluralism, which would otherwise render their opposition ineffective.
A lot remains to be seen with the SSPX. Is their new leadership really defeatist? I hope you’re wrong, Frank, but I can’t deny there’s evidence you’re right. Time will tell.
Woah, Frank! I agree with Father Davide Pagliarani that the root of the problem goes way back beyond its latest developments in the Francis phenomenon. Pope John’s Council that he said was to “open the windows” was the crack in the dam that popes of the last half of C19 and early C20 had been trying to avoid. Modernism had been festering out of the Masonic lodges and into universities and seminaries for over a hundred years before the Council officially inserted cracks in the barricade.
Secular Modernism turned into a “theological” avalanche with the popularising of the fantastic speculations of apostate pantheist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin S.J. who has been enthusiastically endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (who also said that he “doesn’t like” Thomism because it’s “too rigid”) and it was tacitly endorsed by JP II .
If you were literate and interested in the ’70’s you’d remember that Church institutions were flooded with books and programmes “On Becoming” everything. Everything was assumed to be becoming what it will be; including the Church. I think that Ratzinger had a better grasp of the dialectics of evolution by competition between “old” and “new” than Bergoglio who continues the same process more aggressively.
There’s lots more but I guess you don’t want your comments box filled by me.
For a rather cautious and scholarly investigation of the “theological” Modernism phenomenon I heartily recommend James Larson:
http://waragainstbeing.com/