Rosicrucian

Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s Disease on March 6, 2010

People choosing to observe that kind of thing had noticed that a hand of Bishop Williamson trembles, so for years a rumour had been circulating that he suffered from Parkinson’s Disease. Recently the rumour was given another run for its money. An examination being called for, two weeks ago a London neurologist duly observed, amongst other symptoms, that the muscles of the two arms show no marked difference, and that the trembling occurs when the arm is active and not, as in Parkinson’s Disease, when it is inactive. The neurologist duly ruled out Parkinson’s and pronounced that the symptoms are rather of Benign Essential Tremor. (In other words a trembling hand proves that the Bishop has a Malady of Trembling. Ah, how re-assuring are all the syllables of medical diagnoses!)

However, let nobody be disappointed at this news. Let them take their pick from a rich variety of ways of not having to take the Bishop seriously. Some of them actually come from enemies!-

He is a Rosicrucian (member of a pernicious secret society, as is proved by his episcopal arms which show the Rose of England on a Cross).

He has always had strange ideas (like, 9/11 was an “inside job”).

He is like uranium, difficult to have in one’s possession, but difficult also to leave by the roadside (that last bit is nice!).

He gets ideas into his head, becomes fixated on them, and exaggerates (like, he believes what he says).

He is a Fabian Socialist (pernicious ideological left-winger from England).

He is an artist and not a scholar (well, at least the “not a scholar” bit is true).

He talks in public, on serious questions of truth or falsehood, “nonsense.”

The less he talks, the better off is the Society of St Pius X (oh dear, talking is his trade!).

He is an idealist (follower of Immanuel Kant – well, blow me down with a feather!).

He is growing old, and soon he will be 70 (that one is true! – In exactly two days’ time).

He is a badly converted Anglican (also true – he greatly needs to convert).

He is a live grenade, just waiting to explode, but it is difficult to throw him away (oh, come now! – with just a little extra effort?).

It all puts me in mind of an episode from the life of Frederick the Great, 18th century King of Prussia. High in a tree of a town he was visiting in his kingdom was a portrait of him in caricature. When he noticed it, the courtiers accompanying him were horror-struck – how would the King react? “Bring it down lower so that everyone can see it,” said the King.

Kyrie eleison.

“Pascendi” – II

“Pascendi” – II on November 3, 2007

Before the centenary year of Pope St. Pius X’s great anti-modernist encyclical, “Pascendi,” closes out, let us give two examples of the light which it throws upon today’s undiminishing confusion in Church and world: the primacy of objective truth, and the non-binding nature of sedevacantism (the disbelief that recent Popes are true popes).

Over the last two centuries, the modern world has fallen more and more into the grave error of subjectivism, whereby every man (or subject) makes his own truth, so that he is free from any supposedly objective truth imposing itself upon his mind from outside. One hundred years ago this error threatened to undermine the objectivity of all Catholic dogma – hence the Encyclical. Yet one hundred years later, despite Pius X’s efforts, the mass of Catholic churchmen are awash in this error – hence Vatican II, Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, etc.

In Pascendi, Pius X nailed the unhooking of the subjective mind from objective reality as the foundation of the coherent Newfaith of the modernists’ Newchurch. What mental rest and spiritual relaxation to be able to lean on the one true religion given to us from outside and above by the one true God, without our having to pay heed to the mass of modern fantasies!

However the Conciliar fantasies have taken such a grip on many of today’s churchmen that the temptation arises to consider that none of them are churchmen at all, in particular the last few Popes. But Pascendi can offer a way out of this temptation by its same teaching that subjectivism unhooks churchmen’s minds from reality. Are they fully aware of how mad they are, when virtually everyone shares in their madness? And if they are not fully aware, do they necessarily disqualify themselves as churchmen? Pascendi suggests at least to me that sedevacantism is not binding.

By no means everyone agrees with letting the Conciliar churchmen off the hook in this way, but that is of secondary importance. Back to Pascendi – what is of primary importance is to give glory to God and to save our souls by submitting our minds to that one objective Faith which God has revealed, and without which nobody can please God (Heb XI:6).

Kyrie eleison.