Author Archives: Mundabor
There can be no doubt that the Synod ended, in a way, in a completely different way from the one the Unholy Father had forecast. The New Gospel is, for the moment at least, in tatters. Thursday might well turn up to be what journalists love to call the “defining moment” of this pontificate. I prefer to call it, with J.R.R. Tolkien, (possibly) “the turning of the tide”.
On the other hand this is merely, to say it with Churchill, the end of the beginning. Francis “Operation Sea Lion” has failed, but the war now continues in the dioceses. Dissenters will be allowed to “discuss” what should be simply taboo. At least in the Western world, there will be no lack of conflict.
I have read concerns that it will be very easy for Francis to steer things in the right way: he would only need to invite different bishops next time, people already intentioned to push his agenda, and Bob's your uncle.
I can't imagine it would work, for the following reasons:
1. The most vocal opposition came from Cardinals. They based their main criticism (the doctrinal one) not on the fact that they were there, but on the fact that the Relatio was wrong. We live in a global village: being there is not so relevant.
2. The Church is more than the Vatican. The Polish bishops had, by way of their representative, refused to accept the document even before it was decided to remake it. There is no way in hell Francis can silence opposition just by ignoring it. You drive to the wall, you smash yourself into it.
3. Francis is, in fact, the proof of this reasoning. Bully as he is, if he had thought the voting of the wrong document would have silenced opposition in two days, or two weeks, or two months, he would have gone on with Operation Sea Lion, instructing Baldisseri to stay the course, not publishing the reports of the small groups, and concluding the Synod with another document issued under his supervision, without even informing the bishops. He did not do it, because he recognised that his credibility as Pope was on the line, and would not have survived such a provocation.
A Pope is not a Satrap. 2000 years of Church History and Deposit of Faith look at him continuously. He can muddle the message, downplay the more uncomfortable parts, even try to cover it under a mountain of fluffy nonsense; but to transform it in its opposite is a completely different cup of tea.
The next synod will be watched much more closely than this, because at this point not even his cat trusts Francis. Entire Continents will very obviously stay the course no matter what Francis machinations. He cannot silence thousands of bishops more than he could have silenced the 130 or 140 Synod Fathers. He is now swimming against a mighty current, and even some among the Liberal/Dissenting Press Acknowledge this uncomfortable reality.
Also reflect on this: that at this synod, modern-times taboos were broken. For the first time, a V II Pope was if not explicitly, certainly evidently questioned in his very doctrinal integrity or at least competence by many sources, his Cardinals not excluded. The floodgates are open. The age of the V II Pope who is believed to be remote-controlled by the Holy Spirit has ended. Countless Pollyannas have seen the Pope attacked not for his orthodoxy – this is an old sport by now – but for his lack of it, by his very people; by people, in fact, he has himself just made Cardinals, or called in the circle of his closest ally.
Is it all gone, then? Is the battle already won? By no means. Francis will now try to change the “global climate” in the matter. He will punish some bishops, appoint horrible ones, continue with his heresies and blasphemies. He will try to change the entire atmosphere around Catholic issues, thinking that he can still convert the Church to the New Gospel. But he has by now understood that he cannot force it on her and if he tries, he will be crushed. Not, of course, in its very role as Pope, but in the effectiveness of his action and his prestige and credibility as a person.
The more I think of it, the more I think the task before Francis is a very difficult one, perhaps even a desperate one. But he and his minions will go at it will all the populism, the arrogance,the hypocrisy and the hatred for Catholicism we have clearly seen at work since that stupid appearance on the balcony.
Operation Sea Lion has failed spectacularly thIs year. It is difficult for me to see how it can succeed next year. But crucially, the Wehrmacht is still there: admittedly stopped, battered in places, and with the Fuehrer's reputation damaged; but in the end with all the tanks and cannons in place. To be complacent in front of such a formidable army would be the worst of mistakes.
I do not think our Argentinian Hitler will win this war. I actually think this Synod marks the end of his triumphal march, and his papacy is now fairly near to becoming damaged goods. But this Hitler here is not the one to stop the fight and content himself with wearing red noses and embracing wheelchairs. He has hated Catholicism all his life. Those who have stopped him last week are exactly the people he has been insulting since the start of his Pontificate. He will continue the fight in the only way he knows: shameless hypocrisy on one side, reckless bullying on the other.
We must be more vigilant than ever. We must (finally) become more aggressive in our criticism of the Pope. We must raise loud calls of Heresy – Homoheresy, or any other heresy – whenever the man and his minions try to steer the discussion in the wrong direction. We must denounce him by every wrong appointment. We must follow every word he says, dissect it for heresy and blasphemy, and denounce it very loud.
We must call a heretic a heretic, and a clown a clown.
As we reach the End of the Beginning, it is very telling that Cardinals very near to the Pope dared to say what most blogs of laymen and priest did not have the courage to say.
The continuation of this war also goes through a review of our troops.
The historical events of the last days are also, in the most brutal manner, the demonstration of the utter uselessness or outright help for the Devil of many blogs written by people who have the guts to call themselves “Catholics”.
As the Relatio post disceptationem was made public, the usual suspects were running to explain to a stunned Catholicism that it was business as usual, and there was, really, nothing to be worried about; just the usual nutcases screaming, because that’s what they do.
Pick your “c”atholics blog/publication and go read – if it’s still there – what was written on it on the 13 and 14 October. Weigel insisted in telling us nothing has happened, as the bishops all over the world were terrified and extremely angry – but he didn’t know that yet, you see -. The “Gluttoness” ‘ main concern was whether the “gays” will not be offended (yes: they, the “gays”) at the language used in the text. The “Catholic Herald” explained to us, in a true spirit of prostitution, that Francis’ reform still had a long way to go before being completed; the same outlet, on the same day, dared to publish the infamous “God’s Laws are now obsolete” homily report in which the Pope’s blasphemy, without precedent in the history of Christianity, is reported as if it were a piece of news from the Congress of the Labour Party; nor have I seen a single word of criticism of the Unholy Blasphemer afterwards.
Interestingly, after the mess had happened the unCatholic Herald has an article of a priest, lamenting… the English translation! Lord, give me strength!
I did not havevthevtime to read some of the other usual suspects, but I can’t imagine those I have missed, – the likes of Akin and Shea – were above their usual, obscenely low standard.
In short: whilst Rome was in great danger of burning, “institutional” Catholic sites were telling us fire is very modern, or what the church always had anyway, or awfully overrated as a danger.
These are, my friends, the best allies of Satan; because whilst obvious enemies of Catholics are heavily discounted by everyone who cares, these people deceive – to a point, of course – those who, at least in principle, care for their Salvation.
Last week has shown that there is no amount of blasphemy or heresy from the Pope that these people would not sell as what the Church has always said, business as usual, some kind of strange but ultimately harmless choice of words, or something to celebrate altogether. Unless, it is, for the fact that the “gays” might feel offended (they; the “gays”) at the wording.
In a rather striking contrast, let me mention the blogs which – besides your humble correspondent – I have seen with immense consolation shooting from all cannons before the extent of the bishop’s rebellion was known: in no particular order John Smeaton, Rorate Caeli, the “Remnant”, “Harvesting the Fruit of the V II”, and the Traditionalist Catholic Priest were shooting like it’s The Alamo with no regard whatsoever for what the world was saying, how the media would have reacted, whether the bishops would have caved in to Pope Allende, and whether we would have woken up the day after a planet of happy heretics.
What a joy, to see these brave men and women of God running to the ramparts without knowing or caring how many Uruk-Hai are below, and without knowing whether reinforcement would ever arrive; ready ten thousand times to be called bigots by a stupid world, than sellouts by Christ.
There were, certainly, many more blogs who had these kind of reaction, though I cannot read or even mention them all. But certainly what could be noticed is that the simple laymen, the “one man and one laptop” efforts were, together with the established voices of Tradition, light years in front of the cowardly commercial, “allegedly-middle-of-the-way”, “look-how-cool-Catholicism-is” blogs a la “Patheos”, and utterly prostituted outlets a la “Catholic Herald”.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether heads will now roll over there; probably not as long as TMAHICH is Pope. Still, those who run that miserable rag must get in hot water as long as Francis is gone, as they have showed to the entire Catholic world that they are not better than those who run the “Tablet”; in fact, they merely have different target readers.
As to “Patheos”, it would be easy to say that everyone who goes there for spiritual nourishment is beyond repair anyway; but perhaps some of them are not beyond repair, they just know not what they are doing. For them, this truly is the time to open their big blue eyes and look at the ugly truth straight in the eyes: even if Francis declared that he is the False Prophet, the “Patheos” sites would be his first and more vocal supporters.
I have been struggling, these last days, to decide who was worst than the “Gluttoness”. I am afraid the biscuit goes to a brand new Patheos blog, written by a nun of sort, who proceeded to explain to us that she lined for communion when she was an atheist, isn’t sure how exactly bad this is, but if she has been told she cannot receive she would have been oh so offended that she would have gone away for good, evidently not becoming the wonderful religious sister she now is.
These are the sisters, the bloggers, and the alleged Catholics you find on Patheos.
Choose your blogs carefully. Your immortal soul may well be at stake.
I have already written that, if you browse around, Pollyanna has become rather silent. The number of those now wondering at the cruelty of the wolves, keeping the Most Holy Father away from the Internet, has decreased sharply.
Still, there are some hard-liners who do not really want to get it. As we say in Italy, the mother of the idiot is always pregnant. This here is, though, extreme Pollyann-ing, because almost twenty months of papal Subversion make the job harder and harder. To still believe in the “good Holy Father who has a cunning plan” you need, actually, Baldrick levels of stupidity.
The two most Baldrick-like readings of the events are the following:
1. The Pope has put the wrong people in charge of the Synod; he has allowed them to run everything; he has allowed them to publish a document without even informing the bishops; he has, in fact, possibly drafted some parts of it himself, and has certainly approved them; he has, finally, made astonishingly blasphemous statements on the same day the notorious report was issued.
Why did he do all that?
Simples, says Baldrick: in order to allow the bad wolves to get out in the open, and know who they are!
How can anyone be so stupid and be allowed to vote, to buy financial products, to make debts, even to drive?
How many people have you ever heard saying “Hitler organised the Holocaust in order to expose the anti-semites among the Nazis”? Or “Stalin made purges in order to expose the fanatical commies in his party’s ranks?” Seriously: can anyone be as thick as that, and be allowed to buy a car, or take out a mortgage?
2. On the same vein, but with a vaster geo-political breadth, is the other brilliant affirmation: Benedict resigned in order for the wolves to reveal themselves, and be exposed by the world.
Interesting reflection. “I am the Pope”, says Benedict. “It is obvious the Church is full of perverts, communists, and heretics. How can I neutralise them? Appointing good bishops and Cardinals? Taking care of sound teaching and that there are no homos in the seminaries? Promoting the Mass of the Ages? Making enquiries as to who the perverts are, and getting rid of them in various ways? In a word, being a sound Pope?
Pah! This is sooo outdated! I will resign instead! The homosexual and modernist Cardinals will elect an heretic Pope, and he and them together will plunge the Church in the worst chaos in 2000 years! People will be confused, doctrine will be questioned, nothing will seem sacred, or even permanent anymore! This will take care of them! What a cunning plan!”
It truly is beyond belief. As the Internet has allowed ideas to go around freely, it has also allowed every moron who can spell to get a nickname and write nonsense in comment boxes.
On the Internet, nobody knows you’re the village idiot.
From the Catholic blog New Sherwood.
“[T]here is the legal problem of matrimonial nullity, this has to be reviewed, because ecclesiastical tribunals are not sufficient for this”. – Pope Francis, 28 July 2013
“Can we eliminate the necessity of having detailed personal interviews, hefty fees, testimony from witnesses, psychological exams, and automatic appeals to other tribunals? In lieu of this formal court-like process, which some participants have found intimidating, can we rely more on the conscientious personal judgment of spouses about the history of their marriage (after all, they are the ministers and recipients of the sacrament!) and their worthiness to receive Holy Communion?” – Bishop Thomas Tobin, 21 September 2014
“CANON XII. If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session XXIV, 11 November 1543
One understands where the Fathers of the Council of Trent were coming from here. If the decision is taken outside of ecclesiastical tribunal, you end up with… Kasper or Tobin. The words of the second are utterly shocking, and I think it is time for him to pick a new religion among the many available and go to hell with it at his leisure. Unless he repents, of course. Which these people seldom do.
But certainly, the fact that at the Council of Trent the existence and relevance of ecclesiastical judges was protected by such a formidable moat (with piranhas inside) give us the full measure of their importance in the economy of the sacraments. Then without them not only Communion would be desecrated, but Marriage virtually destroyed.
Also interesting is to know that in former, more Christian times the likes of Kasper and Tobin would have been invited to retract, or face other judges; the latter able to order that they be accommodated on top of a bunch of… faggots, to be suitably burned.
Such are the times we live in.
Today is World Mission Day.
Mission Day is when we think of the many Missionaries risking their lives in strange, hostile Countries and make an extra effort to help them financially. It is also a good day to reflect that we ourselves have, in our own little circle, a little “missionary work” to accomplish, as I think few of us will move in familiar or friends’ or work circle where Catholicism is the undisputed, dominant force.
All these three aspects are, I think, worthy efforts.
How does our Humble Pope, Francis Of The Black Shoes, help us to pursue them?
With this slogan, wonderfully well received among those to be evangelised (the Atheists, the Infidels, the Schismatics, and the Proddies):
Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no!
The World Mission Sunday is as good as any other day to remind ourselves of what a rubbish Pope we have.
If laws do not lead people to Christ then they are obsolete,
Pope Francis, homily of the 13 October 2014, the day of the Relatio post disceptationem.
[We must avoid] The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei”, not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it];
Pope Francis, address to the Synod Fathers, five days later.
I keep calling him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, and I hope by now most of my readers understand why.
Five days after triumphantly announcing – on the same day of the Relatio which clearly bears his heretical stamp – a new post-Christian era, this man dares to warn us from the temptation of becoming… exactly like him.
What is happening in the Vatican reminds one, in a way, of the events in Chile leading to the 1973 Pinochet coup.
A goddamn populist went to power on a socialist agenda and, among the (initial) cheers of the people, began remaking the world – or, at least, Chile – new.
It went well for a short while. Then, the problems began to emerge. The savage spending let the inflation skyrocket, the inflation let the real GDP contract sharply, the usual stupid socialist house of card tumbled down in less than two years. And when the economy began to fold, the malcontent started to rise. One of the main tragedies of the proto-commie is that he can’t count.
When the end came, the once oh so beloved Allende was, very probably, the most hated figure in the country. Time to restore sanity, then.
In that case, Augusto Pinochet took charge of the task; making himself culpable of many unnecessary, very dirty things, but certainly cleaning the Country of the Communist bubo that had plagued it in its last, terrible years. Fifteen years of financial stability and economic growth followed. Ah, the privilege of a functioning brain…
Francis is – perhaps, and if we don’t look too deep – not as bad as Allende. Still, one can’t but see some parallels: arrogant, dictatorial, obsessed with Socialism, and enemy of Christ, TMAHICH does remind one of your South-American revolutionary nutcase after he comes to power; though it must be said that our antidote to him – our Pinochet, so to speak; and possibly a less violent one – still has to appear on the horizon.
Francis started his Pontificate as the best thing since Jesus Christ. He left no doubt he thought so himself. For a while, it seemed that no liturgical abuse, no amount of theological rubbish and no beach ball on the altar could scratch his immaculate reputation. He was JFK and Martin Luther King in one. Gandhi-cum-Dalai Lama. He could have his cake and eat it.
It went well for a while. It went, actually, very well for as long as Francis limited himself to persecute the odd Catholic order, embrace wheelchairs and say stupid things to the people. It went well, so to speak, for as long as inflation did not pick up, and the medium term effects of savage spending and wild nationalisations were not felt.
But then he started to play to his friends, and make for himself a place in history. His obvious sponsors, the Homomafia, were demanding that he pays the entry ticket; and the Germans, who pay the most in the Vatican coffers, were starting to demand that their paying clients be satisfied. These were, so to speak, Francis’ Trade Unions and Party, and he had to satisfy them. Francis gave them a synod. One year to prepare the ground, another year to persuade the weak. He would take care that they, the Germans and their clients as well as the homos, are satisfied.
Enter the “profound and serene theologian”, Walter Kasper.
Task: preparing the ground.
Kasper starts a crusade – a long-cherished dream of his – about doing the contrary of what the Church says under the pretense of pastoral work. Here the problems start; or, if you wish, Francis’ “Wheelchairnomics” begins to contract. Several Bishops and Cardinals get very angry from the start. Kasper is rebuked, but not silenced. Five of the Cardinals start writing a book, and sending the signal this is not going to be a walk in the park. Most bishops stay silent. Kasper thinks he will eat them for Fruehstueck.
He gives interviews left and right (more left). The majority is with him, he says. The Pope is with him. He has discussed everything with Francis. Francis does not distance himself from his statements. The message is clear: I support the glorious Marxist revolution, the nationalisations and the collectivisation. I support everything. Those Cardinals who have written the book are, says Kasper, attacking the Pope. Counterrevolutionaries. Stalinism is ripe.
A Synod is prepared compared to which a Congress of the Chinese Communist Party is a masterwork of openness and transparency. It is immediately decided that reality shall not transpire outside. Reality will, then, have to be what the puppetmasters tell you. This sound very much like Commie Economics.
Congress Synod, initially it all works well. There is a lot of fully irrelevant talking as the bishops go through the motions of saying things in which the Pope is not in the least interested. After the first week, the pre-confectioned Glorious Bomb Of The Proletariat is detonated. There must be two or three people on this planet who think Francis did not OK the document, but they are probably in some asylum. The blast is there. It is Monday, the 13th of October 2014. Perhaps, it shall one day be said, this was the day Francis nationalised all the big copper mines, and angered too many of the wrong crowd.
It is now clear all over the planet that this little, arrogant, proto-commie Apprentice Sorcerer has, like Allende, gone too far. The mood is well described by a clearly well-informed source at the usual Rorate Caeli:
I have spoken to a huge number of prelates in the past few days, many of them Synod Fathers. They are all furious and indignant with Francis. A president of a Conference of Bishops of a large African country even called him to my face “an agent of disruption.” The right word to describe the general atmosphere reigning in the Curia and the Synod, after 18 months of a government imposed by fear and persecution, is one I’ve heard several times in the past week: “esasperazione” (“exasperation”). The experiences of the past century show that a government of fear and manipulation cannot subsist for long without rebellion, and that was what erupted on Thursday. It was as if a pressure cooker exploded at the end of an 18-month-long simmering.
Yep. This is Allende all over again.
Allende rapidly went toward his end when his own parliament declared the “constitutional breakdown”. The Pope cannot be ousted so easily, nor is there any Pinochet with an army in his pocket ready to intervene.
But the synod’s Fathers have clearly given a vote of no-confidence on the way this synod was run; and if they resist the counteroffensive of the Marxist troops, they will most certainly, with the help of the Heavenly Army, prevail.
There is no way a Pope can shove novelty down the throat of Catholicism is there is widespread resistance – and it does not have to be majority resistance – from Cardinals and Bishops. Let even a handful or two of Cardinals deny him obedience in doctrinal matters, and his papacy will be doomed.
A Pope needs to be respected, admired, universally seen as The Boss. There is no way he can get massive flak from orthodox catholics and save face for long, and the recent events have showed us that press spin and PR antics can only do so much.
A half dozen orthodox, and prestigious Cardinals can seriously wound this papacy. A dozen will destroy it altogether. Not in his official role, of course; but in the way he can operate and shape the Church, and in the way he is perceived by the entire planet.
A Pope called a heretic from his own Cardinals – people of recognised orthodoxy, not leftist lunatics – is the lamest lame duck that can be imagined. His wheelchairs embraces will be bitter. His cardinals considered not legitimately appointed. His encyclicals ignored and condemned. His homilies mocked. His death will be a liberation for everyone, possibly even for him. He will, very probably, rather resign and go back to the slums, saving that bit of credibility left, than run for the title of Most Shameful Pope Ever.
For this Pope, his boundless vanity and the way he is perceived from the world are absolutely the be-all-and-end-all. It is his Achilles’ heel. Strike him there, and you will wound him mortally.
Not long ago, New Catholic at Rorate published his own comment on the translation of an article of “La Stampa”‘s Marco Tosatti.
The article, and the comment, dealt with the hubris of an unnamed Cardinal who was boasting of how he would steer the Synod in the direction he (actually: his boss) desired. The unnamed Cardinal was dubbed “the pianist”; perhaps, I notice today, to give a hint to a particular Cardinal who happens to play the piano, and whose description fitted very well the person described by Tosatti.
Today Cardinal Baldisseri, who seems to me to be the man, and pianist, in question, must have other thoughts about how easy it is to manipulate a Synod.
The pianist was booed. His mediocre Impresario was exposed.
Don’t play it again, Lorenzo.
hat tip: “S. Armaticus” on the “Harvesting the Fruit of the V II blog” (our “Sarmaticus”, I believe).
… heart full of appreciation and gratitude…
so-called – today – “traditionalists”
Bla – bla – bla.
… the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us…
now we still have one year to mature,
The Italian text is available on Rorate.
This Relatio is the text that will be used for the next year, before the second part of the Synod begins in October 2015. All discussions will be based on this.
I have just finished it. Accurate English translations will soon be available everywhere, so I base my comment on the Italian without my own translation.
My first impressions:
1. It reflects a different religion than the Relatio post disceptationem. Whatever religion that text reflected, it wasn’t Catholicism. This one is. Yes, you can buy a good bottle.
2. What comes out of this document is, as it was to be expected, bad Catholicism. But it is not “Francis-bad”, merely “pre-Francis-bad”. I could not detect any quotation from Papal documents before V II, which tells you all.
3. Some paragraphs are weak, or, in my eyes, nonsensical. But they are never subversive (as in: Forte-subversive. V II is subversive..). They have the V-II-disease, not the much more aggressive, deadly Francis-disease.
4. As already reported, the most unChristian paragraphs have been simply suppressed. Dead. Gone. Make it two bottles, then…
Let us see some of the things that, without being a theologian, left me scratching my head.
17. Love is “at the centre of the family”. Effeminate, emotional fluff. If love is at the centre of the family, when the love is gone it makes sense to divorce; or if the love is found outside of the family, it makes sense to transfer the family where the new love, which is its centre, is. The defense of the family is on very fragile ground, if one allows this fluff to take over.
Perhaps simple concepts like sacrament, sin, duty, and children would have helped more. People got them when illiteracy was ripe. They can’t be so complicated.
35. This paragraph is ecumenical tosh. Serious ecu-maniacal tosh. Nothing new, though. This is a mistake of the last 50 years, not of the last six days.
38. This is the Father’s short journey to Planet Socialism. It is clear the Fathers think the West is too dependent on “market economy”. Forty to fifty percent of the GDP of these economies is made of taxes, that is: it is largely meant for redistribution. Leo XIII would be horrified at the extent of such an entitlement mentality. The Synod Fathers think (though they do not explicitly say) that it’s not enough.
41. Concubines. Wrong, sugary, V II tofu formulations. There is the implied affirmation that concubines have a “partial opening” toward the Gospel, and that a marriage of concubines is something good, but – alas- not the fullness of it. I strongly suspect these are all formulations already used in former V II documents. No mention of mortal sin, or of the grave danger of concubinage for the eternal salvation of the souls involved.
Then the Fathers complain marriage is challenged by modern society. Good Lord…
42. A very strange idea is floated: some people are too poor to marry, but not too poor to be concubines. What? You don’t pay an extra USD 7/day in heating costs if you are married. If anything, in some legislations (like Germany) the tax burden decreases for married couples. Again, there is no courage to tell the truth. Or do these people think Christianity developed in wealthier times than ours, and marriage is now in a crisis because we are so poor?
46. This is, in my eyes, the worst paragraph. Dangerous, wrong formulations. If Concubinage is to be looked at with “respect”, why criticise it? When did Christ walk on the road to Emmaus together with concubines? I thought they were faithfuls, not concubines. The idea of taking away one’s sandals in front of the “sacred ground” of the household of concubines is tosh fit for Anglicans. This seems to be the obligatory tribute to Francis, who is heavily quoted. Again, I have the impression this is nothing really new for V II documents, but it stinks mightily of Rowan Williams.
What I found particularly good:
53: “We must explain to the people, including some bishops and cardinals, why they can make spiritual communion but not partake in the Sacrament. There will be no charge. Not even for Cardinals”.
55: This here is Poetry.
- No mention of gradualism in the “bad sense” floated on Monday. That’s gone entirely.
These are my first reflections after reading once. I have certainly missed more than something. But in general, I can go to sleep knowing that the new religion has been expunged from this text.
What we still have, is our religion badly explained and weakly defended. But we knew that and, with all its problems, it is a completely different animal than the wholesale of Catholicism and Christianity we have witnessed on Monday.
It is a great day. Bergoglism has been almost completely excised from this text, with the only exception of the tosh of par. 46, which to me sounds like a token tribute. Speakin gof par. 46, one should take away his sandals and give them to him, straight on the teeth. A great help to his salvation. Alas, this is not allowed.
Last remark: Kasper and Forte should be defrocked.
They aren’t Catholics, at all.
Just come back home.
I have seen Rorate’s comments on the Relatio Synodi. Great, great, great stuff.
They also have the text in Italian, complete. And already a provisional translation in English, God bless them!
Let me make a tea, and read the whole thing in Italian.
But we know already this is a great day.
There are two main news issues, and two parts. The news issues are:
1. the confirmation of the imminent demotion, and
2. an apparently strong criticism of the Pope.
The parts are
a) a “third person” interview in the main body, and
b) the transcript of only the part concerning the demotion as an appendix.
This as I write. I do hope the full transcript will be available soon.
I am not interested in 1, because if you are a regular reader of this blog you knew all already. As already stated, this non-news is only important in the message it sends: Cardinal Burke is now more free to speak freely.
What interest us is part 2. Let us see the “printed” facts:
If Pope Francis had selected certain cardinals to steer the meeting to advance his personal views on matters like divorce and the treatment of LGBT people, Burke said, he would not be observing his mandate as the leader of the Catholic Church.
This is a report of what the Cardinal would have said. There are no direct quotes concerning this. But it is rather tentative. A warning shot, not cannon fire. If the Pope has manipulated the Synod, then he is ignoring his job description and furthering his own personal views. But the Cardinal seems to have stopped short form saying that this is the case. For now, at least. This might, in fact, be a last warning shot before the real fire begins.
“According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no, it wouldn’t be correct,” Burke said, saying the pope had “done a lot of harm” by not stating “openly what his position is.”
We do not have the question whose answer starts with “According”. Bad journalism.
The words “done a lot of harm” are quoted, but we miss the entire phrase. If the harm is merely in keeping silent, this is not an indictment of Francis’ character: rather, merely a reproach of weakness, indecisiveness, perhaps incompetence. But it is not a public accusation of manipulation, much less heresy.
Burke said the Pope had given the impression that he endorses some of the most controversial parts of the Relatio, especially on questions of divorce, because of a German cardinal who gave an important speech suggesting a path to allowing people who had divorced and remarried to receive communion, Cardinal Walter Kasper, to open the synod’s discussion.
This is also in the third person. Pope Francis would have “given the impression”. There is no open accusation of supporting the wrong side, or of seriously misguided (as they say today for “heretical”) thinking. Francis is imprudent, perhaps a tad left-leaning. He has not spoken when he should have done so. Nothing more than that. I can’t say this is unprecedented in modern times.
“The pope, more than anyone else as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth,” Burke said. “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the faith.”
This here is, I think, the crux. The phrase describes, in itself, something every Catholic should know, but is apparently not mainstream anymore in these times of savage Clericalism and rampant Papolatry. We would need the context to know whether the Cardinal is openly accusing Francis of doing what he cannot do. The words published do not say this. I could say the same words to you concerning the same arguments, speaking of Pius XII.
Now, follow me closely here: if the last sentence was expressed after lamenting an actual attempt of the Pope to change the Church’s teaching (and we would need to read the script for that), then this would obviously be an open indictment not of Francis’ decisiveness, but of his own orthodoxy and worthiness as a Pope. I can’t see what other reading would be possible. “The Pope is not free to change church teaching, and this is what he has just tried to do” would be the message. This would clearly be a charge of material heresy.
But again, the very same words could have been said in a different context, as you can readily see if you insert the words “as the great Pope Saint Pius X already stated…”, or such like, before the actual phrase.
I wish there were less “third party” interviews, and more “regular” interviews.
Questions and answers, everything in direct speech (“I think that”, not “The Cardinal stressed the issue of”), and published in full.
I write this at 3:30 pm Italian time. No word of correction from Burke, who must be well awake by now. No doubt, his phone is ringing like mad.
Perhaps a “Francis’ game” is at work here: first the interview, then silence. No confirmation, and no retractation. Just let it stay in the air that “Francis does harm to the Church”. This is what Francis does. It would be priceless.
I wait for other Cardinals and Bishops to take their stance and say more to us about the entire matter. It is difficult for me to think Burke has no allies,with whom he could coordinate the interventions. He might have acted alone out of pure love for the Truth, but I can’t imagine we are in such a desperate situation as this.
This is, from what I can read, no open attack to Francis (and it would be high time). But it could be the last of the warning shots. There are, praise be to God, winds of war blowing. There is also, it seems to me, a rich subtext to this. “Just think what we could do, if you don’t act and stop this madness”.
The next days (and then, months) should be interesting.
I will deal with the main news (as I understand it; and if there is one) in another post.
This here is both an appetizer, and the occasion for a short comment on CMTV’s stance.
You can easily notice that this is a highly dramatic, “breaking news” broadcast.
Note that Voris interrupts a (late) dinner with his entire troop to broadcast in the night hour something that he must have seen as both huge and implying consequences for everyone, Church Militant TV included.
There is no open comment on Burke’s comments, but the treatment of the matter seems to indicate Voris himself might be, like many other persistently blind Catholics, at a crossroads.
For the moment, I limit myself to notice that Burke appears to have made what Michael Voris himself considers, or considered, very bad, weakening the Church, and (if I remember correctly) leading souls to perdition. It will be interesting to see how he deals will this: can he ever criticise a Cardinal for criticising a Pope for the very same reasons why he criticises the Cardinals himself? Absurd position, I know, but then it always was.
The fact is, it isn’t so unusual for a Cardinal to criticise a Pope. This here is important not because a criticism has been uttered, but because whichever the words used, the criticism must strike at the very core of the Papacy, exactly as Communion and sexual morality.
I am waiting to find more information on this matter. I am also eagerly awaiting to see whether other Cardinals will support Burke’s position (if it was what it is reported to be; but Voris is a serious journalist and would pay attention to what he says without having solid evidence of what was said). My impression is that the press tamtam went around the journalists’ dinner tables yesterday night, saying “Cardinal Burke wants to get rid of the gloves”. If this is so, the general tone of the words and the nature of the criticism ( that is: not of being weak or unprepared, but of being deceptive and manipulating; not of being the victim, but the architect and perpetrator) will be less important than the exact words that were said, because what counts would be, then, the main point: “Cardinal questions integrity of Pope”.
You can also be sure further interviews will follow this one, and the other Cardinals will have to take position, too.
I will not waste time on Burke’s confirmation of his demotion, because I do not write for Pollyannas. Rather, the time chosen by Burke to make this announcement is relevant for another reason: he is clearly saying that he is now more free to speak than he would have been as a person directly involved (as the head of the Signatura Apostolic,a which decides on annulments) in the administration of the Holy See and will, therefore, not shut up.
If Voris were to finally see the light, this would be great news. Another valid soldier choosing the right ranks. If not, I suspect we will just have to wait.
Brick by brick, as they say.
The army of Faggotry has had a setback this week, but there is no hoping that this is the end of the satanical pro-faggotry, sacrilegious madness fueled by TMAHICH and his minions.
Give it a couple of weeks at the most, and interviews from dissenting (from the Magisterium) bishops will start to appear, in order to gather for them Brownie Points with Francis.
The publication of the shameless Relatio will now lead to what was planned all along: the opening of a “debate”, a “discussion” between orthodoxy on one side, and sacrilege and sodomy on the other.
Whilst it is obvious the Pope did not want to start the “discussion” with a bleeding nose and a black eye, it is perfectly clear this kind of “debate” is what was planned all along, and this is what we are now going to get. And no doubt, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History will be the one who fuels it from the very first line with more outlandish, or outright heretical, or utterly blasphemous statements.
It is clear enough by now that most Bishops do not want such a discussion at all, because Truth is not questioned and is no object for debate. But the homo troops will be reorganised in a matter of weeks, perhaps days. When the big media noise has subsided, it will be the time to start advancing again: timidly at first, more and more strongly as the months pass.
We need strong leaders now. We need Bishops and Cardinals who are actually afraid of going to hell, and put their duty to Christ before the rich privileges of their positions. When Christians in Africa and Asia risk their lives everyday just for going to Mass, it is perfectly reasonable to ask consecrated Bishops, people who should be ready to die for Christ at a moment’s notice, to run the risk of losing a diocese, and being sent to some remote and unpleasant location, at the very worst.
Some names have emerged in the last days. Cardinals Burke, Mueller, Pell, and Napier seem to me the four most courageous ones, the elite of the Christian troops in this very difficult moment. And I say this with admiration for Cardinal Mueller: a man of very questionable theological integrity concerning the Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Lady and the Resurrection; but who has, when severely tested, reacted in an exemplary manner.
In the same vein, I am less than impressed by the silence of two names that could, I think, be expected to be among the voices claiming in the wilderness. Cardinal Piacenza is the first, and Cardinal Bagnasco is the second. The latter has, it is very true, shamefully caved in to Francis’ Gospel of inclusiveness in a past, very scandalous occasion, but it would still have been a legitimate expectation to see him, a man to whim many look as at a protector of orthodoxy, to speak clearly enough to make world news. The former is a riddle to me. A man who has never, to my knowledge, compromised his faith, has now allowed others to expose themselves to the ires of the Gay Army whilst – as far as I can see – not voicing any criticism strong enough to put him in the first line of the Resistance. Perhaps he is working with them behind the scenes. Perhaps he will intervene when his friends decide that the time is right. Perhaps the English-speaking press has ignored his strong criticism. I am grateful for links to his public utterances in these days, in whatever language. It would be a great joy to be able to count Cardinal Piacenza among the Very Brave.
Let us pray for Mueller, Pell, Napier, and particularly Burke, the first one of this brave troop to open his mouth and, from what I could read up to now, the most outspoken. But Francis needs to be questioned and criticised publicly far more strongly than this has been the case up to now.
The word “heresy” is still nowhere to be heard. We need for brave Cardinals to get into the next gear now, openly denouncing the heresy and putting the Pope in front of the choice of either openly supporting or openly recanting it.
Half words will not serve anyone now. If Francis is allowed to sit on the fence he will have reached his main objective: to sit there as the “referee” of a “friendly match” between two “pastoral views”. This is what he wanted all along.
There are no two pastoral views. There is orthodoxy on one side, and heresy on the other.
We need strong Cardinals calling Kasper’s doctrine heretical, and doing the same with the Pope if he does not condemn it. We need this vulcan to erupt in the open now, if we want to avoid the subterranean subversion of Catholicism to go on as the Pope threatens, persuades, cajoles and corrupts in the next twelve months and beyond.
The moment is now.
Who will take the lead?
In a welcome change from the covers of the homo mafia and the relentless pushing of Francis as the hero and allied of perverts of all kind (which, let us make no mistakes here, he undoubtedly is), the satirical Argentinian publication “Barcelona” has published a cover with Francis looking like a pervert, and a not entirely flattering word which, I am told, means something like “big fag” (Word Reference gives no clue, so it is difficult for me to know to fine tune my language antennae on this). The subtitle is also very clear in its mockery of the lines of the liberal press these last days, and before.
I think it is a very welcome development that such covers are published. This is not a left-wing publication, lambasting the Pope because he is Catholic. At least this is not what it is about on this occasion. This is bashing the Pope because he isn’t Catholic, and because he is a friend of sexual perversion.
It is good that such things happen. Scandal must be exposed, and brutal scandal must be exposed brutally. We need more of this. We need to publicly shame a Pope that openly attacks Catholicism either directly, or through his minions, day in and day out, and has been doing it for almost twenty montsh now, helped by the army of Pollyannas for which everything has a reasonable explanation, everything is someone else’s fault, and there’s nothing wrong, much less extremely disturbing, with this man. We need to open our eyes to the atrocious reality in front of our eyes. We need to be as brutal in our opposition to abomination as the organised Western Faggotry and Vatican Gay Mafia are brutal in the pursue of their own satanic objectives.
More of this, please. Let us bury this dirty old man under an avalanche of ridicule.
No one can uphold both this man and the papacy.
If you support this Pope, you shame the Papacy. If you support the Papacy, you must shame this Pope. Because this Pope is a shame for the Papacy.
Alternative translations of the word are welcome. Translations in other languages (as accurate as possible: nuances matter) too.
Hat tip: reader Maria Victoria Alvarez.