Category Archives: Catholicism
Every now and then, the economic press tries to impress us with some “visionary” entrepreneur who had – or is having, or might have – some brilliant idea with vast consequences for us all.
I would, therefore, like to speak to you about a true Visionary; one of those men who changed the West, and brought it to successes not hoped for just a few years below.
It takes the mind of a visionary to see the spread abuse and criminal behaviour engendered by a clearly degenerated view of chivalry, and conceive the plan to use at least part of this vast potential for violence outside of Europe, where they would do good not only to Christianity, but to themselves.
It take courage to not only dream of, but profoundly believe in an operation whose costs and logistical difficulties made of it the biggest enterprise in many Centuries. It takes a great mind to understand that such an operation is not only feasible, but feasible in a comparatively very short amount of time. It takes, too, a skilled diplomatician, and a man of great personal prestige, to create a vast, multinational “coalition of the willing” and launch them to an enterprise that appeared no more than a beautiful dream only twenty years before. It takes a very smart mind to decipher the signs of the times and decide that yes, with God's help the West has now become the better soldier, and the richer one. And it takes, of course, a man of great faith, because only who is aflame with Christ can transmit his fire into the heart of rich and poor, across many nations.
Pope Blessed Urban II did all this, and more than this. He changed the West for good, and gave the Christian West not only a stunning success for Christ, but one that changed the self-perception of the West forever: a self-assured continent able to bring war to the land of his arch-enemy and obtain sweeping, breathtaking success.
Of all the Crusades, the First was the best, the most successful, the most gloriously, stunningly, unbelievably beautiful (not counting, of course, Peter The Hermit and his bunch of violent bastards, who are rightly considered a separate campaign by serious historians). It was not only the triumph of a Christian army. It was the triumph of a daring, shamelessly self-confident, unashamedly Christian idea. It was an entire Continent that, after centuries of humiliation, rose to its feet, and found itself towering against the enemies of Christ: a scourge to infidels, not only defeated by humiliated in just a few years, in a world in which even international meetings had to planned one year or so in advance just to sort the distances, the security, the logistics, and the funding.
What a wonderful Pope, and what a great man Urban II was. Not for him the “who am I to judge”. Not for him the sissified waffle of “dialogue” and “understanding”. Not for him the rhetoric of peace at all cost, of peace before Christ, of peace for the sake of looking good.
No. Urban took Christianity under his wing, rallied it in a way never seen before, and set it toward an objective whose importance and meaning is difficult, today, for some even to imagine, but that was the Holy Grail of Christian thinking in those blessedly Chridtian times: to be able, again, to travel to Jerusalem, and to be in physical contact with the places that changed the world forever.
Urban achieved all this, and he actually achieved far more than this. The impression he made on the collective imaginary of the West is perfectly evident in the way the very word, “Crusade”, still polarises the minds and catches the imagination, more than 900 years after those events.
Do not bother me with whining complaints about massacres, and hate, and mistakes made. Every war has its share of them, at least every war not fought by armies of Angels. I choose, like every sound thinking man, to look at the whole picture, and not throw away – to stay nearer to our days – the war effort that rid us of Hitler because of Dresden, or Montecassino.
If you want a real visionary, one of those men who truly changed the West, look at this tenacious, faithful, really visionary man.
The always excellent Gloria.TV has another clue (if the embedding does not work, click the link) as to the astonishing events in Paraguay. A bishop accused another bishop of being homosexual.
Look: when there is such a scandal as a homosexual bishop I would not condone, but expect other bishops to condemn loudly the filth within the Church.
Not in the age of mercy, of course. in the age of mercy, a priest has to smell of filth. It makes him nearer to his (filthiest) sheep.
This one of the homosexual bishop can certainly have been used as an excuse. The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) will make a scandalous faggot to the head of his papal household, but he will never tolerate an orthodox, Catholic bishop to criticise another homo.
This man is, very probably, beyond repair. We can only hope God rids us of him soon.
Bishop Livieres Plano is a Catholic bishop.
Several articles have appeared in the last days about the persecution of Bishop Livieres.
The Bishop has,thankfully, reacted. His website has published a rebuttal of the accusation in various languages, so complete and extensive it is not suited for a blog post.
Bishop Livieres has also made very clear the accusations moved against him are purely ideological. And it is difficult not to agree with him, considering that it is now clear that no personal misconduct is involved. Methinks, after the experiences with Father Manelli some of Francis' executioners has thought better to choose a different path this time. The problem with that is that the character assassination becomes far more difficult.
What is, then, Bishop Livieres accused of?
He is accused of being Catholic.
In Francis' Stalinian world, if you uphold Catholic values you are a threat to the unity of circus Bergoglio. If your seminary has more Seminarians than the rest of Paraguay together, you are clearly sowing discord. If your very behaviour and success shows that your colleagues are a bunch of incompetent morons without faith or dignity you are certainly showing you can't get along with them.
Bishop Livieres does not fit within the nuChurch of Mercy. He is Catholic, which is an accusation that it not easy to move to Francis.
Bishop Livieres, an Argentinian like TMAHICH, will therefore have to leave the head of his diocese. He reminds me strongly of Athanasius, in the same way as Francis would let Liberius look like an amateur in comparison to him.
Angelqueen has a petition in favour of the good Bishop: web search them “vote to support the good bishop Livieres” and you will find.
The petition will not save his post, of course. But it will do something for the salvation of those who subscribe.
As to Francis, the Bishop said it very well: he will have to answer to heaven for his decision.
I am pretty sure TMAHICH thinks he will never have to answer to anyone.
But he will. Oh, but he will.
Thousands of brave Chinese are, as I write this, standing up against the Chinese Communist Party rule in China; a rule which, if edulcorated over there compared to the praxis of the mainland, is still too much of an oppression, and so bad that very many put their future, perhaps their lives, at risk to change the way things work.
I see them as the media outlets let the images of their courage go around the world.
And I wonder how many Cardinals are having the courage to take a stance that would require a small part of that nerve; a courage which would not put them at loss of losing life or limb, or liberty; though the loss of power and privileges would be very probable, at least for the time being.
We can make some parallels between the two situations, because every sound Cardinal must, if he looks at the man in the mirror, know that Francis is doing more damage to the Church that any Communist dictatorship ever could. It is a foolish idea to eradicate Catholicism through political oppression. It is far more damaging – though in the end equally foolish – to try to let Her wither from the inside.
I hope many sound Cardinals will look at the images in the next days, and draw the same parallels.
A rather stupid, but very cunning, Che Guevara is running the Church.
It's time for the Cardinals to stage their own Hong Kong reaction.
Bishop Conry has given an interview to a semi-porn rag for gossiping housewives called “Daily Mail”. Visit the site at your peril.
The interview allows us to give a long, hard look at your typical “spirit of V II” priest.
Caution: strong smell of brimstone.
First, the photo; reproduced above, and obviously published with his and his mistress consent, or acceptance: a priest and his mistress walk about. He is in plain clothes, though he is obviously still a priest; she wears a cross and what the wife of an Anglican bishop would consider a not entirely appropriate skirt; but hey, this is one who sleeps with bishops, so appropriateness isn’t really a concern.
They are, apparently, carrying groceries. You couldn’t make this up.
Then, the text (I do not have the stomach to watch at the video):
“It has been difficult keeping the secret,’ he told the Mail. ‘In some respects I feel very calm. It is liberating. It is a relief. I have been very careful not to make sexual morality a priority [in his sermons]. I don’t think it got in the way of my job, I don’t think people would say I have been a bad bishop. But I can’t defend myself. I did wrong. Full stop.’ “
“Popularity, approval, the trust of the sheep will give him security and, he hopes, perhaps some kind of protection. But certainly, there is the internal absolution. “I may not be the best priest or bishop, but look how I fight for social justice!”, or the like. At this point, the mistress or the whiskey, the gambling or the call boys, become a secondary fault, a kind of venial sin compared to the Great Work Of (put here his favourite cause).”
The spectacular fall of Bishop Conry is occasion to repeat what I have already stated in the past: when a bishop is of clearly liberal tendencies, he probably has a skeleton in his closet.
Orthodox priests do what they had decided to do when they decided to become priests. Their life and ideology is aligned with their hopes and aspirations. They know and always knew (everyone does and always did, even the liberals) what is required of them, and what Christianity teaches. They know and always knew that their job consists in the salvation of souls (I mean: in doing their best for it), not in their self-promotion.
When I read about a liberal priest or bishop, I never think he could be in good faith. You can’t go against 2,000 years of Christianity and be in good faith. When I read of people like that, I know that one of the two is at work.
1. Father (or Bishop, or Cardinal) such and such has lost the faith. He does not believe there is any God, any judgment, any hell or heaven. At that point, he tries to solve the horrible conflict inside his head (along the line of: “what on earth am I doing wearing this habit?”) by becoming a social worker spreading a secular wannabe gospel that is the perfect enemy of the real one. Not infrequently, these people will not even wear the habit, in an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance of being, in the eyes of the world, men of a God in whose existence they do not even believe. Enter Jesus the illegal immigrant, Jesus the unjust (because only merciful), Jesus the environmentalist, and all the other Jesuses they invent to look, and feel, good.
2. Father (or Bishop, or Cardinal) has a skeleton in the closet. He is homosexual, or pedophile; or he has a mistress. Or he drinks, or gambles, or whores around. Again, an internal conflict takes place. The need to be seen as good arises as the awareness of not being the priest he is supposed to be also grows. Slowly, the zeal for the priesthood (provided it was there in the first place) fades in the background, because every thought of zeal reminds him of his betrayal of his vows. At this point, some kind of substitute goodness will have to take the place of the goodness he knows he does not have. Popularity, approval, the trust of the sheep will give him security and, he hopes, perhaps some kind of protection. But certainly, there is the internal absolution. “I may not be the best priest or bishop, but look how I fight for social justice!”, or the like. At this point, the mistress or the whiskey, the gambling or the call boys, become a secondary fault, a kind of venial sin compared to the Great Work Of (put here his favourite cause). When Christ gets smaller and smaller in the background, earthly issues become bigger and bigger as necessary compensation.
Before you can say “mistress” (or “faggot”, or whatever it is), the fact that adulterers are not allowed to receive communion becomes a problem, and our man will be in the first line to try to solve it.
He will also find it convenient to be “alternative”. Bishop Conry’s photo in sweater shows us that very probably he went around in civilian clothes in his daily life; which, in turn, made him much less conspicuous, and therefore made it much easier for him to visit his mistress. Try to move around constantly dressed as a priest, and you’ll notice that… people notice you.
Conry is not the first, but only the last one a long series of progressive bishops found with… the reasons why they were so dismissive of orthodoxy.
Almost everyone needs to feel good, or at least in harmony with the system of values he has given to himself. When he betrays his vows or loses the faith (which is the same), the values must be readjusted, and a new equilibrium must be found. The stronger the failing, the stronger the push.
It does not work only for priests. Have you noticed how many people become apostles of this or that to compensate for the fact that they are whores, or faggots? Lady Gaga? Elton John? Leonard Bernstein? Madonna (the singer)? Have you ever known a blogger who defends dissenting ideas but has no personal reasons (himself, or among his relatives or friends) to do so? No. When they complain of “exclusion”, it always is “our” exclusion; or the exclusion of their son; or “some of my best friends are gay”.
Whenever you see a priest, or a bishop, or a journalist, or a simple blogger with strange ideas, look for the skeleton.
First, let me say it very straight: the departure of Bishop Conry is very good news. As long as I have followed the things of Catholic England (seven years at least), Bishop Conry has always been one of the worst enemies of sound Catholicism, and a promoter (at least by willful blindness; I’d rather say by willful malicious intent) of the destruction of sound liturgy, and sound Catholicism, in his diocese.
It is, therefore, not without a certain rise in my adrenaline level that I now read around comments of people who say things like “he was always so nice” or “he always celebrated a reverent Mass”. Heavens, there is no damn liberal these days that is not frightfully “nice”, and I begin to think the first good sign in a bishop is that he isn’t. It also does not help much to celebrate a reverent mass oneself, if one’s priests celebrate masses with launch of M&Ms among the pewsitters, and the like. As to the bishop being “the one who has given us back Friday abstinence”, I could make the pun that we have seen how much he believed in abstinence himself, but more to the point I would bet my pint if there was one diocese in the Land where Friday Abstinence was either ignored or considered a yoga practice, it was his. Anyone who does not consider Conry one of the many poisonous fruits of nuChurch has his Catholicism in need of urgent repair, period.
This link is just an example after three seconds of web search: a bishop dressed in sweater tells us to put up with noisy children at Mass, and feels so trendy he can’t believe how cool he is.
No reverence, no clerical habit, no sense of sacred; in short, no Catholicism. Is it such a big surprise that he was unable to take his Job seriously in other – admittedly, difficult – areas?
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. Bishop Conry is just the latest demonstration of this great truth. He trashed the Liturgy, and the Devil gave a good thrashing to him. We can hope he recovers. But more on this below.
As to the “we are all sinners” meme, I would also like to invite my readers to not allow this evident truism to blind them to the great scandal given by a bishop who is discovered – I know no one of my readers is so stupid to believe the man was not cornered; not even one – to have failed his vows in the most obvious of ways; not as a disgraceful but isolated slip, but actually as a way of life. I wonder how many seriously, devout priests who wanted to celebrate the TLM he has discouraged, threatened, or not allowed in his diocese? There is more to say on this, but it will be for another post.
I am now awaiting the details about this story; after which I will allow myself to pose questions like: who knew and did nothing? Who accompanied the rise of this priest knowing of the breasted skeleton in the closet? The question will be allowed, will it not? Or are we “not to judge”?
As last observation, please consider the press release of (still) Bishop Conry: it contains the phrase
As a result, however, I have decided to offer my resignation as bishop with immediate effect and will now take some time to consider my future.
Boy. I’d have expected he says “I am going to lock myself in a monastery for the next six months, hoping to remember why I became a Priest”.
Nope. The subtext of this seems clear to me. “Family” first, Christ and obligations of the habit nowhere!
Again, I wait to know more of this. Perhaps he has three children with the woman, and is afraid about their future. But boy, “I will now take some time to consider my future” does smell of reckless entitlement. “Sorry boys. Wasn’t to be. Weighing my options now. Peace and love. Kieran”.
There is also no word of repentance, no hint of the end of this relationship. There are “apologies”, which in England are more common than “good morning”, and do not even imply an admission of guilt. The narrative here is the usual Anglo-Saxon one: I apologise if you are upset and scandalised; but hey, I think I might scandalise you even more and throw away the habit altogether. At which point I will apologise again for the “shame I brought on the Church”; and do, again, what I damn well please.
I will, of course, pray for Bishop Conry. I will do so enthusiastically, because I am a Christian, and in his grand fall I see the danger and the littler falls of us; the little people who, say, never became priests because they took the vow of celibacy seriously; and are astonished at people who become priests or bishops with a mistress on the side, and then inform us they are “considering their future”.
Still: there can be no doubt that the announcement of his departure is really, really good news, because this is another damn liberal going away from where he does a lot of damage.
Of course, Francis could appoint someone even worse at his successor; but it would be his own fault and responsibility. For us, today is a new chance, and another bad bishop becoming a cautionary tale. Forcing a bit the situation (not the logic), when Stalin dies you are happy that the damn Commie bastard is gone, not afraid that someone even worse than him might come to power.
Pray for bishop Conry.
And for a better successor.
These qualities of Father Dickson impress me every time I read one of his posts:
1. His straightforward courage.
2. His clarity of thought.
3. The concise, forceful expressiveness of his writing.
Father Dickson has just given us another example of this. I quote from his last blog post. My emphases in red.
With so many bishops and priests currently watering down the Church’s teaching on these by favouring Communion for the Divorced and civilly ‘remarried’, as well by supporting homosexual civil ‘unions’ under the guise of protecting civil rights, the Synod is in great danger of denying the Gospel and Christ.
Though it is becoming increasingly difficult, I am always encouraging people to hope and trust that Francis will not allow the Synod to deviate from the established doctrine that marriage is a permanent union between one man and one woman, exclusive of all others, open to the procreation of life.
If the Synod recommends allowing Communion to the remarried Divorcee, cohabiting couples, and/or supports civil ‘unions’ for homosexuals even in order to protect their civil rights, then Pope Paul VI’s ‘smoke of Satan’ will have surely entered the Church, because the bottom line is this: if Francis and/or the Synod declare a change to Church teaching on marriage and sexuality they do not actually change the Faith, they actually abandon the faith.
It is useless to say the Pope is our Supreme Teacher and that we must give submission of will and intellect to his teaching, because that holds only when he holds himself bound by revelation and defined dogma, of which he is but the custodian, not the originator.
I cannot bring myself to believe that Francis will allow an attempt to change doctrine happen because it would take the arrogance of hell to proclaim that the faithful and the Popes have been wrong for over two millennia, and I am unwilling to ascribe such arrogance to any man.
Can we really ascribe it to Francis and our Bishops? And if not, can we ascribe to them simple stupidity, or a faithlessness that has seen them fall into relativism? I hope not.
If the Synod and Francis do attempt to impose a new teaching which contravenes defined teaching, we are at rights to decry that new teaching for as long as it takes to have it declared erroneous -and not only the right, but the duty.
If you click the link, you will notice that I have ended up quoting a large part of the blog post; and the part in red is also a lot. Which says something about the writing style of this man of God.
Make no mistake: he will be persecuted one day. Make no mistake: he knows it very well, but this does not stop him.
Thank God for Father Gary Dickson, and the tiny minority of priests with his love for the Catholic faith. Let us pray for them every day, and that their number be increased in these terrible times of ours.
In people like this brave priest I, a wretched sinner unworthy of the crumbs of the Lord’s feast, see all the beauty and glory of the true Church.
The Church that will never die. The Church that has already triumphed. The Church that does not flirt with the devil.
There is a place where Christians are addressed in the way you read below.
Physical violence not excluded. In one’s own home.
By Muslims, of course. Who else…
“Do you think I’m looking at you, you fucking ugly whore. Try to see what clothes you wear, bitch,”
“Well, you have a cross on — then you are also a Christian fucking whore. Do you know what we do to people like you? Do you know what we do to people like you? You get stoned,”
“My son is being called everything. I get called all sorts of things. Infidel. Filthy Christians. They tell me I ought to be stoned to death,”
“He called me a dirty Christian whore and an infidel. Then he pushed me into the apartment. He shook me and slapped my face.”
Fear for one’s own security, and moving out of the neighbourhood, follow.
Where will this be?
It’s modern Denmark.
From one of the latest ramblings of the humble Bishop of Rome:
This is the man who made of his entire pontificate a show of his own alleged goodness, mercy, and revolutionary intent. A peacock if even there was one.
This is the man who makes no mystery of wanting to remake the papacy in his own image. Albeit he is very right in this: that his extreme boastfulness brought him extremely far from the Truth.
Christians are called to “be authentic with the truth of reality and of the Gospel,”
… says the man who is the very embodiment of falsification of the Gospel, and perversion of the Truth.
Can you believe this guy? Who is this: Francis The Self-Effacing Pontiff?
“The vain say, ‘Hey, look, I’m giving this check for the church’s work,’ and they show off the check; then they scam the church from behind,” he said.
The vain says: “Look: I am hopping on the bus and use a Ford Focus”, and they show off the bus ticket and the car. They they scam the Church from behind.
& Co. & Co. & Co… Follow the link to read a new high in papal hypocrisy.
By the by, this is another prime example of Francis’ use of the homily generator.
What a clown.
I am extremely thankful to the “Eponymous Flower” for their sterling work concerning what is happening in Paraguay.
There, you have a very conservative Bishop (uh? It reminds me of the FFI), who is therefore very successful (the analogy continues) and shames his peers by showing how it’s done (interesting!).
Someone accuses Bishop Livieres Plano of misconduct of various kind (where have I heard this?), and he is suddenly removed whilst savage rumours about his past and integrity emerge (Father Manelli anyone?).
The Vatican communiqué talks, ominously, of “unity of the Church”. At this point, yours truly has no doubts anymore.
The Bishop is, like Father Manelli and the FFI, a “threat to the unity of the Church” because he is an orthodox Catholic, shaming the clowns around him.
This cannot be tolerated. He must be removed, his work destroyed, his sheep reeducated to the NuChurch of Vatican II. He must be, if possible, personally destroyed. We have already seen this movie. This is a remake in great style.
Given the precedent of the FFI, I allow myself to consider, until evidence to the contrary emerges, the orthodox Catholic Bishop the good one, and The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) the villain. If anything, because I have the villain’s disgraceful acts in front of my eyes every day. In these cases, my suggestion to the “there are things we do not know” Apostles is the same as always:
But let us imagine that the Bishop Livieres Plano is truly bad. Let us imagine – just for the sake of reasoning, poor man… – that we are here in front of another Maciel.
Why, then, the appeal for to the “unity of the Church”, a clear indication that the Bishop was removed because he refused to dance the Tango of Vatican II together with all the other bishops?
Why would in this case Francis not appoint substitutes (the provisional one, and then the definitive one) who are every bit as conservative and orthodox as the disgraced man, in order to show that the problem lies merely in his personal conduct? The substitute is, from what we know, one in the mould of Archbishop Cupich. I foresee a brilliant career for him as long as Francis is Pope. Particularly if he is a pervert. But no, the kind of appointment clearly show the accusation of misconduct were, even if proven true, just a “happy” coincidence in the effort to remove sound Catholicism from the Church.
Then there is one last thought I would want to share with you.
Has anyone ever examined the long past of Francis as Bishop and Archbishop? What about a visitation, and thorough going through archives, press, testimonies, and street gossip? Are we sure no episodes of a questionable nature can be found? Is this not the man who was once found with marijuana in his luggage? (I wish I could find the link). How many priests has a bishop or archbishop? How easy is it to accuse him first, and disgrace them in the meantime? How would Francis like the Manelli treatment applied to him and his tenure in Argentina as rector of a seminary, bishop and Archbishop?
Do not be fooled. This is another instalment of the Stalinian purge Francis is executing. When Francis is done with this, the TLM and orthodoxy will get out of the window of the diocese as fast as practicable.
The man is an utter disgrace, a damn clerical Che, and a tool of Satan.
Let us pray the Lord every day that He may, in His mercy, free us from this horrible, if utterly deserved punishment.
The Extraordinary Synod is rapidly approaching, and there is now no day without an interview of some Bishop or Cardinal, taking the one or the other side.
In the middle of all this turmoil, one thing is clear: whether Francis will dare to break taboos or not, he is causing the breaking of taboos to be discussed; freely, openly, as a matter of course.
Already it is discussed whether the canonical process of annulment should be (official word) “streamlined”. Already, “streamlined” might mean that the bishop, or a structure set up by him, should decide about annulments in a “non-juridical” way. Already, some say that not even this is necessary, but a prayerful “sit in” with the priest should at least achieve what many concubines, in the end, want: village respectability.
The pattern is well-known and has been long experimented: some total revolutionary (Kasper) proposes the totally revolutionary solution of tolerating but not accepting communion for concubines and assorted adulterers, meaning: having the sacrilegious praxis become everyday fare. After this, a “moderate” (Scola) will come out, proposing among other things (Mundabor’s commentary: what a slimy b@st@rd!) a thinkable solution for annulments that is every bit as savagely diabolical, but has the merit of sounding more moderate; because you see, the idea is not to violate the rules; merely to make a mockery of them in the first place.
Suddenly, nothing is sacred anymore. The way how to slaughter a sacrament is a subject of discussion, debate, essays, interviews, books. Suddenly, Truth is perceived as fighting for its existence.
In the meantime, Francis enjoys the lío. Catholic against Catholic, Cardinal against Cardinal. The open confrontation is, certainly, obligatory for the right side; but still, the very fact that such a confrontation exists will confuse countless Catholics, and persuade countless non-Catholics that there is no point in converting. If even Cardinals quarrel with each other about the Truth, what is Truth? And is this most un-Christian of all Pilate-like slogans not, itself, ceaselessly promoted by TMAHICH, with his insisted criticism of “excessive doctrinal security”? Can a slogan ever be more meant to promote lió than this, apart from the “who am I to judge” nuclear device?
Is this enough lío for you?
Are you still trying to read Francis through, of all people, Benedict?
I bet it is enough for TMAHICH. He is, for all the world to see, the Pope who “breaks taboos” and “paves the way for a new era”. Not for him, very probably, to be the one who lets the bombs explode. He will, very probably, be happy with being the one who made the explosions thinkable in the first place, put the bombs in place, and armed them. He does not need to be the one who orders the explosions in order to be loved by countless infidels for the rest of his life. He will be on the safe side avoiding the biggest detonations. Nothing better than reaping the fruits of a revolution without the dangers of real armed combat. The perks, I suppose, of being a shameless and faithless Pope.
Reading Francis through… what?
Believe me, TMAHICH can be best read through Saul Alinsky, or Karl Marx, or Hans Küng, and I doubt he is one bit better than any of them.
He is sowing strife and controversies, breaking taboos, attacking sacraments, insulting the Blessed Virgin, disfiguring Christ, perverting the most basic rules of Christianity, without even the risk of a major revolt.
He will, I think, very publicly stop those who want to detonate the bombs. The excited Pollyannas will hail him as the saviour of Catholicism, whilst the mainstream idiots – bar very few, extreme idiots – will buy the “prudent moderniser Pope” without a second thought.
How do you like lío?
It is there now; dished in front of you every day; pickaxing at Catholicism every day God sends on this earth.
Please. Please. Please.
Free us from this scourge.
I generally devote to Father Nicholson the attention I dedicate to the blathering Dumbos: zero. I would love to continue with this, in my eyes, very sensible praxis; but Father Nicholson has left such a pool of stinking piss all over the floor, that the very pungent smell compels me to say a word or two about this disgraceful, intellectually challenged man, a disgrace for the habit he wears.
As many of you will know, Father Nicholson has not only compared the SSPX to satanists; he has maintained that the SSPX-promoted reparation mass for the black mass in Oklahoma is… worse than the black mass itself!
Stop here, and calm yourself. Do you generally get angry at the senseless blathering of a child? Thought not…
Let us first see where Father Dumdum is leading us here.
The Pontiff Emeritus has lifted the excommunication on people who are, in their acts, worse than Satanists; the Vatican has structures devoted to the dealing with people worse than Satanists; the Vatican has declared that these people, worse than Satanists, are in communion, though they embarrassingly (for them) tend to call this communion “imperfect”; a Cardinal has received people worse than Satanists only a few days ago, and released a very gentle communiqué about the matter.
I could go on, but you get the gist: Father Nicholson is just plain thick.
But let us now try to start a journey in the workings of this child's brain, and discover the reason for his extremely stupid affirmation, and childish pooping outside of the WC.
The man is, at his core, a Nazi. Better: he is a Nazi child. In his little mind, obedience to the Pope is all that matters, and there is nothing demanding from us a higher allegiance, on earth or in heaven. This is 100% Führerprinzip, and Father Nicholson has devoted to it all the scarce neurons at his command; with the smelling result I have just described.
These people may be stupid, but they are dangerous. Particularly so, when the clerical garb they wear induces other not-too-bright people to give credence to their absurd blathering. This is the most extreme form of clericalism you can find; a de facto deification of the Pope perfectly identical to the Nazi de facto deification of Adolf Hitler. This is purest heresy.
If I do not say an angel, but a Pope comes to him and tells him things in contrast with truth, not only Father Nicholson believes him like the dumdum he is; but he also accuses everyone who happens to side with 2000 years of Christianity of being… worse than Satanists!
Boy, this is one who has to be sent back I do not say in the seminary, but in the kindergarten.
Father Nicholson is the perfect Nazi. Hitler would be very proud of him.
Satan is, I am sure, rather pleased too.
Pray for Father Dumbo. He is in great need of it.
Concerning the matter in the title, I beg not to be counted among the optimists. I do not believe in the least that any sincere reconciliation effort will come from the Vatican. If any rapprochement were to be seen, it would probably only be aimed at dividing the SSPX, as already seen in 2011.
Still: it shall be allowed, I hope, to play a bit. Let us imagine, them, what would be reasonable and acceptable to the right side.
The principle that what the Church has always held stays, and that the SSPX has the right to refuse strange novelties, is too banal to merit discussion. The principle that in whatever V II documents have declared that is in harmony with Truth cannot be logically denied is also too banal to waste time on it. The fact that V II was a merely pastoral Council is also an undisputable fact for every sound Catholic.
The problem is, if you ask me, another: control. The Vatican might want to attract the SSPX in a mortal embrace, and they might even be ready to make concessions for this. But the SSPX will – I am sure of this – not accept any agreement that puts them at the mercy of the V II Church. Not with Benedict as Pope, much less with Francis.
Therefore, the issue, and the litmus test of the Vatican's honesty in any agreement, will be that of independence.
Own seminaries, own finances, complete freedom from episcopal interference, and – as unavoidable consequence – complete freedom to criticise Pope Francis and V II left, right and centre. Nothing else would be acceptable, nothing less should be accepted, and nothing else will.
Unacceptable for the Vatican? So be it. Profitable in the longer term, or just the Catholic thing to do? Welcome.
In theory, there would be an upside for Francis: the “mercy” rhetoric and the “inclusiveness” propaganda, and the personal satisfaction of having “succeeded” where Benedict failed. In practice, it will never happen: those who hate Catholicism, that is, Francis' audience and applauding public, would turn against him faster than you can say “Ricca”, and the myth of the revolutionary Pope would die a fast but horribly painful death, without making him more popular among true blue Catholics in the least. A heretic remains a heretic even if he embraces a saint.
Back to the issue of acceptable compromise, it is clear there can be no compromises on what is not negotiable (the issues of the Liturgy, of religious freedom, etc). It is also clear it would be suicide – an act Fellay or his would never commit – to deliver themselves to the mercy of V II Popes, who would – this, or the next, or the following one – subject the SSPX to the FFI treatment.
This, I think, is the inescapable frame of any serious discussion, or lack thereof.
Of course, the SSPX would not maintain that all of VII was evil. V II was a modernist mixture of truth and lie, and one can't deny the truth just because the Devil says it. Rather, the SSPX will maintain that everything that is not truth must be expunged from the teaching and the praxis of the Church; and that V II was, as a whole, the work of the devil in its mentality and inspiration, which both must be expunged from the Church, too.
Will, or should, the SSPX demand that the Vatican goes back to sanity before accepting reconciliation? Of course not. If the work of the SSPX can go on in exactly the same way, to refuse a freely offered reconciliation would be tantamount to elevating the SSPX to a parallel church, of which the Vatican is not worthy. It would be like refusing the blessing of a priest because one does not like the priest. One may despise the man, but one will still recognise the office.
This is, I think, the only possible frame of a reconciliation. At the same time, this is why the reconciliation will not work as long as The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) is in power.
Even a “gratuitous” exercise of “mercy” would be too expensive for the Vatican.
They know perfectly well how mercilessly the same people would attack them, who are now the beneficiaries of the fake “mercy” they peddle around.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Condomgate continues to rage and, if it was necessary, shows with increasing evidence the damage made to the Catholic cause by the careless example chosen by the Holy Father.
As I have (easily) predicted in the past, the discussion is now – among cafeteria catholics and all those who don’t want to accept Church teaching whenever it doesn’t suit them – about the Pope not having justified the use of condoms in certain circumstances, but having justified it anyway or, in some other version, being wrong in not doing it. In both cases, dissent is rearing its ugly head. This is a serious matter because we are not talking of individual weakness here, but of rebellion. Rebellion is the realm of Satan and his minions. A Catholic must accept the teaching and when he sees himself unable to understand it he must pray that he may get…
View original 843 more words