Church Crisis/Duties of State: how do we make the best use of our time?

Editor writes…

Since the announcement that this blog will close permanently at the beginning of next summer, there has been some interesting discussion (on the

“All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us” (Lord of the Rings)

Christmas thread) about the use of blogging as a means of apostolic action, a challenge, to those responsible for the crisis in the Church and a means of support for the faithful suffering as a result of the scandals. There is also the issue of carrying out our personal duties of state, and of pursuing our own spiritual well-being. How to make best use of the little time available to us, is, really, the issue at the heart of this debate.  Enter St Alphonsus Liguori!

St Aphonsus Liguori teaches… 

SERMON XXIV. THIRD SUNDAY AFTER EASTER. – ON THE VALUE OF TIME “A little while, and now you shall not see me.” JOHN xvi. 16.

THERE is nothing shorter than time, but there is nothing more valuable. There is nothing shorter than time; because the past is no more, the future is uncertain, and the present is but a moment. This is what Jesus Christ meant when he said: “A little while, and now you shall not see me. ” We may say the same of our life, which, according to St. James is but a vapour, which is soon scattered for ever. ”For what is your life? It is a vapour which appeareth for a little while.” (James iv. 14.) But the time of this life is as precious as it is short; for, in every moment, if we spend it well, we can acquire treasures of merits for heaven; but, if we employ time badly, we may in each moment commit sin, and merit hell. I mean this day to show you how precious is every moment of the time which God gives us, not to lose it, and much less to commit sin, but to perform good works and to save our souls.


1. “Thus saith the Lord: In an acceptable time I have heard thee, and in the day of salvation I have helped thee.” (Isa. xlix. 8.) St. Paul explains this passage, and says, that the acceptable time is the time in which God has determined to confer his favours upon us. He then adds: ”Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. vi. 2.) The Apostle exhorts us not to spend unprofitably the present time, which he calls the day of salvation; because, perhaps, after this day of salvation, there shall be no salvation for us. “The time,” says the same Apostle, “is short; it remaineth that they that weep be as though they wept not; that they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as if they used it not.” (1 Cor. vii. 29, 30, 31.) 

Since, then, the time which we have to remain on this earth is short, the Apostle tells those who weep, that they ought not to weep, because their sorrows shall soon pass away; and those who rejoice, not to fix their affections on their enjoyments, because they shall soon have an end. Hence he concludes, that we should use this world, not to enjoy its transitory goods, but to merit eternal life. 

2. ”Son,” says the Holy Ghost, ”observe the time.” (Eccl. iv. 2 3.) Son, learn to preserve time, which is the most precious and the greatest gift that God can bestow upon you. St. Bernardino of Sienna teaches that time is of as much value as God; because in every moment of time well spent the possession of God is merited. He adds that in every instant of this life a man may obtain the pardon of his sins, the grace of God, and the glory of Paradise. “Modico tempore potest homo lucrari gratiam et gloriam.” Hence St. Bonaventure says that “no loss is of greater moment than the loss of time.” (Ser. xxxvii. in Sept.) 

3. But, in another place, St. Bernardino says that, though there is nothing more precious than time, there is nothing less valuable in the estimation of men. ”Nil pretiosius tempore, nil vilius reputatur.” (Ser. ii. ad Schol.) You will see some persons spending four or five hours in play. If you ask them why they lose so much time, they answer: To amuse ourselves. Others remain half the day standing in the street, or looking out from a window. If you ask them what they are doing, they shall say in reply, that they are passing the time. And why says the same saint, do you lose this time? Why should you lose even a single hour, which the mercy of God gives you to weep for your sins, and to acquire the divine grace? “Donec hora pertranseat, quam tibi ad agendam pœnitentiam, ad acquirendam gratiam, miseratio conditoris indulserit.”

4. O time, despised by men during life, how much shall you be desired at the hour of death, and particularly in the other world! Time is a blessing which we enjoy only in this life; it is not enjoyed in the next; it is not found in heaven nor in hell. In hell, the damned exclaim with tears: “Oh! that an hour were given to us.” They would pay any price for an hour or for a minute, in which they might repair their eternal ruin. But this hour or minute they never shall have. In heaven there is no weeping; but, were the saints capable of sorrow, all their wailing should arise from the thought of having lost in this life the time in which they could have acquired greater glory, and from the conviction that this time shall never more be given to them. A deceased Benedictine nun appeared in glory to a certain person, and said that she was in heaven, and in the enjoyment of perfect happiness; but that, if she could desire anything, it would be to return to life, and to suffer affliction, in order to merit an increase of glory. And she added that, to acquire the glory which corresponded to a single Ave Maria, she would be content to suffer till the day of judgment the long and painful sickness which brought on her death. Hence, St. Francis Borgia was careful to employ every moment time for God. When others spoke of useless things; he conversed with God by holy affections; and so recollected was he that, when asked his opinion on the subject of conversation, he knew not what answer to make. Being corrected for this, he said: I am content to be considered stupid, rather than lose my time in vanities. 

5. Some of you will say: What evil am I doing ? Is it not, I ask, an evil to spend your time in plays, in conversations, and useless occupations, which are unprofitable to the soul? Does God give you this time to lose it? “Let not,” says the Holy Ghost, ”the part of a good gift overpass thee.” (Eccl. xiv. 14.) The work men of whom St. Matthew speaks did no evil; they only lost time by remaining idle in the streets. But they were rebuked by the father of the family, saying “Why stand you here all the day idle ?” (Matt. xx. 6.) On the day of judgment Jesus Christ shall demand an account, not only of every month and day that has been lost, but even of every idle word. ”Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it on the day of judgment.” (Matt. xii. 36.) He shall likewise demand an account of every moment of the time which you shall lose. According to St. Bernard, all time which is not spent for God is lost timeClick here to read St Alphonsus’ entire sermon On The Value of Time (scroll to p.98)

Comments invited…  

Is Pope Francis right to think he will “go down in history” as a Schismatic? Gulp!

Extracts below, from Christian Order February 2018 editorial: Francis is So Bad, He’s Good  

 

If we speak explicitly, …what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly.” (Pope Francis)

“Let what you say be simply `Yes’ or `No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”       (Jesus Christ)

As underlined last month, the filthy fingerprints of the Father of Lies are now all over the Vatican (aka Sodomy Central). Hiding in plain sight, his ‘signature’ is not only apparent in orgiastic eruptions, however. It is also clear and ever present in the leitmotif of this papacy — deception.

This devilish modus operandi is expressed in the slithering papal strategy above, confided by Francis to his Special Secretary for the 2014/15 Sinods, Archbishop Bruno Forte. In October 2014, it was Forte who penned the infamous text calling for the Church to “value” homosexuality. And it was Forte who subsequently revealed that his boss had told him:

“If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, you don’t know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Far from “evil”, as Our Lord Himself designated such deceit, Forte found this papal ploy so clever (“typical of a Jesuit,” he sniggered) and so appealing, that he had no qualms whatsoever recounting it during a May 2016 conference on the equally deceitful Amoris Laetitia.

Wherever we look, it’s that sort of papacy. There was even a deceptive symmetry about the Pope’s Christmas message and subsequent stroll across St. Peter’s Square to view the Vatican Nativity. After vespers in St. Peter’s, having just bewailed a “wasted and wounded” year of “lies and injustices” (perpetrated by everyone except himself, of course) our pontifical hypocrite then visited and complimented a subversive depiction of Bethlehem; a ‘wound, lie and injustice’ that passed without papal comment, despite (or because?) it involved a blasphemous nudge and wink to the sodomitic culture he has cultivated.

Pink provocations

Under the pretext of clothing the naked, the life-size nativity featured a naked man lying on the straw right opposite the manger. He was being offered a cloth by a pilgrim, but as one of countless outraged onlookers truly observed, he was “too much a poster boy for the local gym to be a man in need of corporeal mercy.” Indignant Catholics were not alone in voicing their disgust. Even ultra-liberal Facebook drew the line. It rejected an advert centred on the scene with the following explanation: “Your ad can’t include images that are sexually suggestive or provocative”!

Unlike Francis, who blithely praised the Nativity as “inspired by the works of mercy,” its creator, Antonio Cantone, at least displayed signs of a conscience, albeit a guilty one. “It is not a campy nativity,” he pouted, before conceding that it did contain “provocations.” You might say! As Ann Barnhardt discovered:

It turns out that the whole Vatican Nativity scene was made in the Sanctuary of Montevergine, a Benedictine monastery outside of Naples. The Sanctuary of Montevergine has long been notoriously and blasphemously claimed as a mascot and meeting place for sodomites and transvestites.

[In 1256], a false story was started by sodomites that two sodomite men, after being caught, convicted and condemned to death by exposure for their sickening capital crimes by being tied to a tree, were miraculously saved by the Virgin of Montevergine, whereupon the two sodomites… wait for it… promptly celebrated by sodomizing each other because their “love” had been ratified by the Queen of Heaven, or something.

Blasphemy of the sickest and most demonic sort. This blasphemy spread, and now the Sanctuary of Montevergine is used by Italian sodomites as a mascot for gay pride marches and drag queen conventions. The biggest gay pride march at the Shrine of Montevergine, happens, even more blasphemously, on February 2, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin.

So the Vatican Nativity scene was made at the Shrine of the so-called “Gay Madonna”, and there is an image of the Icon of the Madonna of Montevergine in the Vatican Nativity scene itself – a CLEAR SIGNAL to the sex perverts that the scene is a bow to them.
So, to all the people who remarked that the figure of the Blessed Virgin in the Vatican Nativity scene looks really, really masculine, almost like a man in drag, I think you have
been vindicated.

Just as Freemasons on every continent, but especially in Italy, imprint their occult symbols on monuments, buildings and structures of every kind, so the inclusion in the Vatican Nativity of male erotica, a masculine Madonna and, in one corner, a replica of the Icon of Montevirgine — known in Italy as “The Gay Madonna” and “The Madonna of the Drag Queens” — were Pink Mafia ‘calling cards which cried out: We’re everywhere! Subverting! Deceiving! Defiling all that is holy, wholesome, innocent and pure!

Such ‘pink provocations’ are now legion and flagrant.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has even befouled his coat of arms with the ‘gay’ rainbow (yet another beautiful symbol the sodomites co-opted to corrupt). He has no fear of papal rebuke since he was chosen by Francis to head the Pontifical Council for Life despite his public support of the homosexual political movement; support he further signposted by commissioning a homosexual artist to adorn his former cathedral in Terni with a massive “homo-erotic” mural featuring an “erotic” depiction of Christ.

Painted by Argentinian sodomite Ricardo Cinalli, the pornographic mural depicts an almost nude Christ figure lifting two nets filled with contorting human figures, including a nude depiction of Paglia himself. Cinalli confirmed that Paglia had approved every stage of the work. He added that Paglia had drawn the line only at depicting the figures in the act of copulating, but agreed “that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.”

Creepy Curia

Thus, forever fixated on political deceptions and lies, our worldly pontiff happily ignores the deceit, mendacity and associated perversions tearing the Church apart. He ignores them because he facilitates and personifies those very traits — as the Forte revelation, the Paglia appointment and a Curia stacked with his creepy placemen make crystal clear.
Aflame with radical Modernism, Vatican Congregations, Pontifical Councils and Institutes, and other curial bodies are all billowing forth the smoke of Satan. Cleansed of orthodox heads and advisers they are now run by sinister figures like Francesco Coccopalmerio (Legislative Texts), Pio Vito Pinto (Roman Rota) and the aforementioned Vincenzo Paglia (Council for Life/Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences), to name just a few. Yet if there is ‘something of the night’ about all these men, and so many other Bergoglian appointees beyond Rome, it goes double for the man who appointed them. 

Schismatic agenda

Modernism alone does not account for Francis. Quite apart from doctrinal issues, he exudes a pungent combo of mental illness, complicity and blackmail. How else to account for the unhinged rants, the perverts he coddles, and, above all, the noxious path to formal schism he is not only set upon but talks of treading? Der Spiegel of 23 December 2016 reported him having said, “It is not impossible that I will go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” A boast that flags his instability, it is not, however, an idle one. Daily reports confirm what we all sense: that his cherished place in history (infamy more like) is nigh.  [Emphasis added -Ed.]

Among several schismatic snippets filed at the time of writing, Bishop Bode, Vice President of the German Bishops’ Conference, wants to bless active homo pairs because he feels that “it is difficult to say from the outside whether someone is in the state of mortal sin.” [LifeSiteNews, 10/1/18] Yet in order to comprehend sodomy as mortally sinful behaviour, and so conform himself to the plain-speaking counsel of Christ, it is not so difficult for His Lordship simply to Google the hard science on destructive sodomitic fruits. Like his pontifical role-model, however, the Bishop “won’t speak plainly.” Instead, he babbles. “We have to reflect upon the question as to how to assess in a differentiated manner a relationship between two homosexual persons,” he proclaims. “Is there not so much positive and good and right so that we have to be more just?”

As Jesus taught, this sort of evasive, convoluted verbiage — ideological blather that will not countenance a “yes” or “no” — “comes from evil.” And schism is its evil end. To read the rest of this devastating editorial, click here…

Comments invited… 

And to subscribe to Christian Order (recommended) click here

Cardinal’s (Ironic) Tweet: Catholics Shouldn’t Complain On Social Media! 

From De Omnibus Dubitandum Est blog…

Cardinal Vincent Nichols

The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Gerard Cardinal Nichols took to Twitter recently to berate Catholics who use the internet for the “bitterness, tittle-tattle, hostility and false witness that floods the digital world.”

Linking to a homily the Cardinal delivered at the Venerable English College in Rome on the 21st October 2018, he suggested “those who contribute” include “priests and deacons.”
“How easily the internet reduces us to digital tribes, engaged in a kind of bitter conflict which somehow seems acceptable because it is ‘out there’ somewhere. Even if we do not contribute, and sometimes we are worse than others, far too easily we amuse ourselves at the discomfort of others.”

The Cardinal said. And he has a point. But if “priests and Deacons” are among those who feel they have no alternative but to speak out, one can only, surely, conclude that our unity is under a massive attack. It is not hard to see that is clearly the case or to see why and how it is under attack.

When cardinals and bishops fail to speak up for Christ, someone has got to.

However, it is difficult not to see this as a direct comment on the discussion which has surrounded the deeply controversial Youth Synod (now being termed “the smuggler synod because of various nefarious interventions), which the Cardinal directly references at the beginning of his homily.

The Synod has promoted numerous problematic directions, as has been widely reported, and where there is controversy, there is inevitably discussion.

The same can be said of Cardinal Nichols himself, to the point where many faithful English & Welsh Catholics reading his tweets felt the need to comment on his questionable record; just look at the replies on Twitter.

I find it really difficult to understand why the Cardinal’s objective failure to hold to and transmit the Gospel message he is commissioned to does not, in his mind, constitute a disfigurement of the face of Christ, whilst faithful Catholics voicing legitimate concerns does?

Would you like some evidence?  Click here to find it…

Comment:

Cardinal Nichols is one of those members of the Hierarchy who appears to consider critics – however tactful, however, charitable in “tone” when they write to him – to be disreputable persons, low-life, of no importance, not worth bothering about, which would explain why, generally speaking he doesn’t reply to anyone who dares to question anything he says or does. Like his support for the Soho Masses, for example.  You don’t like it? Tough…  seems to be his attitude. 

It’s hardly surprising, then, that he objects to such low-life (I count myself as such – I’ve written to him with no reply to show for my trouble) having a voice where our uncensored observations and concerns may be published.

My response on reading his tweets, then,  was “too bad, Eminence… too (blankey blank) bad.  Maybe if you and your brother bishops answered our letters of concern, we wouldn’t need to use social media….  

What’s your response?

Or, to be fair [gritted teeth] does he have a point?