Category Archives: Catholicism

Reblog: “God Of Surprises”, Take One.

Meet Francis, The Presbyterian Pope. 

Francis’ “God Of Surprises” Is A God Of Blasphemy And Heresy

Francis' god.

Francis’ god.

 

The way in which this heretical nonsense of the “god of surprises” has been swallowed by the obedient Pollyannas is a very good indication of the decay of Christian thinking among people who tell themselves Catholics, and of the inability to even understand that this disgraceful Pope is indicating to them the perfect path to hell.

As so very much that Francis keeps saying, these words contain some emotional appeal meant to please the stupid; as if God’s Law were a vegetable, for which “freshness” is a quality attribute.

The contrary is the case.

Our God is a God of no surprises. Being perfect, he is unchangeable. Being unchangeable, He can never have anything new in Him.

This principle, of the unchangeable God, is what provides the basis for the unchangeable Truth of which God’s immutability is at the same time the reason and the guarantee. As God can never change, so can Truth never change. He, and it, will remain always the same, world without end.

Were it not so, God would not be God. Were it not so, there would be no God.

Truth is forever. God Himself assures us that this is so, and that there will no surprises. Produce has a selling window before it becomes stale. The Truth, the Way and the Life haven’t. And if an angel – much less a clown – should come down from heaven and tell us: “God has decided to surprise you!” we.would.not.believe.him.

Francis obfuscates and mystifies. His supermarket-jargon hides one and only one intent: the subversion of God’s law into something “surprising” and, by the very definition of the word, both unexpected and different.

This is another definition of heresy.

Let those who feel so inclined blindly follow the Pope in the pit of heresy and blasphemy he wants to lead them. A faithless Pope will only be followed by faithless people, or by people so stupid – and culpably so – that they are ready to ditch an unchangeable Truth for the produce section of Francis’ satanic supermarket.

We live in times that are so stupid that these cheap appeals to – nay: cheap papal ads of – novelty and freshness are applied to what is Immutable and Unchangeable by the very definition of the word.

And please, *please* do not even *try* to justify the Pope’s words with some fluffy commentary along the lines that Francis refers to an “ever new joy”, and such like nonsense. If you still have not understood what kind of “surprise” Francis has in store for you, the smell of reprobation is strong in you, and you should be very worried by now.

Francis’ “god of surprises” is a god of heresy and blasphemy. It can’t be the God of the Christians. It is some strange New Age fantasy creature.

Our God is a God of no surprises. Do not blaspheme Him by making of Him the same as Francis’ strange, fantasy creature.

Mundabor

 

 

Let Us Not Be Afraid Of The “H” Word!

The picture of this Papacy.

I never tire to repeat that the misguided and deluded “sensitivity” of a world obsessed with “niceness” (“you brood of vipers!” How nice is that?) is what made the advance of the sodomites possible in the first place.

Words are weapons. A powerful barrage of clear, unmistakeable condemnation will always have a devastating effect of the enemy troops. It is only when the defences are down and the enemy is suddenly treated with respect, “sensitivity”, and even reverence that his advance is not only made possible, but helped every step of the way; helped in his march of conquest, in fact, by the very sissified army that should actually shoot at him.

If you want to fight sexual perversion, you must call it with its own name. If you do not dare to call it with its own name, you do not really want to fight it.

The same peril looms in the aftermath of the Synod. The heretics and perverts will now try to start the Great Sensitivity Offensive. Words like “sinner” and “adulterer” will be decried as offensive, inappropriate, unworthy of a decent Catholic. Most of all, a word will be kept as far away from the public discourse as possible: heresy.

Like the word “sodomy”, the word “heresy” says it all; they both express not only the strongest condemnation, but the fact that this condemnation is deeply rooted in Christianity. Both words have on heretics and perverts the same effect Holy Water has on the devil.

In the next twelve months, a great opportunity is given to us: use the momentum – and the moment of lucidity – created by the Synod to expose in the clearest possible terms what we see around us: blank Heresy, propagated every day in our midst from Bishops, Cardinals and a Pope with no faith or shame.

This theme must be hammered in the ears of the faithful incessantly, because most of them still oppose some resistance in acknowledging what is, after the Synod, entirely evident: that the Pope has heavily and shamelessly steered this Synod toward blatant heresy: not only leading the charge against two Sacraments, but openly espousing Modernism as he publicly declared that God’s laws can be changed.

The Pope is a material heretic. So are all of his helpers. Francis has remote-controlled them in such an open way – the public support for Kasper’s “serene and profound” heresy “on one’s knees”, and the appointment of the Six Little Pigs to draft the Relatio, are only two of the most blatant – that no one in possession of a sound Catholic reason can avoid seeing it.

We must make the “H” word heard, and make it heard often. We must go to the 2015 Synod after a twelve-month barrage on the very real dangers of such exercises as long as one like Francis smears the throne of Peter. We must follow and challenge the heretical statements of him and his minions. We must educate the common Catholic to the sad reality of a material heretic as Pope, and explain to them that this is not only a perfectly legitimate possibility, but something already occurred in the past. We must do what it take to make the perception of a grave crisis caused by a shameless Pope as mainstream as we can. We must hit this godless man in what he loves most: unchallenged popularity, and adoration of the masses.

Let Catholics boo him, as atheists and perverts celebrate him. See how he likes it. It is sheer suicide, and he knows it very well.

The widespread perception of an attack on Christ, led by the Pope, is the best guarantee that in twelve months’ time (unless the Lord makes us the grace of ridding us of him beforehand) a solid wall of bishops – inside and outside of the Leonine Walls – will stop and destroy any attempt at perverting the Truth Christ gave us. We must use these months to prepare the ground well, because there is no saying what stupid things might be at least attempted if we don’t.

We must help the orthodox bishops to create such a climate that in twelve months’ time abominations like the one of Bishop “Faggot” Forte will not be even thought of. We must expose the heresy now, or run the risk of having it dished to us before very long as an official Church document. We must give strength to the hand of those who want to strike down heresy, and encourage them to hit hard.

Do not be afraid of the “H” word.

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The Remnant” Video: The Comment

This is one in the fray...

This is one in the fray…

I have already published a post about this wonderful video.

I invite everyone who has not done it to view it first.

There are several points in this video, of which one is the main one and others are added considerations. First the added considerations.

1. Bill Donohue was very wrong (actually: factually very wrong) in downplaying as “leak” something that was officially announced and the official “preparatory” document of the 2014 synod.  This downplays the gravity of the entire matter, and lulls Catholics into thinking reality is what our wishes make of it. I have dealt with the matter here

2. Pat Buchanan (a Catholic, I think) had a wonderful column about the fact that this Pope is leaning so far out of the window, that a vacant sea is not inconceivable anymore. I enjoyed the column a lot (web search engines may help you to find it) but did not find the time to write about it.

3. Astonishingly, there seem to be Catholic broadcasters (here is, clearly, meant Michael Voris) who feel ashamed even of reporting opposition to the Pope. Burke’s criticism of the Pope’s stance is, if not personal, very strong, and deservedly so. 

4. There have been “wayward” Popes in history. Heck, there have been heretical Popes in history! The names should be circulated more: Honorius, Liberius and John XXII are three safe candidates; Formosus ( I add) is a probable fourth one. I wish I could find again the sources about other Popes, but these four here seem to be the biggest. Before Francis, that is. We must spread the word and say this out loud, because in the modern clericalist atmosphere filled with ignorance and feel-goodism, most would fear their religion will crumble if they ever admit the Pope is wrong, or a heretic. 

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late...)

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late…)

5. There have been paragraphs in the definitive Relatio Synodi, which are very bad. Are we desensitising ourselves to them, particularly to sexual perversion? 

Personally, I think not. I found many paragraphs bad, but merely “V II-bad”, not “Francis-bad”. The new paragraph about perverts merely says that homosexuals (homosexuals, not sodomites; we are talking here of the perversion, not the sodomy or even the active militancy!) must not be discriminated against. This is not only the same tone of the JP II catechism (actually, it is indicative that the paragraph has apparently been rejected by the bishops; it tells you what many of them would do with JP II’s catechism if they had a choice), but can only be approved of if it is read with the mind of the actual sound catholic, rather than of the rabid liberal.

Not even I (and you know what kind of “welcoming” chap I am) would refuse to sell to an homosexual the means to stay alive ( I do not say a “wedding cake”, which is an obvious statement; but bread, milk, tomato, mozzarella, and the like…); nor would I, if I were an employer at, say, the Land Registry, refuse employment to a poor chap because I suspect he  has a perversion. Homosexuals must eat too, and provided they do not give scandal and behave in the proper way I think they have the right not to be starved. I do not think this is anything new, and it is not known to me that homosexuals in the Papal States were refused bread, or wine, or a tenancy, if they did not give scandal. This would have been considered, even then, unjust discrimination.

… and even the Pontiff Emeritus had to intervene…

 

The reasons why the bishops have refused to approve it was, I think, to give an additional slap to Francis, saying to him “you wanted to ram heresy down our throat, now you get slapped in the face even for things we could otherwise approve without problems”;  and also – an issue I, in my innocence, had not examined – to avoid that even these words may be mis-construed as something different: then the very same words may be made to mean, in the Age of Mercy, something completely different than in the old Age of Catholicism.

 

—-

All this, though, is accessory. The main issue is another, that is: 

1. that the Pope read and approved the text of the relatio post disceptationem on the Saturday before the publication; 

2. that, therefore, all the heresies therein contained can be traced back to him;  

3. that the Pope has acted like an Oriental Satrap in disrespecting his bishops at every step: putting in charge a cabal of ultra-liberal, silencing the bishops so that the world does not see orthodoxy at work, publishing a text the bishops had not approved, (imposing the Six Little Pigs to draft the final version, I add);  imposing the publication of the preliminary report (which is on the internet anyway), and finally imposing the publication of the final text (the Relatio Synodi) including those paragraphs explicitly not approved by the required majority. 

4. that Burke, Chaput, Mueller & Co. are saying, with thinly veiled words, that the Pope was behind all this, and the Pope was the one who wanted to weak the discipline of the Church in matters of sexual morality. That Cardinal Pell meant, when he said that the Synod was being manipulated, exactly that the Pope was manipulating it, and this behaviour had to stop. 

Summa Summarum, the Pope did all exactly as he wished without listening to the bishops every time he could (preliminary relatio, appointment of the “little pigs”, decision to keep paragraphs that had been excised), and promptly looking for cover every time he could not (the second relatio in most paragraphs, and the posturing as the “wise mediator between truth and heresy” in the final speech). 

There is a fifth issue, on which I must offer a most optimistic outlook than the two excellent men in the video.

Yes, there will now be “discussions” about sodomy, & Co. But I can’t see how this discussion can be silenced if the Pope not only does not silence it (which Burke invited him to do, unheeded; I think we will hear more about this), but rams it down the throat of the Church.

And if discussion (scandalous! obscene!) must be had, then better from a position of clear defeat for the Modernist position, and clear approval of the Catholic position; a Catholic position which the bishops will take care to have well explained to their own sheep, lest they themselves, the bishops, get grilled next year at the Synod 2015, and then stoned in public by the homosexual minions of Francis. A man who, as we have already seen in the case of the FFI, “does” persecution and revenge with reckless abandon. 

Yes, the dissenters will dissent. But this they would have done anyway. It is much better that they open their mouth as dissenters, and are seen to be so. All the others (which means by the way: the overwhelming majority in Africa and Asia) will discuss, get very angry at the Modernists, and go to the 2015 synod better prepared, and with well-sharpened swords.

And what will Francis do? Leave African or Asian bishops out? All hell would break loose. What then? Impose silence and censorship again? Don’t make me laugh. He caved in once to avoid a public and unprecedented humiliation, he would do it thirty more times.

This here is a Jesuit. His motto could be “In defeat, cowardice. In victory, revenge!”. 

Do you want to know what I think? Francis had his moment, and he lost bad. He made a surprise bid for Russia, and was stopped at the outskirts of Moscow. The surprise attack has failed, and he now has in front of him an army so overwhelming – if they only want to fight –  that there is no way he can reverse the destiny of the battle, unless it is for the incompetence and cowardice of his opponent.

If you ask me (warning! Born optimist!) this battle is not for Francis to win. It is only for the the Bishops (and Catholicism) to lose.  But Francis is now a lame duck. The world has seen it already, and it is coming to terms with it. The Newsweek article I have already linked to is an example of a new reality slowly starting to “sink in”.        

A year of battle is before us. 

But the events of last week showed that ours is, by far, the better army.

If we (and the Bishops and Cardinals) do not lose faith and go on pounding – and several of them have done it already, and new ones are coming in, like the very late Cardinal Piacenza – Francis and his little troop of heretics will be exposed as a bunch of heretic morons.

At that point Francis will leave the battle, and let others have the blame.

Required Viewing: “The Remnant” Strikes Back

My dear readers,

if you ask me, and if you have any trust in your humble correspondent, the video below (hat tip to reader scarygoat61) is required viewing. 

So much so, that I will post this without further comment, and will make my considerations (for anyone who will want to do it; but you don’t have to, as the video is good enough) in another post, that will assume this video has been seen. 

There are moments when I think that we can behold victory not (hopefully) only on the day we die, but in our lifetime. This is one of these moments. The war will be hard, but if I look at the first major battle I start to think it is Axis against Allies here. Which, patriotic as your truly is, could only have only one outcome since 7 December 1941.

Enjoy the video.  

Newsweek Reveals: Francis Was A Shameless, Stunning Liar All His Life

From the new, very tasty* Newsweek article about Francis:

But the family was not a place of total concord. His mother was angry when she found that he was not studying medicine, as she had been told, but theology.

“I didn’t lie to you,” the future Jesuit responded with the casuistry for which his order has been notorious. “I’m studying medicine – but medicine of the soul.”

What lie.

What hypocrisy after the lie!

What Jesuitism!!

TMAHICH was an entire lifetime in the making. He could not have achieved his current level of hypocrisy in any other way.

This is, by the way, the man who complains about casuistry.

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.

Mundabor

* there is another predictable bomb about Mass attendance; already picked up by the Press.

 

 

Another Bishop In Francis’ Gunsight

Here, Monsignor Ricca is tenderly saying thanks to Francis for his openness to sodomites.

 

 

 

Not-so-strangely, we are informed that another conservative bishop, Oliveri from Albenga-Imperia, is now being targeted by the Unholy Father. The Bishop is known for the following:

1. Friendliness to the FFI.

2. Successful seminary, with 10% of the faithful in Liguria but more than 50% of Seminarians, attracting them from outer dioceses because of the quality of the formation.

3. First Pontifical Mass celebrated by a Bishop in communion with Rome in the Traditional Rite after Summorum Pontificum.

A rather successful Bishop, then, as V II bishops go; but one with two unforgivable traits in the mind of Francis: Catholic, and friend of Catholic Friars.

As already seen in Paraguay with bishop Lovieres Plano, the accusation that seems to be floated is of a certain leniency in welcoming priests with a past of (accusation of) misconduct. Accusations which in both cases are, mind, not personal accusations and are, therefore, no accusations at all, but merely excuses.

Yours truly is frankly getting tired with this. I reflect that:

1. The Church who is oh so welcoming of every freakin' pervert should be also welcoming of every priest seen as fit to do his job. If a priest is seen as not fit to do his job, he should be defrocked in Rome, instead of being used later for Papal purges. As Francis would say: do they go around with the “misconduct” ID card? A bishop will look at the circumstances and make a decision. If he is a good bishop – conservative bishops generally are – he will make honest decisions to the best of his ability. To throw the cross on them afterwards is disingenuous and hypocritical, because on average the favela-friendly bishop must score much worse.

Besides, if this is the standard John Paul II should have been posthumously condemned already, much less beatified and canonised.

2. Last time I looked, 95% of the priests accused of misconduct against children were historically found innocent. I do not know how things stand for other accusations; still, I can't avoid to suspect that it is exactly this 95% that will be now used – perhaps not here, as Oliveri has been bishop a quarter of a century already, which is a lot of apples among which Francis can pick the bad ones, but elsewhere – to throw around accusations against bishops.

3. Once again, a Bishop with a very successful, Catholic Seminary is being targeted. This also starts to become extremely transparent.

4. Once again, Francis goes Jack “Shining” Nicholson on the friends of the FFI, whom he clearly sees as his enemies.

—–

Please do not say “oh, but the bishop has made mistakes!” Pretty much everyone makes mistakes, and those of Bergoglio, Kasper, Nichols, Marx, & Co. would have been, when Christianity was taken seriously, amply sufficient to burn them. Nor has Cardinal Danneels, one of the most scandalous examples of “bishop covering up for pedophile priests”, suffered so very much during this Pontificate. The tale of Francis The Enemy Of Perverted Priests just does not work: look under whose roofs he lives!

—–

Francis is here, very probably, merely being his usual self: a petty, vindictive old man who hates Catholics and Catholicism. He is now angry at the disobedience of his own bishops – who have chosen, in brutal contrast to Michael Voris, to obey Christ instead – and wants to take his little revenge on one of the bishops on his certainly well-nourished black list.

Bad luck to him. But I want to see how he can get rid of many of his enemies in this way without causing an uproar that will let the Synod look like a kindergarten squabble; and he needs to get rid of thousands of them, with every bishop he targets increasing the level of resentment from his bishop.

At some point – preferably, very preferably, now – the bishops will have to stand up again and publicly denounce the persecution of sound Catholic bishops and the intimidation of all the others. This Pope can only be stopped by a very public uproar, led by prestigious Cardinals or Archbishops, openly warning from this man's not only methods, but mentality. If he is left unchecked he will start deposing Catholic bishops right and left, and appoint the likes of Cupich in their stead, until he has changed the very perception of the Catholic Church all over the planet. And whilst he will never be able to change any point of doctrine – nor, I think, very willing to try again after the recent experiences, at least ias long as the Bishops stay strong – he will certainly be able to change a lot in the perception. He is doing it already, albeit for the moment with the extremely questionable and certainly unwanted result of being seen as far on the liberal/left/dissenting side of his own bishops.

At one bishop a week he will go nowhere. But even at this pace, it won't be long before another huge outcries rises from the very roots of Catholicism. Does he realise this? Did he only want to punish another bishop with two Bergoglian mortal sins (the FFI, and the Catholic seminary), or what he has in mind is a slow but constant persecution of all strong bishops pour encourager les autres?

We shall see.

I suggest to the Bishop that they prepare for battle. Possibly starting from now.

M

 

 

A Positive Effect Of Last Week’s Chaos

Paul VI's beatification in pictures

In another amusing development, the Beatification of Paul VI has been almost ignored in the uproar caused by last week's events.

Think of it: it is clear that Pope Paul's Beatification was planned as the final apotheosis of the Great Push Towards Hell. On the day Francis gloriously proclaims a New Religion for our time, his Glorious Predecessor, the man who saw the beginning of this Glorious Push brought to completion in the Council, is also remembered. Look, world, how the Spirit is Guiding them both!

No doubt, Stage I of the Revolution had to be celebrated in the same day as Stage II made its formal, triumphal appearance in the world. The Synod Fathers would have been praised as the new and more daring generation of Council Fathers, building what they once started to new, breathtaking heights. Francis, the Humble Innovator, would have stood there in front of the entire planet, hailed by atheist, perverts, dissenters, and assorted enemies of the Church as he says to those he has just betrayed that he is merely continuing on the path of the V II “tradition”. By beatifying Paul in death, he would have beatified himself in life.

It wasn't to be. A burning defeat is what TMAHICH got instead. The final address to the Bishops had to be hastely rewritten, trying to mask Francis' complicity with the heretics – actually: Francis' steering of the heresy – and attempting to paint him as the good old uncle, saying “tut-tut” to both Traditionalists and Heretics in that oh so gentle, amiable way of his when he is not massacring some beautiful Catholic order.

In all this mess, Pope Paul was as irrelevant in death as he was in life. A fitting destiny for the man who refused to stop the already clear drive towards betrayal, and allowed all this madness to start in earnest.

Two words on this beatification (Paul does not deserve better) to close. I do not know if the man is in hell, and it is to be hoped he saved his sorry Modernist head in the end. He certainly got the grace of a slow death with the sacraments and abundant time to repent, so one can only hope he made the most of it. Still, Beatifications are not binding for Catholics. Therefore, Yours Truly will hold this beatification to be the same as everything Francis does:

Rubbish.

M

 

 

Only Doormats And Satan Welcome All

Got to love this carpet: "come in" or "go away"...

Got to love this carpet: “come in” or “go away”…

I am already sick and tired of the new buzzword chosen by Satan to attack the Church and Her Sacraments: the concept of “welcome”.

You welcome someone in your house because you think it safe and sensible to do so. You wouldn’t say “welcome” to any violent drunkard, rapist or pedophile; or robber, thief, fraudster.

“Knock, knock”

“Who is it?”

“Good morning, ma’am. I am a rapist. I ask to be welcomed in your hospitable home, because I feel very much excluded. Your doormat says ‘all welcome'; so will you open, please….”

What do you think: will the woman open? Me neither… She will, actually, rather call the Police.

Exactly the same – though on a much graver scale – happens with the Church whenever there is a call to “welcome” people who bring with them not conversion, but the pride of their vices, and the arrogant demand not only to continue the scandal, but also to be allowed to “be welcomed” in the House of the Lord.

I say “much worse” because – as every sound Catholic will realise after three seconds of reflection – the things of God are infinitely more important than the mortal bodies of men, and the sullying of His house with heretical and satanic praxis and widespread sacrilege is infinitely worse than any number of rapes and murders one may care to imagine; a concept, this, once well planted in every Catholic mind, but now obviously disappeared from the consciousness of many of them; of people whose religion is, to all intents and purposes, made entirely so satisfy man, and uncaring of insulting God.

No, the woman will not allow the rapist to get in. Her “welcome” is meant for those, and only for those, fit to enter her home.

But the House of the Lord, the Holy Church, should be sullied with every kind of scandal and blasphemy, with those who want to rape her to satisfy their desires, so that everyone feels “welcoming”. Cue the obese female blogger, and the saltless priest – homosexual, it is purported; I report the rumour just because the readers have the right to know, considering what he goes around saying – rolling a huge doormat to every scandalous adulterer, concubine and pervert on the planet.

Only doormats welcome all. Literally and figuratively.

Be a sissified doormat and don’t be surprised if, one day, you will stand in line near some blogger with Compulsive Gluttoning Disorder, about to enter the gates of hell, and going over a huge doormat carrying the following words:

Welcome.

M

Canada Welcomes The “Religion Of Peace”

Canada's well-deserved future.



Two attacks of Islamist matrix in two dayS: one in Montreal and the other, far graver, in Ottawa, striking at the very heart of Canadian institutions.

One may say that these are isolated cases of madmen, but I frankly think those who lull themselves in such thinking are just as mad, if perhaps a tad more lucid. The maddest of political correctness must be the Mayor of Ottawa, talking of “causes not yet fully understood” when even his daughter's hamster knows.

We must wake up, smell the coffee, and realise that the indiscriminate import of Islam, and the politically correct way it was allowed to spread like a cancer, has created a situation and a climate that will make such attacks more frequent in the future, everywhere in the stupid, effeminate West.

The stupid, effeminate West got what it deserved. It found it cool to play “multicultural” and “inclusive”; now it will have to live with the consequences of its own stupidity. Canada, say hello to the Religion of Peace. I hope you liked the appetiser, because the main course is coming.

It is only a matter of time until a handful of fanatics manage to get inside a national or regional Parliament and massacre a couple of dozen elected members of that assembly.

At that point, perhaps, the West will finally wake up.

Perhaps.

M

 

St. Augustine: Unwelcoming, Judgmental, No Room For Love

Homophobis hater: St Augustine of Hippo.

Homophobic hater: St Augustine of Hippo.

The priest writing on Patheos has some meowing about how (and whether) to “welcome” “the gays”.
He seems not to like the idea very much, though you have to get to the end of the blog post, and past the vomit-inducing photo, to understand it; but then he likes “the gays” enough to put two sodomites in his above-mentioned photo, in one of those disgusting poses so beloved from the homo propaganda to give perverts an air of youth and normality. He also says that to him “the gays” are those who acts on their perversion, because the word “sodomite” is probably taboo at Patheos, and makes sodomites feel “unwelcome”.
So much for Patheos bloggers; and this one is probably the least worst most of the time.
Mundabor’s tip? Avoid. 
In general, one wonders how a priest not bent (ha!) straight for hell can think of any “greet” to give to “the gays” and then deal with the perversion at hand in a halfway effective way. If I want to persuade a pedophile that what he does is evil and will lead him straight to hell, there aren’t many nice words about pedophilia I can say to him beforehand. Repentant sinners are always welcome; scandalous and activist perverts who do not want to reform themselves, but want to pervert the Church are asked, like the famous dogs, to stay out.    
Still, let us help the Patheos’ priest blogger. Let us suggest a charitable welcome to “the gays”. Which we will, of course, charitably call Sodomites. Try this:  
“Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law”. (The Confessions, c. III, p. 8).

Mundabor

(Hat tip: Roberto de Mattei via Rorate Caeli)

 

Francis’ Next Move And The Catholic D-Day: A Reflection

Heresy Beach under attack. Thursday, 16 October 2014.

 

 

After the great debacle of last week – denied by some of the Liberals and, obviously, by all the Pollyannas – the question can be posed of what will Francis do next. Then we can speculate of what will happen after that. Allow me to say how I see it.

Broadly speaking, it seems to me that he has the following options.

1. Resign and wheelchair off to Argentina.

If Francis sees his future as Pope as bleak, he could make an extreme gesture and simply resign. He would instantly acquire the status of Best Pope Evah by those whose popularity he is courting: Western Non-Catholics of all stripes.

A kind of Loser Cincinnatus, he would go back to his cobbler, his newspaper agent and his beloved slum trannies. An aura of non-judgmental, Dalai Lama-like mock sainthood would follow him everywhere. Atheist, Jews, Witches, Homos, Adulterers, Concubines and unrepentant sinners of all sort would erect a huge monument to the Revolutionary Pope. Whilst I am sure he enjoys the immense apartment, the company of perverts, the helicopter and the power, what he loves most is himself and his own popularity. This would, therefore, be an option if not immediately, perhaps if he gets another thrashing or two. Alas, I doubt that his outlook is so bleak, or that he may see it that way. Therefore, this one looks improbable at least for now.

2. Adapt to the role as Pope, and say farewell to the Revolution

This Pope loves his popularity above all. It is very questionable whether he would choose to become the hate figure of Catholics in life and for generations to come. May he hate Catholics, I think he hates mass unpopularity more. A Pope not followed by his own is a joke of a Pope no matter how many perverts love him, and I am sure that much he understands well.

If we are lucky, he could decide that this is the end of the revolutionary experiment, and he has neither the age nor the strength to really roll the dice. Therefore, he could avoid the Nuclear Option and simply be content with being Pope Stupid, rather than Pope Heretic. A massive conflict could see him even defrocked. He is, in this scenario, too much of a Jesuit to risk that.

This is, I think, also an unlikely scenario. But it could become far more realistic if Francis gets another couple of humiliations like last week’s one. He is a Jesuit after all, which means: weak with the strong, always ready to swim with the tide, and with no shame at all.

3. Continue as now, but more guardedly and carefully.

In this scenario, Francis learns that he has sent his tanks in the open field and they have been massacred. He also understands further open defiance will yield the same results. Therefore, he decides it’s guerrilla time.

Removal of as many uncomfortable bishops as he can without risking open backlash; appointment of liberals and friends of perverts (or perverts) as bishops, but not too obvious ones; continued “off-the-cuff” heresies, but mixed with more traditional messages.

This, I think the most probable scenario. The trouble with that (for him) is that Francis does not have the time to work slowly on his project and see it triumph in, say, twenty years. There are thousands of bishops, a jungle of religious orders, many seminaries are now producing decent priests, and Traditionalism has never been so strong in 50 years. Look at Summorum Pontificum advancing as the old… Jesuits fill the hospices. This is a guerrilla that is also a race against the time. If he tries to be Gorbachev, chances are he’ll end up like him. The Church is, like the Soviet Union, a huge apparatus that (leaving the Holy Ghost aside) a heretic can’t reshape as he pleaseth. Francis’ guerrilla will make damages, but the Church will bear them all right, and rectify them in time when TMAHICH is gone.

4. The Extreme Destroyer

Francis decides that enough is enough, and sets up to make a massacre; remaining as much under cover as he can, whilst still being the Puppetmaster.

An example of this could be the already ventilated and now resuscitated proposal of factually castrating the CDF and leave the Bishops’ Conferences free to decide as much as possible, even in “doctrinal” matters.

The problem with this is, if you ask me, that it will never work. The principle that the praxis must adhere to the doctrine has just been convincingly reaffirmed. I am unable to see how Cardinal Napier or Burke would accept communion for adulterers provided it is limited to some Western Countries. There is, actually, every reason to believe this “doctrinal anarchy” would equate to the dismembering of the very Body of the Church, an outcome that only the most fanatical Kasperites will support.

It is not possible to have home-made Catholicism. The word itself decries this possibility as absurd. I may be the eternal optimist, but I think that if Francis were to try something like that, he would end up under an orthodox truck in no time, and at that point he would be a seriously lame duck.

The breaking of taboos is a two-way street. Next time, the criticism will be faster, more spread, and more explicit. Look at the immense status of people like Cardinal Burke now. If they push, It’s “Pope Over Board”!

Think of this: Francis has already been tested, and he has lost. Has he gone for the all-out confrontation? No. Are the Bishops and Cardinals stupid, that they do not know that he will seek a rematch, and revenge? No. Is he strong enough to brave them? Come on, he’s a Jesuit. He did not have the balls last week, will he grow a pair at (almost) Seventy Nine?

Call me the eternal optimist, but I don’t think he can. This here just has no guts for it, or we would have known already. In my eyes, he rather runs the risk of becoming a pathetic figure, torn between the armchair “Che” and the reality of an abysmally bad soldiery.

He was tested, and was found wanting.

——

You can say what you want of “Che” Guevara (and whatever you say, I will say worse), but he certainly had no fear to put all at risk, and to accept frightful odds uncaring of consequences.

A “Che”, this Pope is not. He has all the hate of Che Guevara, but none of the balls.

Whenever he finds an army of Catholics close the ranks against him, he will always choose the armchair rather than the jungle. As he did last Thursday. Of course, he will need to find this Army or he will walk all over Catholicism. Of course, a losing Wehrmacht still is the Wehrmacht! But with God’s Grace and our prayers, and if the Spirit of the Synod continues – and I can’t see why not – I can’t see how he can win.

——

We live in extremely worrying, volatile, heretical times. I am aware that this prediction may prove completely wrong. But I can only write on this blog to the best I can observe, and with the most realistic reasoning I can extract from these observations.

TMAHICH isn’t the Antichrist, and he has already failed abysmally even as apprentice False Prophet. Heck, not even his Bishops esteem him, and not very many seem to fear him.

I see last Thursday as a Catholic D-Day. Destination: Berlin. Yes, the army opposing us is still frightfully strong. Yes, there is no doubt savage fighting might be in store. Yes, complacency now would be fatal. But not ten months after D-Day, Hitler was dead and Nazism in his last gasps. I do not think very many thought it could be so fast.

I dare to forecast, here, how this man will be seen after he’s gone: as a stupid, evil, dirty old man who wanted to remake the Church in his own (stupid, evil, and dirty) image, got a hammer on his teeth a couple of times too much, and thought better of it.

 

Mundabor 

 

Michael Voris Officially Still In The Dark

Sorry, mate: no criticism...

Sorry, mate: no criticism…

 

 

Last week, after the dramatic, midnight “breaking news” transmission from Michael Voris, I published the blog post titled “Is Michael Voris Finally Seeing The Light”? 

If you read the blog post again, you will see that I was not saying that he was; I merely observed that some circumstances – the highly dramatic broadcast, or the echo given, even if without comment, to the rather strong affirmations of the Cardinal – would well justify the suspicion that he might be at a crossroads, and having to choose now whether to side with 2,000 years of Truth or with 20 months of Francis. I do not think I can be blamed for thinking, in front of the highly dramatic broadcast, that he would perhaps be on the verge of choosing the former. 

I concluded with the following phrase:

“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”.

Again, I  do not want to be seen as the one who cries “a miracle! a miracle!” as in a Monthy Phyton movie. I saw the facts, noticed that the  facts were not in line with the editorial line, and made some reflections on this. After which, I waited.

The video was removed from the site, a clear indication that it was considered embarrassing. Now we have, directly from Michael Voris, the clarification: the broadcast was wrong both in the impression it generated and in the precedence given to what I think he does not want to call “sensationalism”, and it has consequently been pulled out. Apologies everywhere, abundant ashes on Voris’ head, & Co. All normal, then. Or rather, all as wrong as before. Let us see why. 

—-

Michael Voris is, and remains, free to pretend not so see; or, which is much worse, to say or imply that he sees, but refusing to acknowledge what his eyes are seeing; because apparently there are cases in which to see it’s bad, and one has to blind himself if he wants to be “in communion with the Church”.

We can well see, but the ordinary pewsitter should not be told. To them, ignorance is strenght. 

Thanks but no, thanks. If I had wanted the Fuehrerprinzip, I would have sought the membership of some modern NSDAP, or perhaps of Scientology. I choose membership in the Church, which obliges me to think and see whether the alleged sheep might not be, in fact, a wolf. And no, I am not fooled by the clothes. 

This Fuehrerprinzip is, when looked at for mere three seconds, nonsense; a nonsense that blatantly ignores the most glaring contrast between what the Church teaches and what TMAHICH (which means The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History: let us state this clearly, lest when we die we are accused of following a White Calf with Black Shoes) goes around saying, and having said by his equally shameful minions.

Many of us have written ad abundantiam about the absurd contradiction in seeing all the heresies and heterodoxy  in the Prelates of the Church, without wanting to see the main propeller of all of them in the last twenty months. This willed, highly selective blindness is in nothing more intelligent than to condemn at every step Nazism, The Nuremberg Laws and the Holocaust, whilst stubbornly refusing to say a word against Hitler. With the difference – that I will allow myself to point out, with the usual lack of political correctness – that a Pope betraying Christ is infinitely worse than any massacre or genocide, for the simple reason that God being infinitely superior to men, the offense made to God is, in the order of things, infinitely graver than the offense – and be it a genocide – made to men; and that a soul being immortal, and therefore infinitely more important than everything perishable, a single soul is infinitely more valuable than perishable human bodies. 

Which is, before anyone should bark, not said at all to deny the scale of atrociousness of the Holocaust, but to put what Francis is doing in the proper perspective, the perspective in which sixty generations of Christians, none excepted, would have put what is happening now. A perspective not caught only by those who have obviously lost sight of the importance and rank of God, and think that God is a nice someone about whom we say fluffy words; whilst at the centre of everything is, in the end, man.

The question, to me, is very simple: is this Pope a threat to the Depositum Fidei or not? If you answer “no”, I question at the very least your discernment. If you answer “yes” I cannot see any way how you can escape a duty towards God that must, exactly as God is infinitely superior to any Pope, be infinitely preferred to any, at this point, blind and senseless loyalty.

Besides: it has always been a mystery to me that people our ancestors would have burnt without any qualm should be treated by us with a sort of sacredness they have long showed not to care for themselves. A Pope wearing a Red Nose, and making of himself a clown, should, and must, be called a clown and a buffoon besides a heretic and a hypocrite: firstly in order for souls to be warned from him, and secondly because he is. Being Catholic has never meant to throw one’ s brain in the garbage can.

—  

Voris also makes – not for the first time – some comments saying that those who attack the Pope will one day answer for it. Personally, I try to write every blog post as if it were the last one before a Boris Bus hits me on the head; and I would frankly be terrified of dying without having criticised the Pope, and without having criticised him in a way commensurate (not even remotely, in fact) to the offense and scandal he is causing. Oh, how I wish I were able to make him more ridiculous, more of a clown, more of an object of laughter and mockery! Ridicule saves souls! Ridicule is such a powerful weapon, that it has been used against the enemy since the dawn of time.

Wake up, people, and stop being pussycats. There’s heresy to fight. There’s Tradition to defend. Man up.  

And please, please excuse me, but at school I tried to pay attention, and was taught that when the Pope says the contrary of what the Church says they can’t be both right. The consequence of this is that every talk of “communion” made dependent of ignoring the propagation of heresy and lie is a satanical self-deception of the first order.

They can’t be both right. That’s it. This is reality no amount of “loyalty” talk will ever make any less real. Here or there. 

We, the vocal Traditionalist side, have chosen the Church of 2,000 years. We feel much comfort in this. So much comfort, in fact, that we will not cease one second to do so, irrespective of how many tell us that we are endangering our soul; because we criticise one so much more dangerous than Hitler. We are, in fact, those who would not believe it if an angel were to come down from heaven and teach us novelties, much less a buffoon with a red nose. I must have read this one of the angel somewhere, but I do not remember where. Probably among the writing of one who dared to sharply criticise a Pope (and what Pope!) in public. A Saint, true; but a saint whose behaviour has always been seen as a sterling example for everyone of us. This saint was not in communion, then. So much is, if we are logical, clear. If we deny it, it’s because we aren’t logical. 

Voris has chosen to believe that two and two is four, as the Church says; but also five, as Francis says. Which then leaves him in the impossible situation of having to attack Cardinal Burke (who at this point can only be a “spiritual pornographer”) for saying that it is four; whilst also attacking Cardinal Kasper for saying that it is five. 

This is too absurd for serious consideration. It does not pass the test of a seven-years old boy. It is as blatantly self-contradictory as anything under the sun. 

Astonishingly, many people are apparently ready to believe this nonsense, and think that they will be fine if, when they die, they are on the side of the Pope. This is exactly the kind of people who will, one day, enthusiastically be on the side of the Antichrist, or of the False Prophet. With the difference that even this red-nosed clown can fool them.

—— 

Then there is the little matter of money, and worldly consideration, and one’s livelihood. Many traditionalist bloggers write without receiving one penny for their many hours, gratis et amore dei. In some cases, not even their names are known. In my particular case, I can guarantee you that no one this side of heaven even knows that I blog. But I, like them, do not see a penny, only expenses. We “man and laptop” bloggers are, therefore, the last people who can be accused of having any self-interest in criticising the Pope: not a personal one (do you know “New Catholic”s name? Well I don’t!) and not a financial one. We stay here, in front of a keyboard in the hours of the night, – with so many videogames that could be played – without anyone even knowing what we are doing. Why? Because we really, really, really care. Compare us, if you please, with people whose very livelihood depends on their own activity, and who must think what part of this livelihood will go away if they start to take what is, alas, still a tiny minority’s position.

Mind: I am not saying, with this, that he who earns a livelihood from his activity must be therefore dishonest, or forced to choices of convenience; but I point out to the fact that those who do not make any money at all can then, even more so, claim honesty and independence, and demand from any honest person that he recognises their sincere faith and desire to contribute to the salvation of other people’s souls besides their own.  

We know, and I know, that when I kick the bucket I will have to answer for everything I write; and when the day comes I hope that my efforts will count against my sins, instead of amplifying them. Because I will be able to say “when a clown with a red nose came up from Argentina and taught novelties, I did not believe him”. Which may not seem much, but I assure you: it is more than many others seem willing to do. 

I think Christ would want us on his side, not Francis’. How stupid of me, I know.

But I want to die on the side of the Truth of 2,000 year, rather than of a buffoon of 20 months. 

Mundabor

P.S. and just so you know: professional bloggers have an entire day for, say, one or two articles. We toil at night writing without I do not say the support of a text editor, but most importantly without the time the professionals have. 

         

 

Si Tacuisses, Philosophus Mansisses

I keep reading Cardinals who sound as if they belonged to a different religion. Actually, I keep reading Cardinals who do show, by their own talking, that they belong to a different religion.

The latest one is Cardinal Ravasi, the Lou Reed fan, very eager to take a walk on the wild side. Ravasi reacts to Cardinal Burke's invitation to the Pope to quench the heresy, and says in his innocent ignorance of everything Catholic that no, the Pope could not do that, because his intervention it would have ended the debate. Roma locuta, causa finita, said the chap, to show us in life he hasn't been listening to Lou Reed all the time.

The stupidity of this is immense, but is the more insulting if we reflect that it comes from a Cardinal.

Roma not only used to, but has to speak – for all times to come – exactly in order to end discussions that should not have started in the first place! Heresy is not on a par footing with Truth, and the Pope is never ever to be neutral between the one and the other.

Cardinal “Lou Reed” Ravasi does not get this simple concept. He talks as if the discussion took place inside a political party. He has no idea – or does not care – about the principles involved. To him, “Rome” has a duty to encourage discussion irrespective of what is actually discussed.

This man is a Cardinal. A Church with such Princes is truly a Kingdom in serious need of repair.

M

Bill Donohue Must Check The Facts

Bill Donohue has made two statements that are so far away from reality, one really wonders on which planet these people live.

The first is that he said the Relatio post disceptationem was “leaked”. No it wasn’t. It was the official interim documents, announced to the press beforehand, and released to the journalists at the scheduled time. Nothing can be less of a leak than this. Donohue is trying to persuade us that the Pope was not behind the document, and he does not do it in a very intelligent way.

The second is when he says that the bishops reacted not so much to the content, but to the method (not being consulted before the release). Apart from the fact that this confirms the document was not leaked, it is factually wrong. The final document is so utterly and completely different from the preliminary one in everything that counts, that to say the problem was mainly one of method is to deny reality. Again, reality is denied in order to deny that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, TMAHICH, the Unholy Father, disgracefully reigning, is behind all this.

If we Catholics want to start fighting seriously against evil, we must get rid of this kind of professional operators always trying to hide the truth from you every time there is something not convenient for them in it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,020 other followers

%d bloggers like this: