THE Occupied Vatican has issued an Easter stamp.

It depicts a toned “Gym Jesus”  — an apparent shout-out to the man lovers in Antipope Francis’s Tower of Babble. The stamp is not only cheesy and sentimental, it’s obscene and blasphemous. What do you expect? The Vatican II religion is attuned to ugliness in art — one of the signs that it is not Catholic — and promotes a “God of Surprises.”

Stay tuned for many more surprises until the true God, working through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, brings this living hell of non-stop kitsch and blasphemy to an end.

Speaking of antipopes, ever wonder how the Church can guarantee the perpetual succession of popes given that the Vatican II “popes” defected from the faith?

The French Dominican Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers solved this problem with his Cassiciacum Thesis, which recognizes the election of these men as valid, but their authority null and void because of their heresies. It’s common sense, and not that hard to understand.

(Credit for this post’s title goes to EWTN.)

— Comments —

John Purdy writes:

I have to say I find this a slightly odd complaint. Jesus was a carpenter for some part of his life and therefore would have done a lot of nailing and lifting of wood. As well, although he was willing to enjoy food and wine when it was available he led a fairly ascetic life. Do you think he would be plump? Please explain why this image is so objectionable.

Laura writes:

In my opinion (and this is of course subjective), the physique of this Jesus has the sort of sculpting that typically comes with workouts in a gym, and not ordinary manual labor.

Frank Rega writes:

The Cassiciacum Thesis makes sense, as you say, but I have one little bone to pick with it.  That is, the labels of “material pope” and “formal pope.”   The thesis would define Francis as a material pope, not a formal pope, as in the articles you link to.   Rather it should say that Francis meets the “material criteria” for being pope – rather than calling him a material pope.  Calling him a material pope means that he is some kind of a pope, maybe a partial pope, and this causes difficulties.  The Cassiciacum [how is it pronounced?] thesis states that material popes have no jurisdiction. But this label of him as material or partial pope causes objectors to the Cassiciacum thesis to allege that the theory is heresy.  In support of this they cite Vatican I, which infallibly states that it is anathema to deny that the Pontiff has full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal church.  This objection to Cassiciacum is overcome if instead of using the word pope, it simply said that the claimant to the papacy meets the material criteria, but not the formal criteria.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Denzinger 1831.  If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.

Laura writes:

I see what you mean. It’s saying ‘he’s pope and not pope.’

That objection doesn’t seem to undermine the substance of the thesis. I will try to get an answer for you as to why the main defenders of the thesis describe it this way.

Stephen Ippolito writes:

Have to agree with you on this one, Laura. Gym Rat Jesus didn’t build this physique just by eschewing the sedentary lifestyle, taking up carpentry and minimising carbs.

I’ve been a dedicated weight lifter for over 20 years, (there’s nothing better for stress relief and no better place to meet intelligent and disciplined people than a gym), although sadly that’s changing now that lifting has become de rigeur among the young and  narcissistic and as exhibitionists are drawn in ever increasing numbers to the gym.

Swole Jesus didn’t build those biceps just hammering nails – but by hammer curls; and he likely follows them with  a few dropsets of EZ bar  curling on arm-day for a good pump in the muscle bellies. He looks like he doesn’t neglect triceps either: I’d say some serious regular skull crushers and cable pushdowns to really maximise arm size and symmetry – and in decent form, too.

Good upper pec development and separation? Check; Good delt size and definition – and a cleft where the lateral delts meets the top of the biceps? Check.

This chap’s even got the much sought-after but rarely achieved advanced trap development. This dude clearly doesn’t stint on the flat or the incline bar bell presses and  even shrugs regularly and in good form. Looks like he follows it all with his favorite branched-chain amino acid combo, a dinner of steamed broccoli and rice and a good night’s rest.

Cardio and lifting light things repetitively through manual work are good for toning and weight control but as Arnold has been heard to sneer: “The great bodies are built with free weights. Nothing else will do”. And the movements that are necessary to build mass and definition, and their variations, are surprisingly few in number – and all very well known. So too are the results.

This is certainly no steroid, mass muscle-monster Jesus ready for a summer of wowing them on the Jersey Shore – or even an especially advanced gym rat – but this buff Jesus could go shirtless on most beaches without embrassment. He definitely has an idealised aesthetic.

I wonder, though, if there might not be another and less tawdry explanation for the aesthetic physique? One of the things I respect most  about our faith is its embrace of the delights of the physical world and its recognition that the experiences of the senses are part of what makes us fully human.

I could never belong to a faith that was grim and eschewed art, music, beauty, good drink and good food. I can think of nothing more pointless than spending eternity as a disembodied spirit floating around unable to relate to anything in a sensory way. To be fully alive as a human is surely to perceive and enjoy (and also suffer) the physical world through the senses, no? That is surely why when we recite the Apostles’ Creed we include in our statements of belief the truth of “the resurrection of the body and life everlasting”.

We Catholics believe that on resurrection God will grant us once more our human body – but a perfected, glorified version. Given this fact and that on the Incarnation  God took on human flesh himself and thereby and forever dignified the human body it is surely OK, is it not, to wish to see and enjoy representations of the body as strong, fit and fully realised in its beauty? Of course it is always a matter of degree. Perhaps that is what this stamp is about?

Laura writes:

No, this is vanity. It’s Fire Island in August.

St. Athanasius said, when Arians had taken over most church buildings in the fourth century, “They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith.”

The Modernist heresy is much worse.

Still we can say, “They have the buildings — and the stamps — but we have the Faith.”

Please follow and like us: