Faithful to Tradition(feb24fft.htm)

Friday
February 24, 2006
vol 17, no. 42

The Devil Never Sleeps
Part Three

BAD BISHOPS
    Men who call themselves "Bishops" are supposed to be successors of the Apostles, exemplifying virtue beyond reproach and entrusted by Christ Himself to be vigilant over His flocks - to "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep" - to keep the wolves away and guide the flock toward Heaven, disdaining the temporal for a greater spiritual treasure. They're supposed to be that way. The fact the vast majority are not tells it all!

      "The people that hold the feet to the fire of those who claim to be bishops are sacrificial lambs in a sense, being hated for Christ's sake (for doing the right thing when others won't). These people don't stand by idle when the life of a good priest is ruined, or when the lives of children are ruined or when countless souls are ruined due to the 'bishop's' complicity with evil. Many Traditional Catholics consider it a badge of honor to be chastised for these souls."


    In this third installment spaced out over the weeks, let's turn our attention to the crux of the problem and that is the bishops. Bad bishops at that. Today is the feast of Saint Matthias, the Apostle chosen to replace Judas Iscariot and could be termed the second "consistory" since the other apostles were consecrated by Christ. I bring this up today for Wednesday it was announced that Benedict XVI will impart the title of cardinal on fifteen bishops, note I did not say "worthy" bishops, just men who have shown little inclination to be true shepherds. And maybe that is the problem. Why don't we take away their robes, rings, miters, cars, perks, secretaries, country club memberships, socializing schedule, and political agenda and give them a sackcloth and a staff and put them out to pasture. I mean really put them out among the sheep. I mean real honest to goodness sheep who baah, and wander and grow wool. Think of the time of contemplation these bishops could gain. Think how they could begin to relate and actually care for their flock. They'd actually be aware of the wolves on the perimeters waiting to pounce on their lamb chops.

    You see these bishops live in the modern world and really don't have a clue what the common folk have to face. They've been up in their ivory towers for so long, pampered and patronized that they've lost all touch with reality and, sadly, with Christ and the Faith He founded. It seems the only times today that these learned Pharisees take notice is if the press gets wind of something. Bad press is a killer for these pompous prelates. But like it or not they not only have to deal with a probing secular press, but now have to face situations where they have to deal with a society and "Catholics" who practice fornication and perversions (any sexual act not between members of the opposite sex is a perversion - it is not the procreative act - it can't be) of every type on a regular basis. This results in these Vatican II church leaders making some rather unwise, imprudent, cowardly, ignorant and evil decisions. This also leads people to talk about the reality of the situation within the Vatican institution that claims to be Catholic but acts and talks as if it were not - which leads to talking about "priests", "bishops" and "popes" in an accurate and therefore negative way. Such people are accused of gossip, slander, calumny and detraction.

    In this series we have been talking about the most common sins which are the sins of the flesh; I believe the second most common sin has to do with the sins of the tongue. When accused of the above mentioned sins of the tongue - especially against the clergy - which depending upon the gravity of the issue, condemn one to hell if one dies in that state, one must take these accusations of gossip, slander, calumny and detraction very seriously and look to see if such is the case; for if such is the case - such MUST be avoided at all costs.

    I have frequently talked about motive and intent when it comes to prayer and also when it comes to sinning. Many of us look to Saint Paul who rebuked Saint Peter, publicly, to his face because of the public scandal he was causing when he refused to eat with the Gentiles. One who sins publicly, especially if he is a church leader must be rebuked publicly. If church leaders refuse to do the needed rebuking then the lay people must do so in my opinion. Don't you agree?

    To discern whether we are committing sins when discussing realistically the situation in the Vatican institution we must get a good spiritual director and until this is done we must ask ourselves and answer honestly some difficult questions such as: Do we take pleasure when talking about the reality of the situation in the new church formerly known as the Catholic Church? If so, does this pleasure stem from our pride of "being in the know" or do we feel this pleasure because talking about the ridiculousness of the new church reassures us that our decision to become a legitimate Catholic by attending a legitimate Mass and practicing the legitimate Catholic faith was the right decision? If we do get pleasure out of such topics - is this pleasure the reason we talk about such things or is our motive to wake-up some well intentioned Catholics and perhaps some priests and bishops along the way? Many times our motives are not entirely pure even though we will them to be entirely pure - though the primary intent of our actions is good. We must be on the watch so as to catch ourselves and prevent ourselves, by the grace of God, from smugly congratulating ourselves for being so in tune with reality when everyone else seems so blind. Satan is very adept at turning the occasion of a good act into an occasion of pride. We must be concerned first and foremost with the salvation of souls, beginning with our own. Any other ulterior motive will doom us.

    Some say holding corrupt bishops' feet to the fire (regarding our preference for the reversal of their proclivity for punishing the good and rewarding and covering up the evil of priests that engage in sodomy with children) is like "displaying our dirty laundry in public" and is uncharitable. You know, if the bishop covers up a scandal the lay people should cover-up the bishop's scandal and call this cover-up "charity". Is that really "charity" to allow the devil free reign to capture so many souls?

    Who cares if more boys' lives are permanently ruined? Who cares if countless souls are mislead and fall away from the Faith of our Fathers, we always have the excuse "my bishop is doing it, it must be okay." Would these same people say that you should not tell a child to look both ways before he crosses the street because he might be offended or embarrassed? We are not talking about physical lives here but immortal souls!

    Speaking of physical lives and immortal souls, I make it a practice to pray in front of an abortuary and display signs that reveal the truth about abortion. Some "pro-life Catholics" get mad at me because they prefer to ignore unpleasant realities. Others get mad at me because their bishop does not like the signs so they try to convince me to put the sign away until the bishop and his fans leave after they pray five decades of the Rosary or the JP2 chaplet, that ignominious luminous set that reeks of freemasonry overtones and is humanistic to the core.

    Yes indeed, some would rather shake hands with the devil in order to facilitate their pro-life agenda than consistently do what is most effective in saving lives. Let's buddy up with this heretic (by going against our principles for a time to avoid offending him) so we can get more people at the abortion sites. Politics really does make strange bedfellows. Let's water down our teaching so more people will like us. That trick has been tried ad nauseum. Never mind that you cannot do evil that good may come. Even if you could do evil that good may come - it does not work. I refuse to pretend that what I do is effective in curbing abortion when the bishop is not there and then all of a sudden is ineffective when he arrives. Pardon me for wanting to save lives even when the bishop is present.

    The people who worship the heretics that call themselves bishops are oftentimes the same people who insist that if you do not vote the lesser of two evils but for a candidate that does not compromise with the truth that you are wasting your vote. Where has this self-defeating type of thinking gotten these well intentioned "People of God"? How has the over-turning of Roe v Wade gone with our lesser of two evils men (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 with a Republican congress) in office? Answer me this question: Since the time of Nixon until now, has the amount of legalized abortion increased or decreased under these lesser of two evils people's watch? Feel free to think about the answer, but hopefully it does not take too long to figure it out. These lesser of two evil guys have familiarized themselves with the hand of satan for their own expedience and have benefited from those of us who find the lesser of two evils acceptable quite nicely.

    The same holds true when it comes to speaking the truth about our "good" bishops so as to prevent people from giving money that will go to cover up crimes, wreckovate churches or "catechize" protestantize our children. Only for "bishops" betraying their position is worse than a President betraying his authority and for the bishop this betrayal more closely resembles the betrayal of Judas in that they have less of an excuse for not knowing better and will be held more accountable before God in that it is Christ Himself that is again directly betrayed by the cowardly, spineless, greedy and heretical acts of the "bishops". The few bold people that hold the church leaders feet to the fire ARE being charitable to the "bishops", perhaps giving them an opportunity to save their souls. And these same people are being charitable to the lay people in that knowledge of what the "bishops" are doing helps decrease the lay people's chances of being pawns in the "bishops" game of cover-up while increasing their chances of allowing the people to put their money in a place that will be used to benefit their parishes and family life and society and not be used to cover-up crimes (my 30 pieces of silver go to benefit our Lord's Church, not betray it). Add to the fact that holding people of authority to the fire increases their chance of becoming better leaders and better leaders increase the potential for more souls being saved.

    The people that hold the feet to the fire of those who claim to be bishops are sacrificial lambs in a sense, being hated for Christ's sake (for doing the right thing when others won't). These people don't stand by idle when the life of a good priest is ruined, or when the lives of children are ruined or when countless souls are ruined due to the "bishop's" complicity with evil. Many Traditional Catholics consider it a badge of honor to be chastised for these souls.

    Many "bishops", who should know better, in this country and around the world, would rather cover up the scandal than have the truth known. Hey, why not? They've been known in the past and present to be rewarded for their sinful deeds with plush positions such as Boston's disgraced Bernard Law and his successor Sean O'Malley who has closed and gutted so many churches, beautiful churches in bean town all for the almighty dollar. Many lay people of the New Order, who I guess do not know better (and why would they - they have no leadership) would do the same. Others more true to the faith would echo the following:

    "It is better that the truth be known than the scandal be covered up." St. Augustine (354-430) who also said, "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, and right is right even if no one is doing it."

    Yes indeed. When these people stop being a problem I'll stop talking about them. Until then I will talk about them until they wake up, convert, save their souls and stop scandalizing the faithful or until I die.

    The truth is not always popular or convenient. Our Lord, John the Baptist and many other good fellows are aware of this fact and they too would agree with Saint Augustine rather than any number of the New Order Hierarchy and their loyal lay subjects. Would they not?

Speaking of Bad Bishops

    I thought I would pass on some comments I had personally heard following the passing of John Paul II which I found interesting and something that you might not hear from the media or from the pulpit in most Churches. My attendance at the only authentic Catholic Church in the area, apart from being the best thing that ever happened to me since Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, also has some other great benefits such as sermons of substance.

    The person giving this talk shortly after the death of JP2 (which you will see turned out to be prophetic) started out by saying he was initially planning on speaking on the Therese Schiavo case but thought it more proper to speak of the latest happening regarding JPII.

    He quoted a phrase from a Saint in Latin, which when translated into English means something to the effect "If you have nothing good to say about the dead then say nothing at all."

    He then went on to say that he believed some things need to be said because the after-effect of JP2's death will result in confusion and people can get caught up in the emotion of the moment and allow their views to become distorted.

    He mentioned how the media and many others liked JP2 for good reasons such as his sunny disposition, congeniality, and his genuine love for other people. He also mentioned how he was consistent with the truth regarding life issues (death penalty aside) and that these are genuinely good things about the man.

    He then mentioned what has happened to the faith of the people during his pontificate, in regards to belief in the Real Presence among all those who call themselves Catholic for instance and suggested that the faith of the people in this vital aspect has not improved and mentioned how continuing to allow Communion in the hand, Eucharistic ministers and the Novus Ordo itself has not helped that situation, and these are all things we know he had the authority to change back to the Catholic practice. Who would deny that such changes would have helped the faithful have the due reverence and right understanding of the Eucharist informed Catholics should have?

    He then listed several other scandalous things this "pope" did during his pontificate such as worshipping in a Jewish Synagogue, which no other Pope has done, and with good reason as any pre-conciliar Catholic would readily understand, having Buddhist, Islamist, snake-handlers, Pagans and heretics worship their false God's . . . twice, at Assisi. Again these are things that have never been done before by a Pope and for what should be obvious reasons. This worshipping of idols with heretics not only waters down in the minds of Catholics and of the rest of the world the fact that there is one, true, faith, not to mention worshipping false gods is in and of itself not such a hot thing to encourage. And, I might add, those actions openly and blatantly, and yes, intentionally, violated the very first Commandment of God. Do you think God was pleased with JP2? If so, I have some swampland in Florida I'd love to sell you or perhaps a bridge in Brooklyn. How could his public scandals not weaken the faith of those who really didn't know their faith?

    The faithful Priest went on to say that the media calls JP2 conservative and traditional, which in reality really only means that JP2 is more conservative than the media which is not saying much. He said calling him traditional is absurd because JP2 was incredibly fond of Vatican II which is anything but Traditional and which opened the doors for the modernism that His Holiness Pope Saint Pius X specifically condemned as "the synthesis of all heresies" and which results in the false ecumenism, religious liberty and the fabricated liturgy officially approved by the "popes" of the new church we see around us now. It cannot be denied that JP2 embraced and promoted this very modernism or "mother of all heresies" that was clearly condemned by the Popes of the past. Nor can it be denied as some say that at the very least that he came dangerously close to being heretical on several occasions while other people such as me would leave the "dangerously close" out of that statement and claim that he was in fact a heretic. If you like, sure, okay, he was a friendly, nice, heretic that suffered a lot, supposedly loved our Lady (though his actions would contradict that statement) and was outspoken against abortion. Many heretics including Martin Luther fit into that category. If you don't believe me look into it yourself. This "pope" however, separated himself from Martin Luther in being the only person to invent a new rosary and the only person to invent a new code of canon law with anti-catholic laws.

    Do I despise this former church leader? Absolutely not. I feel sorry for him and I despise what he did.

    The traditional priest continued from the pulpit predicting that people would push to canonize JP2 (much as he pushed to canonize, seemingly, everyone else) as they got caught up in the emotion of the current events of santo subito but that we should not get caught up in the false picture many well-intentioned, good people would paint of the man in regards to what he did or did not do for the faith of the ages.

    He said we must avoid two extremes here. One extreme being the calling for his canonization or calling him "The Great" without proof and claiming his pontificate was great for the One, True, Faith and other extreme to avoid would be the extreme of despising him - because true Catholics with respect for the Papacy and with respect for all human beings do not lack charity. We cannot claim to judge with certainty his heart or his intentions regarding all the things he did and did not do. But we certainly can and must judge his scandalous actions and lack of orthodox and disciplinary action and the effect those actions and lack of actions had on countless souls that trusted him without judging the person.

    We must remember, realize and face the fact that these "Bad Bishops" we have today were appointed by John Paul II. If the buck stops at the top and there's no reason it shouldn't, then any talk of canonization has to be measured by the measure of the man and his deeds. I'm sorry but there are too many bad, bad, nay, even evil prelates prancing around today in their scarlet or purple robes to give Karol Wojtyla any slack that he didn't know better or that he was holy. And his successor Joseph Ratzinger? Well, considering he was JP2's right hand man and the architect of the sabotage of the True Church with his seemingly innocent "subsists in" phrase in that hideous conciliar document Lumen Gentium that totally altered Catholic truth, and considering the appointments he has made in less than a year, well why should anyone think things are going to change?

    Even though the modern Vatican has eyes and ears all around and they are tuned to what the Traditionalists and Catholics at heart are saying, I don't think we should trust them as far as we can throw them and that would be my advice, for what it is worth, to His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay and all the other Bishops of the Fraternity of the Society of Saint Pius X. With all due respect please don't take a step until you see modern Rome do something that visibly shows to all that they are sincere in returning credibility to the Vatican and really do want to clean up the mess they've made. Until then, it is foolish to even dialogue with the devil because we all know the devil never sleeps.

    Until then not only should we pray with all our heart for a return of the True Roman Catholic Church universally and for the conversion of these "bad bishops" from Benedict on down, but we should continue to expose their agenda when it is not in line with what Holy Mother Church has always taught. We can only hope and pray that hopefully the lack of gullibility on some people's parts will inspire the Cardinals to eventually elect a truly Catholic Pope or get the Cardinals that do not believe the One, True Faith they were raised in to do the right thing and resign. That's the only real gesture which will prompt true Catholics to even start to believe that these "bishops" are sincere and truly want to strive for holiness. In other words, get thee to a monastery and repent! Unfortunately, most of them are a long way from such humility because pride is the devil's favorite vice.

John Gregory


        "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are THE TRUE CHURCH"
        Saint Athanasius, "Apostle of Tradition" AD 373



    Friday
    February 24, 2006
    vol 17, no. 42
    Faithful to Tradition