Author Archives: Mundabor

God Rest You Merry Gentlemen

The Flour Of The Devil



Franciscan Flour


Whether out of incompetence, corruption, or sheer stupidity, the Order of the Franciscans find itself in a grave, “and I underscore grave” financial difficulty. 

Yours truly’s comment, charitably on time for the festive season:


Where I come from people say: la farina del diavolo va in crusca, or “the flour of the devil ends up becoming all bran” (this was, of course, before bran was discovered as magically alternative and so very healthy). 

A lot of flour has, apparently, just become bran, as another order is threatened with financial woes in addition to their slow disappearance.

I hope the Franciscans do not get one penny from sound Catholics. There will always be exceptions of course; but as an order, they are utterly rotten.

Let them rot, then. Life is cheap in the Argentinian slums.

Send them all there.  Let them do some real begging.

Francis will, no doubt, approve.

There will always be time to reconstruct the order from a sound basis, after these guerrilleros have died without vocations.

The FFI comes to mind.




Pope On The Bus. Catholicism Under It.

I'll make this short, and not entirely sweet.

The apostolic visitation has concluded that, in essentials, there's nothing wrong with being, inter alia, in favour of abortion, priestesses, sexual perversion, and going “beyond Christ”.

This is clear evidence that TMAHICH thinks That, in essentials, there's nothing wrong with being, inter alia, in favour of abortion, priestesses, sexual perversion, and going “beyond Christ”.

Everyone who is an active supporter of Francis is an accomplice of all this, and much more, which the man promotes tirelessly every day.

I dread for those who will die today, on the side of this man.



Sussex Carol

Another Day, Another Muslim Massacre

Ah, the religion of peace! Once again, the cult has kept faithful to its name, sending 141 people to their eternal, more or less peaceful rest. And you will notice that on the BBC it is difficult to find a separate count, so after reading several contributions on the Buggers' site I still don't know whether the final count of 141 includes the seven butchers, or not.

………….. Erm….


Wait… what am I saying?! How can I be so insensitive?! These continuous massacres, this climate of inhuman violence in several Muslim Countries should not let us believe that there be anything wrong with Islam! Perish the thought! You naughty Taliban boys, you! You will not manage to damage the image of Islam for us liberals, because we will always, always want to believe in your innate goodness! But we will certainly not allow any Christian to go after you, because we are sure that they are out there, in all the major cities of Europe, yearning to see your blood! May I accompany you home, Adbullah? You never know what kind of people you may encounter, with all these fanatical Christians around…

There. I have said it. I had a bad start, and I apologise for that. But now, I feel again a full member of the Liberal Idiot Society.

It feels so good, I will never stop.



Francis Declares Leo XIII A Pharisee.

Beautiful, beautiful blog post from Father Z concerning testem benevolentiae.

Not only Father Z quotes from this document with uncanny accuracy and timeliness; he even notices the document is not up in the Vatican website….

Coincidences, coincidences…

A number of blogging priests I follow seem to communicate in different ways that the majority of the bloggers. I can't say the message is hidden. Let's say it isn't shouted. It seems, in any way, reserved for those who can read among the lines; for the discerning minds to whom the motto intelligenti pauca always applied.

Enjoy the blog post and the beautiful words of Leo XIII, the Pharisee Pope.



Anglicans Introduce Bishopettes. No one Really Notices.

Future Anglican bishops...

Today, the joke known as the “church” of England has proceeded to the demolition of another taboo, and appointed the first joke bishopette.

It was a long march: in the Seventies, the joke “church” first stated priestesses were, in principle, a joke, and therefore not unfit for them. In the Eighties, the first joke deaconettes made their appearance. In the Nineties it was the turn of the joke priestesses, a concession obtained against the promise that there would never be joke bishopettes. In the Tens of the new century, we are there at last.

The next stops on the road to equality: the first transgender bishop, the first dog mounting bishop, and the first incestuous bishop. At which point cats and dogs owner will, no doubt, become very loud, defending the rights of their own good creatures against the lack of inclusiveness of the “church” of England. And why not, in the end. If you want to be inclusive, be inclusive all right. There were no cats and dogs among the Apostles, but no women either, so it's not clear why the discrimination.

Why do I tell you all this?

Because otherwise you wouldn't even notice, that's why.

The remaining Anglicans will also be relieved: now that their new bishops will soon be, to possibly 50%, wonderfully conversational, tea-drinking ladies completely allergic to any form of Christian orthodoxy, they will feel even more good as they go around completely ignoring Christianity as they do already.

In all this, the Country barely notices. The so-called c of E isn't even able to elicit any kind of mass approval when she does something so evidently anti-Christian. The masses merely notice (If they get the news) that the Anglicans are now even further away from Christianity and immersed in the world. No need to waste time on them, then: the world is around all the time anyway.

An irrelevant organisation wants to become “relevant” by being changed by the world it states it want to change. The irony does not escape the Country. A country which is barely noticing what those bunch of nincompoops are doing.

Say hello to the first joke bishopette.

I am sure she is good at light conversation.



The Malevolent Pope

Big, big Pharisee, says Francis

Once again, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) has produced himself in one of the circus numbers for which he will, when sanity goes back to the Church, be mocked and condemned until Judgment Day.

This time, he plants a series of bombs unusual – in the same homily, I mean – even for him. Let us see at least some of them.

The first bomb is the comparison of Pharisees with good Christians. The argument runs so: Pharisees were wrong in defending their customs against God Incarnate, therefore Christians are wrong in defending the rules – and the Church Christ gave us – against Francis and the new “church of mercy”. This basically declares Christianity wrong and pharisaical en bloc. It beggars belief.

The second bomb is the open invitation to a direct attack on doctrine and discipline, mentioned verbatim as something whose defence is wrong. This evil man is advocating the dismantling of Church Discipline and Doctrine. In more Christian times, he would have been burnt at the stake.

The third bomb is the generalised insult thrown to more than sixty generations of good Christian men and women; fallible and weak all of them, but certainly knowing the meaning of the words: “if you love me, keep my commandments”. In the Gospel According To Frankie, the words are reported as: “if you keep my commandments, you are Pharisees”. In a blanket statements, he indicts all of them, twenty centuries of good, observant Christians, including all Saints. Pharisees, all of them, with their clinging to doctrine and discipline!

This, from the man who said: “who am I to judge?” It beggars belief… again.

The fourth bomb – and this is, as far as I know, of a new type – is the truly malevolent, spiteful desire that people he doesn't like may fall in sin very hard, so that they may, in this way, learn humility. Pretty much like wishing that the good wife may go away with another man, or become a prostitute, so that her good Christian life may cease to be an offence to Francis, who will then enjoy her fall and patronise her with his “mercy” when she has become a whore. This kind of envious, malevolent, bilious Schadenfreude is masked only by the thinnest of veils – which isn't one: God allows the evil, he never wants it; therefore, God may never want for anyone to fall from grace -, but is still there in all its ugliness, for everyone to see, and it is proclaimed openly as something resulting from Francis' oh so good heart.

I will stop here with the bombs, because time is a tyrant.


If you let an old drunkard make your daily homily, you would very probably hear much better homilies than with Francis. Because it is to be assumed that even the old drunkard would not encourage you to belittle Church Doctrine and Discipline, would not wish for people to fall in grave mortal sin, and would not insult, more or less directly, all those who live and have lived according to the Commandment as much as they can. Sinner as he is, the drunkard would still encourage you to be as good as you can, and to follow the path of Christ to the best of your ability.

Not so with Francis, who encourages you to go against Church Doctrine and Discipline, and calls you a Pharisee if you defend them.

This Pope is an old, lewd, evil man. An enemy of Christ and His Church. A man whose arrogance is only surpassed, perhaps, by his own resentful mind. Thankfully, the Evil is so strong in him that it becomes very easy to see on which side he is. Which also means that those who still defend his antics are clearly endangering their souls, because at this point no thirteen year old boy could believe that if he is on the side of the Pope he can't be wrong.

Rotten through and through. This is the Pope we have.

May the Lord free us from this scourge this very day; for the good of the Church and of the many souls this man is accompanying all the way to hell.



We Three Kings Of Orient Are

Of Cardinals, Interviews, And Atomic Bombs.

Excellent interview to Cardinal Burke, translated on The Radical Catholic. The interview merits to be read in its entirety because of the many interesting views of the Cardinal concerning Liturgy, Vocation, Catechesis and much more. As always, this man proves a blessing for the Church. May he, one day, wear a Tiara, and I am sure he would, in this case, really wear one.

As so often, though, Cardinal Burke shows the symptoms of a well-spread disease: the V II bug.

The leitmotiv of the Cardinal is that everything was pretty fine before the Council, and the big problemS started after it. This is as if I would say that Hiroshima was very peaceful in that late morning of the 6 August 1945, but the atomic mushroom caused untold damage. I would, in this case, simply omit to mention that an atomic bomb was dropped, which alone caused that atomic mushroom.

The bomb thrown in the middle of the successful, solid, well-ordered Catholic world was the Second Vatican Council. That it was an atomic bomb all right, and of planetary dimension, is abundantly clear from the radioactive Catholicism now spread in such vast parts of the planet. The bomb of Vatican II was dropped. Everything that followed from it had to follow like the atomic mushroom followed the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb.

The Second Vatican Council wanted to make the Church fit for a “dialogue” with the world. In order to do so, it had to deprive Herself of those element which, because the most Catholic, made such a “dialogue” most difficult. There is no better example of atomic bomb thrown in the middle of Church life.

Yes, the Novus Ordo can still be very reverent. Yes, a small number of priests will be exemplarily orthodox. Yes, sound catechesis will still be more than possible. But still, when you throw an atomic bomb you must expect an atomic mushroom, and it does not make much sense to lament the fallout without mentioning the explosion.

The Church must be cleansed from the radioactivity caused by V II. We must deal with the cause of the problems we see everywhere around us. Only the elimination of the roots of the problem will put an end to the current troubles. Without the radical extirpation of V II there will be no serious repair of liturgy, quality of clergymen, or catechesis, because all these problems are the direct consequence of what V II was meant to be.

I think Cardinal Burke sees that, though he would not say it exactly with these words.

It would be good if this thinking were expressed clearly in interview, because Francis has led things to the point where the origin of the trouble must be recognised and dealt with without any sense of respect for… an atomic bomb with a timer thrown in the middle of the Church.




The Hermeneutic Of Catholicism.

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

Fine Italian chocolate since 1826.

Fine Italian chocolate since 1826.

I fear that the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ has become the preferred tool of well-meaning eggheads and not so well-meaning heretics, while the rest of us puzzle over what the Church truly teaches these days.

What we need today is clear and unambiguous teaching at all levels of the hierarchy that does not rely on hermeneutics, but rather relies on clarity, and shuns ambiguity. We need clarity with clearly demonstrated continuity in all communications.

Thus Pat Archbold in one of his very good reflections, in which he complains that good, solid, Catholic texts – like all the encyclicals before the dratted Council – do not need any “hermeneutic”, whilst the “hermeneutic” has now in some quarters become an excuse to deny the reality of texts that have little of Catholic in them. I fully agree, though perhaps I use the word in a different context. 

View original 973 more words

Ding! Dong! Merrily On High

I Saw Three Ships

Sydney Siege: We Get What We Deserve

And it came to pass an Islamist fanatic held more than two dozen people as a hostage before being killed himself, unfortunately not alone.

A well-known nutcase, the man was still very obviously a Muslim. A Muslim of the coherent sort, aka a nutcase. You would think some people would wake up and wonder what has gone wrong, how such people are allowed to get asylum, what kind of controls there are for them, under what circumstances are they are allowed to get citizenship or to remain in the Country indefinitely and what the consequences of this are, and what measures and sanctions are necessary to avoid tragedies like one.

Nothing of the sort. What happens instead? The usual tree-huggers and feel-gooders start a twitter campaign to “escort” a Muslims who feels oh so threatened in the land of all these violent Australians; who might otherwise, who knows, decapitate them? This utter madness does not cause hilarity and macabre jokes all over the Country. No. Even Fox News (who is supposed to be at least vaguely conservative)  reports the twitter tempest, though obviously not with the same relish of the Buggers Broadcasting Communism, who have done everything in their power to transform the story in one of pacific Muslims endangered by a mob existing only in their dreams. As if it took any civil courage to retweet something that is extremely unlikely to require anything from you, but that lets you feel good instantly and at no expense.

Let this madness take foot, and one day you will see one madman chasing himself in the air, and followed by a half dozen of his companions, butchering – oh, irony – those naive souls so ready to escort “frightened Muslims” home after the attack, and serving themselves to them on a silver plate. We are becoming so stupid that facts count only for the kind of emotional nonsense that can be made out of it.

We get what we deserve.


Saint Fido?




Pope Francis did not say the words about the animals going to heaven; but Pope Paul perhaps did. I though I would add a reflection or two.

Firstly, it is clear that pets cannot be saved, or damned. Only a soul (I mean of a human; animals don’t have “souls”, merely an animal spirit) can be saved, or damned. The resurrection of the bodies certainly does not extend to the resurrection of the carcasses of animals. It would be absurd to believe anything of the sort.

Still, it does not seem credible to me that Paradise will be deprived of plants and animals. The Old Testament mentions a state in which animals live in peace with each other, in a kind of modified version of their earthly relatives: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

Clearly, the Garden of Eden ( that is: the original plan) was physical all right; the plants therein contained did not enjoy the beatific vision, but they were certainly there. The resurrection of the body itself does not necessarily imply, but it certainly indicates an environment fit for these bodies, made in such a way that the body has a natural function, a purpose in harmony with its environment.

Then there is the matter of the souls living in paradise. Such souls cannot, as they are in heaven, have desires contrary to God’s will. Their will is perfectly aligned with the Will of their Creator. At the same time, it seems difficult to think that these souls would not have any legitimate desire of them (and we have just said these are the only desires they would be able to have) gladly fulfilled. Whilst I have never been there and so I cannot report on the matter, it seems to this limited intelligence that either the desire for animals, trees, lakes, sunsets, or bumblebees is not legitimate, or it would be readily fulfilled as necessary part of a beatitude that can have no lack, that can leave no desires unfulfilled.

Certainly, the happiness of heaven consists of the Beatific Vision. But one wonders why this beatific vision would exclude any other ever so subordinate or secondary desire; and if this is so – and mind: it might well be so – why Isaiah would have been inspired by the Lord to something so wildly allegoric as to deny the very substance of the so inspired words.

It seems to me obvious, therefore, that animals don’t “go” to heaven or hell, in the same way as trees don’t; but at the same time, I consider it indisputable that we are told heaven will have animals living in a perfectly peaceful, perfectly harmonious environment and, by logical extension, a physical environment that is in keeping with what would make – and no matter how trivial, and how less important than the beatific vision – this environment complete, and a soul in heaven perfectly happy. And if God can put plants in the garden of eden, creating them from an ideal pattern that is not the one of deceased plants on earth; and wolves and leopards that are an enhanced version of the earthly ones, but not any one of them; so it is well thinkable that he might recreate your favourite puppy  (say: without the infection and disease risk) in heaven, and the like.

But again, I don’t know, because I wasn’t there. And again, this does not mean that an animal is saved or redeemed, or else – necessarily – damned. It can’t be! An animal has no soul, therefore it cannot choose between good and evil, therefore it cannot be rewarded or punished for them.

Pope Paul’s talk, if it ever existed, would be dangerous because it would lead the brainless, emoting masses to believe that “pets go to heaven”, which is in contradiction with the entire edifice of Redemption. It would lead to a stupid parody of Christianity, well exemplified in the scenes of “A Fish Called Wanda” about the “dog funerals”, (” miserere Dominus, canis mortuus est!”…).

But we do not know that either. In the latest weeks, the US press has uncritically published every piece of rubbish from false rapes to young thugs depicted as “gentle giants”, and frankly I wouldn’t be surprised it this of Paul VI turned out to be a complete invention, too…

There’s no “Saint Fido” in heaven. It is good to say it even to distraught children. Because if you don’t, you put them on the way to a dangerous new age religion that is not recognisable as Christianity anymore.





Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,065 other followers

%d bloggers like this: