Em defesa da CMRI

No passado temos reclamado de algumas polémicas desnecessárias entre nós, sedevacantistas. Por exemplo, há o aspecto das rubricas. Recentemente, alguns sedevacantistas voltaram a criticar a CMRI por usarem as rubricas de Pio XII. Mais precisamente, eles denunciam os novos ritos da Semana Santa, já que a maioria dessas pessoas nem sabe o que são rubricas. Como descrevi em meus artigos (aqui e aqui) esse assunto é polémico e não é um muito claro, então deviam tratá-lo com alguma tolerância, em vez de perfeccionismo desnecessário. Os oponentes dizem que Bugnini participou na comissão que produziu os novos ritos. O Papa São Pio X responde a esta objecção:

E é por isso que, quando amamos o Papa, não disputamos se ele manda ou exige alguma coisa, ou procuramos saber onde a estrita obrigação de obediência aplica-se, ou em que matéria devemos obedecer; quando amamos o Papa, não o podemos dizer que ele ainda não falou claramente – como se fosse obrigado a falar a sua vontade a cada um. Ou como se fosse obrigado a falar nos nossos ouvidos, e não em cartas e outros documentos públicos. Também não duvidamos das suas ordens, alegando o pretexto que vem facilmente ao homem que não o faz querer obedecer, que não é o Papa que manda, mas alguém do seu círculo. Não limitamos o campo em que pode e deve exercer a sua autoridade; não opomos a autoridade a de outras pessoas – por mais instruídas que sejam – à autoridade do Papa. Pois qualquer que seja sua escolaridade, eles não são santos, pois onde há santidade não pode haver discordância com o Papa. (Papa Pio X, Discurso aos Sacerdotes da União Apostólica, 18 de Novembro de 1912; em Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4, p. 695; extraído em Ensinamentos Pontifícios: A Igreja, n. 752)

Pode-se ler a posição deles aqui.

Depois, há a questão das anulações de casamento. Os oponentes dizem que as anulações não podem ser concedidas durante a sede vacante. Um bispo sede competente disse-me que durante a sede vacante esse dever cabe ao episcopado. A objecção mencionada não é razoável porque algumas pessoas podem precisar de anulação e quem sabe quando essa sede vacante irá acabar. O relógio biológico também está a correr, portanto essa objecção é contra o bom senso também. É claro que não podem haver pronunciamentos dogmáticos, mudanças de rubricas e disciplinas, canonizações, etc. Mas essas coisas não são tão vitais como as consagrações episcopais e anulações são. O estabelecimento de novas ordens religiosas também requer a aprovação papal, e como há ordens e sacramentais mais do que suficientes, o princípio de Epikeia não justifica ignorar esta regra. Então, nessa questão eu tenho que ficar do lado da CMRI. E mesmo que eles estivessem errados, isso não justificaria descartá-los, já que a questão não é tão essencial assim. Eu descrevo o que acho essencial aqui.

Depois, há muitos que continuam a mencionar a questão de Schuckardt. Fariam bem em lembrar-se que naquela época não havia internet, então a disponibilidade das informações relevantes era mais limitada do que hoje em dia. Até mesmo a informação naquela época era mais limitada do que é hoje. Lembre-se que agora temos os 50-60 anos da crise em retrospectiva, mas esse não era o caso naquela época, quando a CMRI foi fundada. Então hoje em dia é muito mais fácil criticá-los e dizer o que eles deveriam ter feito em vez do que realmente fizeram. E mesmo as opções disponíveis eram mais limitadas. Não havia bispos da linhagem Thuc nos anos sessenta, as consagrações de D. Lefebvre ocorreram em 1988, a consagração de Mendez em 1993, então essas opções não existiram para a CMRI incipiente. Lembrem-se que quando Schuckardt comportou-se mal (sodomia e reivindicação do papado), prontamente descartaram-no. Portanto, é lógico afirmar que tendo em conta as informações e as opções disponíveis naquela época, eles tomaram a melhor decisão que poderiam tomar nas circunstâncias dadas. No entanto, isso não parece impedir alguns críticos da CMRI de mencionar o assunto de Schuckardt repetidamente.

Não nos esqueçamos do facto de que a CMRI não condena a participação em missas una cum. A nossa posição está descrita aqui. A questão também não é motivo para deixar a CMRI de lado. Permitam-me lembrar ao caro leitor que todos os opositores que conheço são sedevacantistas há menos de uma década, a maioria deles há 3-4 anos. Lembrem-se de que a experiência de vida e os estudos na verdadeira Igreja medem-se em décadas, não em anos. Lembre-se de que compensar demais seus anos perdidos fora da Igreja com zelo excessivo é completamente desnecessário e até prejudicial.

Objections Against the CMRI Laid to Rest

In the past we have been complaining about some unnecessary controversies among us, sedevacantists.
For example, there is the aspect of the rubrix. Recently some sedevacantists re-started to criticize CMRI for the fact that they use the rubrics of Pius XII. More precisely, they decry the fact of the new Holy Week rites, since most of these people don’t even know what rubrics are. As I described in my articles (here and here) this issue is controversial and not a clean-cut case, so there should be some tolerance about the issue instead of another unnecessary nitpicking. The objectors bring up the fact that Bugnini sat on the commission that produced the new rites. Pope St. Pius X lays this objection to rest:

And this is why, when we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly — as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. We do not limit the field in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons — no matter how learned — who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope. (Pope Pius X, Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 752)

Therefore, as shown in my article, I’m not siding with the CMRI on this issue. Yet I contend that it’s unreasonable to discard them because of the issue of the rubrics. One can read their position here.

Then there’s the issue of marriage annulments. Objectors say that annulments cannot be granted during sede vacante. A competent sede bishop told me that during sede vacante this duty rests on the episcopate. The objection is unreasonable because some people might need annulments and who knows when this sede vacante is going to end. Their biological clock is also ticking, so this objection is against common sense too. Of course, there could be no dogmatic pronouncements, changes in rubrics and discipline, canonizations, etc. But these things are not as vital as are episcopal consecrations and annulments. Establishing new religious orders also require papal approval, and since there are more than enough orders and sacramentals, the principle of Epikeia does not justify bypassing this rule. So, on this issue I have to side with the CMRI. And even if they were wrong, this wouldn’t justify discarding them, since the issue is not all that essential. I describe what I find essential here.

Then there’s a bunch of those who keep bringing up the Schuckardt issue. They would do well to recall that at that time there was no internet so the availability of the relevant info was more limited than nowadays. Even the info at that time was more limited than nowadays. Remember that now we have the 50-60 years of the crisis in hindsight, but this was not the case back then, when CMRI started. So nowadays is much easier to criticize them and say what they should’ve done instead of what they actually have done. And even their options were more limited. There were no Thuc bishops in the nineteen sixties, the Lefebvre consecrations happened in 1988, the Mendez consecration in 1993, so these options didn’t exist for the incipient CMRI. Remember that when Schuckardt misbehaved (sodomy and claiming the papacy), they promptly discarded him. Therefore it stands to reason to state that taking into account the information and the options they had back then, they have made the best decision they could make under the given circumstances. Yet this doesn’t stop some critics of the CMRI to bring this up over and over again.

Let’s not forget the fact that CMRI does not condemn attending una cum Masses. Our position I described here. This issue is not a reason to leave the CMRI over either.

Let me remind the dear reader that all the objectors I know are sedevacantist for less than a decade, most of them for 3-4 years. Let them be reminded that life experience and studies in the true Church is measured in decades, not years. Recall that overcompensating for their lost years outside of the Church by excessive zeal is completely unnecessary and even counterproductive.

Falsos católicos

Padre Hernán Vergara

Eis mais um artigo do Padre Hernán Vergara sobre a crise da Igreja. A nossa posição da gerência sobre o assunto está descrito aqui.

no.-35-los-marranos.docxDescarregar

Novo Colaborador/ New Author: Pe. Hernán Vergara

O P. Hermán Vergara foi um sacerdote da Sociedad de Trento, uma organização sacerdotal sedevacantista. Ele abandonou a dita Sociedade voluntariamente.
Ele lida com temas politicamente incorretos e estuda os movimentos católicos tradicionalistas/sedevacantistas,
para expor os infiltrados e idiotas úteis. Este é um esforço importante e interessante.
Ele não faz parte da administração deste blogue, e suas opiniões não são necessariamente
compartilhadas pela administração mencionada. Reservamo-nos o direito à opinião própria. Eu mesmo me comprometo a ser completamente neutro até que se prove que estou errado. Nós não somos os protectores nem os mentores dele. O primeiro trabalho dele que publicamos fornecemos tanto em espanhol quanto em inglês. O que não concordar, pode responder, mas precisamos argumentos, não reacçãoes histéricas e chamada de nomes. Objecções devem ser substanciadas.

Fr. Hermán Vergara was a priest of the Sociedad de Trento, a sedevacantist priestly organization he voluntarily left. He deals with politically incorrect topics and studies the traditionalist/sedevacantist Roman Catholic movements, to expose the infiltrates and useful idiots. This is an important and interesting endeavor. The devil will never leave us alone, obviously.
Disclaimer: he is not part of the administration of this blog, and his opinions are not necessarily shared by the aforementioned administration. We reserve the right to our own opinion. I myself pledge to be completely neutral until proven to be wrong. We are nor his mentors, nor his protectors.
The first work of his we publish we provide both in Spanish and English. Anyone who disagrees is allowed to respond, but responses must be substantiated. We need arguments, not hysterical reactions and name-calling.

03012024104018-4Descarregar

m-pivarunas-ingles-5Descarregar

Against Femi-nazism

As the world is being Americanized, as in unipolar globalization, racists can be only whites, while sexists can be only men. And there are some categories that can claim permanent victimhood: darkies, Muslims, and Jews (quite improperly so-called, as discussed before). If one has a skirmish with either of them, he automatically loses. I have written on most of these issues but haven’t elaborated sufficiently on feminism and emancipated women. Since this is as timely a topic as any other politically incorrect issue that I have addressed in the past, I should get to it.

This article is coming from someone who grew up under the Commies. When I finally came to the West, the last thing I expected was another socialist republic, yet that’s exactly what I ran into. Even Americans recognize that so-called ‘feminism’ (it should be called ‘femism’) is one small aspect of cultural Marxism. This wasn’t what I was looking for when I came to the West.

I mentioned before that nowadays Satan is especially after women, since behind every Adam there is an Eve. Women, just like books, can make or break a man. They have an important role in any society. Modernity offers them more chances than their traditional role used to be, but that’s a trap, and most of them are walking right into it. The devil appeals to their vanity by offering them way too many chances. At first glance, this is unjust for men, but after better scrutiny, one can see that most of these chances are traps. The question most people (of both genders) miss is not  how many chances one gets but how many of them are worth taking. Yet today’s double standards are obvious. Just because some things were dead wrong in the past doesn’t mean that now one should do it in the reverse! Such a hysterical reaction is unwarranted. But explain that to the femi-nazis, or to the successors of the apartheid regime, or to those of Mugabe. What is racist in one sense, it’s not so in reverse! One might say that whatever is sexist in one sense, it’s not sexist in the other. How about this for equality? On a positive note, however, one must say that in the most ignominious socialist republic of our days, on Uncle Sam’s turf, the disgusting fami-nazi Marxist holiday of March 8 is practically unknown. I must give credit wherever credit is due!

In American colleges, there’s a Department of Women’s Studies. Imagine asking one for men’s studies. They offer courses on African American studies; imagine asking about a course on white American studies. There are several women-only gyms. Try to imagine the opposite. Yet there’s some protest against a male-only priesthood, or even masculine football.

There is a lot of ranting about the wage gap, but that’s a lie. Even if it were not, society is unjust towards men because they are discriminated against on the job market. For example, if I walk into a shop, coffee house, bar, grocery store, or restaurant seeking a job, I’m told they want women. What do they care if I starve to death? So the dear reader can see that there are double standards everywhere. Feminism claims that it wants equality. So why don’t they complain about that? And how about those times when military service was mandatory for men? Where were the femi-nazis then to scream about equality? To the credit of the Swedish femi-nazis, one can say that they are an exception. Sweden has mandatory military service for women, just like Israel and Finland. Well done! I must give credit where credit is due, even to the most disgusting femi-nazis! One must see all sides of the issue. So one can easily see that femi-nazis only seek equality if they find it convenient. And in cases of so-called domestic violence, they almost always win, and this is not right. I know more cases when the woman is the aggressor and the villain than when it is the other way around. Some would object that there was not a single case when the man died under these circumstances. This is not true; I have seen examples of that too, and who knows how many cases have been swept under the rug?

Potential objectors might accuse me of endorsing and even encouraging domestic violence against women. Some might twist my words American style and read into them something I never said. I respond to them that unlike them, I live in a free country, so if I wanted to state such a thing, I would’ve done it already. The reader who never lived on Uncle Sam’s turf might not know that there is zero freedom of speech there, only a semblance thereof. One is afraid to say out loud what he thinks. One has to insinuate things. That society analyzes everything one says for weeks to come up with the most sinister interpretation and takes that for granted. But I’m free from that, so I refuse to issue disclaimers in American style. Still want to twist my words? Please. Be my guest. Knock yourselves up.

So do I advocate for wife beating? Not quite; I merely protest against the fact that in today’s society, the opposite is permitted. In the past, the objections against physical violence against women were the following: 1) Men’s physical superiority 2) The past societies were favoring men. Nowadays, the situation is quite the opposite: society favors women, and many of them are physically stronger than men. Many of them are weightlifters, making them physically stronger. Many women practice martial arts; some of them are doctors at it. So the old arguments are out. Does it mean that I advocate physical violence? Not necessarily, since it is obsolete. Does it mean that I advocate violence in marriage? Not quite, because that’s not a marriage. There shouldn’t be a place for that in a marriage. That should’ve happened during their infancy. It’s way too late for corrective and punitive measures in a marriage. The wisest course is to avoid toxic women, not to merry them. Whatever I protest against is the double standard: if she beats him, society laughs at him. But if he lifts up a finger, that’s sacrilege. Some who objected to my former article might have had violent men in their family. I respond that I’ve had the opposite, so what? Vehement protest in one case, silence in the other, and all this in the name of equality? And this mentality is present even among sedevacantists?

Even Bp. Williamson, in one of his lucid moments (which, btw, are getting less and less frequent by the day), had to admit that things got this bad because of men. Men got weak in today’s society, so here are the consequences. So while it looks like I’m trashing women in this article, actually the opposite is true. We had it all and we lost it, and it’s our fault, nobody else’s. We created these monsters. I ask the dear reader not to set me off. Don’t make me write some articles where I’m really trashing the opposite sex! So it’s all our fault. Especially in Portugal, where men tolerate anything for sex! They do not exclude materialist women, those who merry their status, or, in simpler cases, just their house. Just as an aside, do we love God for What He is or for what we get from Him? Likewise, most women today marry a socio-economic startus, marry for stability, etc. Some object that this is part of the traditional role of men. I ask in return: Where is the traditional role of women? That’s obsolete, of course. And some men boast that they caught their ‘lady’ with their assets! Hello, Doofus, she loves your assets, your social status, or your career, not you! And you consider yourself a winner? This accusation is especially true in the case of muscular men: their partners twist them around their fingers, and they are proud of it! Losers! Apropo traditional role of men: why did the mother of St. Theresa the Little Flower marry a relatively poor guy? Why did holy women ignore their socio-economic status? There have been many poor and saintly families before, but today the father thereof would not stand a chance!

Women claim to be the permanent victims. The femi-nazis would say yes because men are always stronger. but as we have seen, this is not always true. And men are not always the aggressors. If a man gets beaten, and there are documented cases of that, it’s not a big deal. There were even some murder cases. Nothing really happened. But imagine the opposite, and tell me how differently it would be perceived. I had to repeat this because in the Iberian Peninsula, especially in Portugal, men are prone to this propaganda. This propaganda must simply be refuted. I must repeat that physical violence is not the most efficient, even in those countries where it’s legal. Nowadays, it’s completely obsolete.

The issue is pertinent, especially in Portugal, where the new generation of women was never corrected, not even verbally. As children, they were allowed to scream when they had something to say. For boys, on the other hand, it’s completely different. You may not spank your children, remember? So says Uncle Sam! Starting at the young age of four years, practically everything is allowed for girls. Tell me if this is not a recipe for a complete disaster or a way to create a complete monster. (And I have seen quite a handful of those.) No wonder most women have the emotional IQ of a four-year-old at the biological age of twenty-six. In the tutoring ‘industry’, I lost several young girls since I dared to set them straight. One may not even issue a verbal correction unless she’s a woman too. And imagine that such a girl becomes somebody’s wife in the future. She will have no clue about what’s right or wrong, what she can afford to do or what she can’t, or what she can reasonably expect. They don’t even accept verbal corrections or protests. By ignoring the husband’s input, they practically cause trouble! But if they get a slap, which, btw, should’ve happened in the house of her parents when she was four to six years of age, it’s an outrage! What a sacrilege! What a coward he is who does that! What a scum of the earth! The opposite, however, is A-OK, and there are several examples of that too. It happens in Portugal, but it’s more common in the US. Yet the most evil women are those who use verbal violence, the cold or silent treatment, etc.

Men today have to compete against each other to get into such a slavery, a mockery of marriage where all duties are on his side and all rights and choices on her side. Try to say this out loud, and they will say that you are against women’s rights. Especially in America, since there they give rights to a few, but the majority pays the price. As an aside, men must be really stupid to compete for such slavery! And in the eyes of society, the accomplished ones are those who win such stupid competitions. Remember that there’s fewer of us, so practically the other part is the one that should compete, especially if they give us the status of everybody’s underdog.

Even my female colleagues at work, who more or less agree with the idea of women’s liberation movements, say that this emancipation happened too quickly. The situation changed, and while their mentality is still the old one, that’s why they didn’t figure out their new place in society. Imagine such a person as a leader!

So, everything is resumed as such: rights on one side and duties on the other. One makes the choices, and the other pays the consequences. Everything is allowed to one, but not to the other. And the other is the one that should compete for this. And they justify this by claiming equality. This is truly Orwellian! It’s really sick.

One can see that today’s society is very sick and makes no sense. This nonsense is possible because the majority of people don’t think. And we wonder that there are many called but a few chosen. Or do we?

Here’s the origin of the movement: Feminism’s core beliefs were first articulated by the English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822). While his wife, Mary Shelley, was writing Frankenstein, Percy Shelley was conjuring up his own creature—the first woman, whom he called Cythna, to be entirely detached from her husband or children. Cythna’s only relationship, not accidentally, was with the devil. Many of today’s leading feminist celebrities delve into the occult. It is rumored that Hilary Clinton has offered the aborted babies to the devil. Is this satanism right for a traditional Catholic?

Let me provide some literature too.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011392120964910?journalCode=csia
Here are some quotes: ‘One of the prominent tenets of classic feminism has been its disparaging view of motherhood as being the bastion of women’s subordination in a patriarchal society, the corollary being that the emancipation of women could happen only through opposition to or, at best, despite motherhood.’
“Mothering posited by feminism actually legitimizes ARTs’ continuing transformation of women’s bodies into ‘open access flesh’.” That’s what you want, ladies?
Another source proves that all this emancipation is of a Marxist origin, and need I remind you that Marxism has proven to be a major disaster?
https://www.cpusa.org/article/how-can-marxism-contribute-to-womens-equality/
Here comes a quote:
“Marxists were the first to fight for women’s inclusion in labor unions, recognizing the strategic importance of their role in class and democratic battles. Marxists today are advancing on questions like LGBTQ equality and how capitalism, patriarchy, and misogyny have led to the persecution of queer and trans people.”
Need I say more, sedevacantist ladies? Don’t be the useful idiots to the reds!