A good piece at The Catholic Thing about the Parisian Blasphemy

I haven’t yet figured out Fr. Weinandy’s motives for the seemingly inexplicable and most odd attack on the Vetus Ordo some time ago.

That said, this is a good piece at The Catholic Thing that says things that need to be said:

The Parisian Blasphemy and the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap.

Many people, including Catholic bishops and numerous Christians throughout the world, have condemned the blasphemous event that took place during the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics in Paris.

[…]

Amidst all the condemnations and claims of the display’s offensiveness, what has not been stated, even by Christians, is that those who planned, orchestrated, and perpetrated such a blasphemous portrayal, [NB] unless they repent, will not die a happy death. At the very moment of their death, they will be about to face the very one that they blasphemously mocked and demeaned. And contrary to the sentimentalized Christianity of many today, Scripture itself tells us that He will be their judge – the holy and risen Lord Jesus Christ.  [The Four Last Things, my friends.]

Moreover, God the Father will not allow His beloved incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, to be blasphemed. France, and particularly Paris, and maybe even the Olympic games themselves, will not go unpunished. Jesus declared to his disciples: “‘Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin’ – for they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’” (Mark 3:28-30)  [God the Father allows His Son to mocked constantly.  However, for God, a thousand years is as a day.  It is not going to go unpunished, eventually.  Meanwhile, the Lord’s Passion continues in the Church.]

Although all sins can be forgiven, even blasphemy against God, yet to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. [QUAERITUR…] What is this blasphemy against the Spirit and why can’t it be forgiven?

To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to deny that Jesus is the Spirit-filled Messiah. Unbelieving Jews declared that Jesus was possessed by an unclean spirit, the devil, and in so doing, they blasphemed the Holy Spirit who dwelt within Jesus in all of his fullness. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to deny that Jesus is the Father’s beloved incarnate Son. Again, such blasphemy the Father will never tolerate, but eternally condemn.

[QUAERITUR…] Now, did those who made mockery of Jesus and his apostles not know that Jesus is the Spirit-filled Messiah? The answer to this question is “No.” [But we don’t buy that.  And neither does the writer…] If they did not know, what they did may be unseemly and tasteless, but they would not, because of their ignorance, be guilty of the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. However, it is precisely because they did know that Jesus is the Father’s incarnate Spirit-filled Son that they mocked him, and so blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Contempt was the whole point of their blasphemous portrayal.

Thus, the entire event was demonic. The devil desires nothing more than for Jesus to be blasphemed, for Jesus, through his saving death and glorious resurrection, destroyed Satan’s kingdom. Satan clearly knows who Jesus is and what he is about. “Ah! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” (Luke 4:34)

Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy One of God, destroyed Satan’s dominion of sin and death. To this day, Satan and his demonic thugs, demons and human beings alike, continue to seek revenge, and they do so by fermenting blasphemy against him. This demonic provocation was fully on display in Paris at the Olympic opening ceremony – a demonic liturgical rite.

Was it, then, by happenstance that the blasphemous display was the portrayal of the Last Supper? No! Satan not only wanted to blaspheme Jesus, but he also desired to blaspheme the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the making present of Jesus’ one saving sacrifice, a sacrifice which vanquished sin and death. In the Eucharist, the faithful receive the risen body and risen blood of Jesus, and so come into living communion with Him.

The Mass is the ultimate exactment of Satan’s kingdom being ever destroyed, and the definitive expression of God’s kingdom being ever made present. For all times, the Mass sacramentally signifies Satan’s demise and Jesus’ triumph. It is an ever-present visible outrage to Satan and an insult that he cannot endure – but he is helpless.

On Montmartre, …

[…]

If there ever was a time when, before the Blessed Sacrament, reparation needs to be made to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, this is such a time. Jesus’s heart was pierced out of love for all. From His heart flows out an abundance of mercy and forgiveness. All Christians need to call upon Jesus, as the Sacred Heart, to cast out all demons from Paris and the Olympics. All Christian groups need to pray that Jesus would fill everyone, especially the athletes, with the love of his Holy Spirit.

The Olympics, as an international athletic event, symbolize the entire world, and it is not only France and Paris that need Jesus but the whole of humankind.

Well put in many respects.

Back to the other thing.

Here’s a strong refutation of the puzzling pieces by Cavadini, Healy, and Weinandy, who ought to have known better than to wade into this topic unprepared:

Illusions of Reform – Responses to Cavadini, Healy, and Weinandy: In defense of the Traditional Mass and the Faithful who attend it

US HERE – UK HERE

 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Four Last Things and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Comments

  1. CasaSanBruno says:

    I must admit, ever since his assault on the Holy Mass, I haven’t been able to bring myself to read anything he publishes.

  2. Imrahil says:

    I have to admit that I don’t think it is expedient to underline your (quite justified) anger by exaggerating the accusation; and it is even more problematic when that replaces an unquestionable accusation with an, er, questionable one.

    We have a clear case of blasphemy against the Son (as our Lord calls it in the same passage of Scripture), against the Eucharist, and possibly a conscious attack on Christianity and Christendom. So far so bad; he is quite right to underline that these are mortal sins and that there will be judgment.

    Why does he, when attacking, have to pull “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” out of his pocket, which is not at all clear, which to diagnose really would require a fair bit of reading-souls, etc?

    It’s not like blasphemy against the Son would be somehow excusable or a light matter, could it be argued not to be against the Holy Spirit. That is wrong. Blasphemy, actual blasphemy (profanity for instance is not blasphemy, and a lot of things called profanity in English-speaking countries are not even profanity, but I digress), against the Son is a heavy sin and crime.

    That should be enough. As this accusation is beyond any doubt, let’s not bring into it quite doubtful ones, such as whether they really resisted, consciously and in the full sense of the term, against something that not only is in fact true but that they personally consciously knew (not only suspected or, to use Orwellian Newspeak, bellyfeeled) to be true. That is indeed one of the things usually listed under “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, resistance against the known truth, and seems to be the one Fr Weinandy means; but why resort to this very doubtful (in my view, probably though not certainly untrue) thing, when there is an actual undoubtful blasphemy for everyone to see?

  3. Imrahil says:

    (I seem to have used that Newspeak word in a sense rather opposite of that Orwell meant. Sorry.)

  4. summorumpontificum777 says:

    Ditto to what CSB says. I scrolled through this only reading Fr Z’s red commentary. I’m sorry to say it but Weinandy decimated whatever credibility and relevance he had when he signed on as a cheerleader for Traditionis Custodes.

  5. Midwest St. Michael says:

    Yet still nothing from Pope Francis on this blasphemy. Maybe because he would upset Fr James Martin and his approach “ministering” to the alphabet soup mafia? [loud crickets]

  6. Hp says:

    The Bishop of Allentown wrote something of substance for his people.

    Pope Francis and Archbishop Nelson Perez
    Crickets……..

    Of what are they afraid?
    So sad.

  7. Kathleen10 says:

    I could have this wrong, but the “Dionysus” character was a representation of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, correct? I know it’s impossible to know what these maniacs intended, but, I don’t see this mentioned. It’s probably obvious to everyone but myself. The comparison they made is Jesus as Eucharist but at this pagan put-on the blue guy is their food, the guy with his visible junk (sorry). That seems about right, since the whole thing is a mockery, and a terrible one at that. I’m ashamed to be human.
    President Erdogan of Turkey reportedly called Francis and indicated the Muslims were upset at the appalling assault on Christianity so go figure 2024. Reportedly he urged Francis to make a statement, so we may hear some mews in the coming days out of obligation to Erdogan. Thanks to Erdogan but who cares. Whatever the church says or does at this point is going to be lost in the news cycle, and there is nothing they could say or do at this point that will be remotely adequate for the evil spectacle the entire world saw, and then no response from the flaccid church. Written letters and petitions go nowhere, do nothing, which is why Islam doesn’t go that route.
    God’s response to all this is likely to be staggering. We may never see it, but then again we might.

  8. VForr says:

    I feel the same way, CasaSanBruno, but there was an interior draw to this particular column from The Catholic Thing.

    Hp, I miss the leadership of Philly’s previous archbishop, Charles Chaput.

  9. ProfessorCover says:

    Being, albeit retired, a college professor, there is a political attitude amongst academics that is helpful if one wants to get along with colleagues. What it is with Fr Weinandy and the VO, I don’t know but I could guess he benefits from criticizing the VO and this subconsciously affects his view. An acquaintance of mine at the VO that I used to be able to regularly attend told me our priest ( who celebrates both rites in about equal numbers) sees not only the effect of the VO on the young men who serve, but also the effect on “himself”.
    Personally, I don’t see how a priest could dislike the VO if he faithfully prayers the VO Mass. Priests who don’t pray it do not get the benefits of the prayers for the priest in the VO Mass and NO parishioners do not get the option of praying these prayers for their priest. They don’t know what they are missing.

  10. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Well, I think the inclusion of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was instructive, because it illuminated that portion of Scripture for me!

    More to the point, a lot of artists who don’t understand the Son do understand the Holy Spirit instinctively. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to blaspheme against the real inspiration of all true art and artistry, and this interpretation shows that Jesus also was a misunderstood artist full of true inspiration. It’s a shrewd hit at the consciences of the artists involved.

    Oh, and Dionysus being painted blue was basically showing him as Krishna, which was taken as an insult by various pagan and neopagan groups, along with the display of a kid next to a naked guy. Seriously, it’s amazing how many people this thing managed to offend, all over the world. The FCC is probably going to fine NBC, which I thought was unfair until I found out there were media previews of what they’d be displaying, and we all know that NBC loves to cut away from action to talking heads.

  11. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Taking up the comments above by Kathleen10 and Suburbanbanshee, I don’t know what-all “these maniacs intended”, but a title I’d run into sometime popped into my mind, A Short History of Christian Theophagy (1922), by Dr. Preserved Smith – who apparently joined the Cornell University History Department for the rest of his life the year after that. There are scans of various copies in the Internet Archive, and word scans for Dionysus and Bacchus find all sorts of references with footnotes to academic works of the period. For example, ” in Chios and Tenedos Dionysus was represented by a human victim who was subjected to the barbarous rite of holy cannibalism” soon followed by “‘The belief in the sacrifice of Dionysus himself and the purification of man by his blood,’ remained, according to Gilbert Murray, ‘a curious relic of superstition firmly imbeded in Orphism'”. Or “‘When we call corn Ceres and wine Bacchus, ‘says Cicero ‘we use a common figure of speech; but do you imagine that anybody is so insane as to believe that the thing he feeds on is god?’ The answer then, as now, was in the affirmative” (!) Perhaps the various instances I’ve encountered recently of people encouraging us to entertain the idea of cannibalism are not unrelated.

  12. jaykay says:

    Leaving aside the intentional blasphemy (and one can’t – won’t), as a public spectacle it was just yet more of the arty-farty up-their-a***s boring rubbish we’ve been forced to become so familiar with. How many, in these days of utter ignorance of the Classics, would know enough to even identify Dionysius, or who ever they say it was, and the whole culture of the Bacchanalia/ Dionysia and all the damned pagan rest of it?

    To anyone with a knowledge of history it evoked Robespierre and his State-organised elaborate cultus and parades of the “supreme being” – which even at the time seem to have appeared ridiculous. They didn’t last beyond his well-deserved demise, anyway. Deo gratias.

    So much money wasted in indulging the fantasies of spoiled, ill-educated, overgrown children. The requiem for the once-Christian West.

  13. TonyO says:

    It is often fruitless asking for “deeper” understanding of what the so-called “artist” intended. First of all, these things are often cobbled by committee, and usually (unless the committee is run by somebody overwhelmingly powerful) anything that anyone on the committee suggests would be a “good idea” gets added, even when that destroys any unity of the overall thing.

    More importantly, though, the real minds behind the event isn’t even human, it’s the demons pushing this stuff, working through humans but rarely needing to reveal their true motives to those humans. Sometimes the humans are wholly perverted in their minds and hearts, but even that doesn’t guarantee that they understand what the demons are after. Yes, some of the human “artists” might have had blasphemy explicitly in mind, but still been led by the nose to do it in certain demon-infested ways without fully knowing why.

    It is sufficient to call out the blasphemy, and the false apologies, and to act accordingly – e.g. to boycott all olympic viewing, to protest, to push lawsuits, and to plan for future events prepared with muscular and immediate reaction. (Along with prayer and sacrifice in reparation.)

Comments are closed.