Category Archives: Catholicism
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.
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.
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.
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.
Liberal Cardinals (already the word is an oxymoron) keep talking about obedience to the Pope, as if obedience to the Pope were due even when the Pope tells one to disobey to Christ.
One would expect that they obey blindly to the Pope every time he instructs them to do something perfectly Catholic.
How is their implementation of Summorum Pontificum?
The blind are leading the blind. But as for talking, they have no problem at all.
If our opponents are all of the caliber of Cardinal Kasper there is probably not much to fear from next year’s synod. Unfortunately, this is not a realistic expectation.
Cardinal Kasper must dream at night of becoming a Centipede, in order to have enough feet to stick in his mouth at any given time. His enthusiasm for making of himself an object of mockery, derision or simple pity is simply inexhaustible. He has by now most certainly advanced to Head Clown in Circus Bergoglio.
Let us resume what the man could achieve before today, in less than a week: offend his African colleagues and African Catholics in general, deny his word, slander the journalist he had spoken to, be openly exposed as a shameless liar, and retort saying that he thought he was slandering off record.
Today, a new episode in the saga of Kaspergate: a non-apology mixed with other accusations of being – he, the Chief Slanderer And Liar – the victim.
To this the Cardinal added, now clearly out of control, the following two huge feet to the collection already in his mouth:
1. An open attack to a Cardinal he refused to mention (Mueller, I would say; possibly Burke or Pell, though).
2. An announcement that journalists friendly to him will “take care” of the man.
Now, let us analyse all the indications we get from this:
1. He is a very, very petty man.
A man of some stature would have avoided a reaction fit for a high school queen on discovering she isn’t popular at all. Rather, he would have either remained silent for a while, or he would have spoken in soft, conciliatory, soothing tones about the lessons he has learnt. But this, this is throwing the toys out of the pram like he is Elton John’s prematurely bitchy “adopted” boy.
2. He is a serial liar.
He denies he has spoken the words. After being irredeemably exposed by the recording, he complains about the recording. He also states he has not spoken during the synod, probably forgetting that the records of the intervention do are public, and is exposed again.
In short? This man needs help.
3. He is a slanderer.
The accusation to a journalist of not having said what he knows he has said is an atrociously cynical attack to this man’s reputation and, ultimately, livelihood. It is first-class slander. By the by, I do not find anywhere news of his personal apology to Mr Pentin. I wonder what TMAHICH, always so sensitive even to gossip, thinks? If gossip is murder, this is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I also allow myself to add that one or three anger management courses could be very much in order here.
4. He is unbelievably stupid
Which moron would go in front of the journalists telling them “you will now see what I am able to do to this chap”? This defeats the purpose at the very start!
Every critical intervention of every journalist against anyone of several Cardinals who have opposed him will now be attributed directly to this Kasperle’s machinations and thirst for revenge! Can anyone who calls himself a Cardinal be so mind-boggingly stupid?
The Cardinal’s answer is loud and clear:
“Ja, Ich kann!”
The liberal and worldly press is divided over the issue of the synod. The more realistic commenters limit themselves to observe and report the facts: the Pope has made a big push for what they call modernisation, and he has been soundly defeated. Whilst even these commenters taint the facts with their own bias (and consider, say, the events a negative development), they at least say it as it is.
Another current among the losers is, however, of the opinion that it is better to deny defeat altogether. This attitude, which Dr Goebbels brought to unprecedented heights in 1942-1945, is actually very old, and probably as old as humanity itself. They proceed, then, to explain to us how good it is that Francis wants to modernise; or that heretical thinking has found an outlet; or that now a Glorious March towards the October 2015 synod can begin.
Stop dreaming and start looking, dissenters and liberals.
A Pope defeated by his own bishops in matters pertaining to his own orthodoxy can only be a Pope covered in shame, and now severely tarnished in his own very character. There is no way anyone who knows two things of Catholicism can think otherwise (this raises the question, though, of how many journalists do know two things of Catholicism).
Similarly, it is madness to think that it is good that the New Gospel found an outlet. Since the Church has stopped barbecuing them with Dominican sauce, heretics have not had many problems in spreading their heresies, nor are heretical bishops and cardinals a creation of this pontificate. The Church must fight heresy, and this she has done brilliantly in the glorious days of last week. Heresy (at least this new extreme form of it) has lost, and it has lost badly. There’s no way to spin a defeat into a victory.
As to the outlook on the future, this is not a fact (the fact is the historical, brutal defeat) but a hope, the hope of future victories. We shall see. But again, it’s easy to talk of victories tomorrow when you are losing badly today. Goebbels did it massively in the last three years of the war. We know how it worked for him.
These kind of deluded liberals remind me of the Old Everly Brothers’ song.
Whenever they want heresy, all they have to do is dream.
There can be no doubt that the Synod ended, in a way, in a completely different way from the one the Unholy Father had forecast. The New Gospel is, for the moment at least, in tatters. Thursday might well turn up to be what journalists love to call the “defining moment” of this pontificate. I prefer to call it, with J.R.R. Tolkien, (possibly) “the turning of the tide”.
On the other hand this is merely, to say it with Churchill, the end of the beginning. Francis “Operation Sea Lion” has failed, but the war now continues in the dioceses. Dissenters will be allowed to “discuss” what should be simply taboo. At least in the Western world, there will be no lack of conflict.
I have read concerns that it will be very easy for Francis to steer things in the right way: he would only need to invite different bishops next time, people already intentioned to push his agenda, and Bob's your uncle.
I can't imagine it would work, for the following reasons:
1. The most vocal opposition came from Cardinals. They based their main criticism (the doctrinal one) not on the fact that they were there, but on the fact that the Relatio was wrong. We live in a global village: being there is not so relevant.
2. The Church is more than the Vatican. The Polish bishops had, by way of their representative, refused to accept the document even before it was decided to remake it. There is no way in hell Francis can silence opposition just by ignoring it. You drive to the wall, you smash yourself into it.
3. Francis is, in fact, the proof of this reasoning. Bully as he is, if he had thought the voting of the wrong document would have silenced opposition in two days, or two weeks, or two months, he would have gone on with Operation Sea Lion, instructing Baldisseri to stay the course, not publishing the reports of the small groups, and concluding the Synod with another document issued under his supervision, without even informing the bishops. He did not do it, because he recognised that his credibility as Pope was on the line, and would not have survived such a provocation.
A Pope is not a Satrap. 2000 years of Church History and Deposit of Faith look at him continuously. He can muddle the message, downplay the more uncomfortable parts, even try to cover it under a mountain of fluffy nonsense; but to transform it in its opposite is a completely different cup of tea.
The next synod will be watched much more closely than this, because at this point not even his cat trusts Francis. Entire Continents will very obviously stay the course no matter what Francis machinations. He cannot silence thousands of bishops more than he could have silenced the 130 or 140 Synod Fathers. He is now swimming against a mighty current, and even some among the Liberal/Dissenting Press Acknowledge this uncomfortable reality.
Also reflect on this: that at this synod, modern-times taboos were broken. For the first time, a V II Pope was if not explicitly, certainly evidently questioned in his very doctrinal integrity or at least competence by many sources, his Cardinals not excluded. The floodgates are open. The age of the V II Pope who is believed to be remote-controlled by the Holy Spirit has ended. Countless Pollyannas have seen the Pope attacked not for his orthodoxy – this is an old sport by now – but for his lack of it, by his very people; by people, in fact, he has himself just made Cardinals, or called in the circle of his closest ally.
Is it all gone, then? Is the battle already won? By no means. Francis will now try to change the “global climate” in the matter. He will punish some bishops, appoint horrible ones, continue with his heresies and blasphemies. He will try to change the entire atmosphere around Catholic issues, thinking that he can still convert the Church to the New Gospel. But he has by now understood that he cannot force it on her and if he tries, he will be crushed. Not, of course, in its very role as Pope, but in the effectiveness of his action and his prestige and credibility as a person.
The more I think of it, the more I think the task before Francis is a very difficult one, perhaps even a desperate one. But he and his minions will go at it will all the populism, the arrogance,the hypocrisy and the hatred for Catholicism we have clearly seen at work since that stupid appearance on the balcony.
Operation Sea Lion has failed spectacularly thIs year. It is difficult for me to see how it can succeed next year. But crucially, the Wehrmacht is still there: admittedly stopped, battered in places, and with the Fuehrer's reputation damaged; but in the end with all the tanks and cannons in place. To be complacent in front of such a formidable army would be the worst of mistakes.
I do not think our Argentinian Hitler will win this war. I actually think this Synod marks the end of his triumphal march, and his papacy is now fairly near to becoming damaged goods. But this Hitler here is not the one to stop the fight and content himself with wearing red noses and embracing wheelchairs. He has hated Catholicism all his life. Those who have stopped him last week are exactly the people he has been insulting since the start of his Pontificate. He will continue the fight in the only way he knows: shameless hypocrisy on one side, reckless bullying on the other.
We must be more vigilant than ever. We must (finally) become more aggressive in our criticism of the Pope. We must raise loud calls of Heresy – Homoheresy, or any other heresy – whenever the man and his minions try to steer the discussion in the wrong direction. We must denounce him by every wrong appointment. We must follow every word he says, dissect it for heresy and blasphemy, and denounce it very loud.
We must call a heretic a heretic, and a clown a clown.
As we reach the End of the Beginning, it is very telling that Cardinals very near to the Pope dared to say what most blogs of laymen and priest did not have the courage to say.
The continuation of this war also goes through a review of our troops.
The historical events of the last days are also, in the most brutal manner, the demonstration of the utter uselessness or outright help for the Devil of many blogs written by people who have the guts to call themselves “Catholics”.
As the Relatio post disceptationem was made public, the usual suspects were running to explain to a stunned Catholicism that it was business as usual, and there was, really, nothing to be worried about; just the usual nutcases screaming, because that’s what they do.
Pick your “c”atholics blog/publication and go read – if it’s still there – what was written on it on the 13 and 14 October. Weigel insisted in telling us nothing has happened, as the bishops all over the world were terrified and extremely angry – but he didn’t know that yet, you see -. The “Gluttoness” ‘ main concern was whether the “gays” will not be offended (yes: they, the “gays”) at the language used in the text. The “Catholic Herald” explained to us, in a true spirit of prostitution, that Francis’ reform still had a long way to go before being completed; the same outlet, on the same day, dared to publish the infamous “God’s Laws are now obsolete” homily report in which the Pope’s blasphemy, without precedent in the history of Christianity, is reported as if it were a piece of news from the Congress of the Labour Party; nor have I seen a single word of criticism of the Unholy Blasphemer afterwards.
Interestingly, after the mess had happened the unCatholic Herald has an article of a priest, lamenting… the English translation! Lord, give me strength!
I did not havevthevtime to read some of the other usual suspects, but I can’t imagine those I have missed, – the likes of Akin and Shea – were above their usual, obscenely low standard.
In short: whilst Rome was in great danger of burning, “institutional” Catholic sites were telling us fire is very modern, or what the church always had anyway, or awfully overrated as a danger.
These are, my friends, the best allies of Satan; because whilst obvious enemies of Catholics are heavily discounted by everyone who cares, these people deceive – to a point, of course – those who, at least in principle, care for their Salvation.
Last week has shown that there is no amount of blasphemy or heresy from the Pope that these people would not sell as what the Church has always said, business as usual, some kind of strange but ultimately harmless choice of words, or something to celebrate altogether. Unless, it is, for the fact that the “gays” might feel offended (they; the “gays”) at the wording.
In a rather striking contrast, let me mention the blogs which – besides your humble correspondent – I have seen with immense consolation shooting from all cannons before the extent of the bishop’s rebellion was known: in no particular order John Smeaton, Rorate Caeli, the “Remnant”, “Harvesting the Fruit of the V II”, and the Traditionalist Catholic Priest were shooting like it’s The Alamo with no regard whatsoever for what the world was saying, how the media would have reacted, whether the bishops would have caved in to Pope Allende, and whether we would have woken up the day after a planet of happy heretics.
What a joy, to see these brave men and women of God running to the ramparts without knowing or caring how many Uruk-Hai are below, and without knowing whether reinforcement would ever arrive; ready ten thousand times to be called bigots by a stupid world, than sellouts by Christ.
There were, certainly, many more blogs who had these kind of reaction, though I cannot read or even mention them all. But certainly what could be noticed is that the simple laymen, the “one man and one laptop” efforts were, together with the established voices of Tradition, light years in front of the cowardly commercial, “allegedly-middle-of-the-way”, “look-how-cool-Catholicism-is” blogs a la “Patheos”, and utterly prostituted outlets a la “Catholic Herald”.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether heads will now roll over there; probably not as long as TMAHICH is Pope. Still, those who run that miserable rag must get in hot water as long as Francis is gone, as they have showed to the entire Catholic world that they are not better than those who run the “Tablet”; in fact, they merely have different target readers.
As to “Patheos”, it would be easy to say that everyone who goes there for spiritual nourishment is beyond repair anyway; but perhaps some of them are not beyond repair, they just know not what they are doing. For them, this truly is the time to open their big blue eyes and look at the ugly truth straight in the eyes: even if Francis declared that he is the False Prophet, the “Patheos” sites would be his first and more vocal supporters.
I have been struggling, these last days, to decide who was worst than the “Gluttoness”. I am afraid the biscuit goes to a brand new Patheos blog, written by a nun of sort, who proceeded to explain to us that she lined for communion when she was an atheist, isn’t sure how exactly bad this is, but if she has been told she cannot receive she would have been oh so offended that she would have gone away for good, evidently not becoming the wonderful religious sister she now is.
These are the sisters, the bloggers, and the alleged Catholics you find on Patheos.
Choose your blogs carefully. Your immortal soul may well be at stake.
I have already written that, if you browse around, Pollyanna has become rather silent. The number of those now wondering at the cruelty of the wolves, keeping the Most Holy Father away from the Internet, has decreased sharply.
Still, there are some hard-liners who do not really want to get it. As we say in Italy, the mother of the idiot is always pregnant. This here is, though, extreme Pollyann-ing, because almost twenty months of papal Subversion make the job harder and harder. To still believe in the “good Holy Father who has a cunning plan” you need, actually, Baldrick levels of stupidity.
The two most Baldrick-like readings of the events are the following:
1. The Pope has put the wrong people in charge of the Synod; he has allowed them to run everything; he has allowed them to publish a document without even informing the bishops; he has, in fact, possibly drafted some parts of it himself, and has certainly approved them; he has, finally, made astonishingly blasphemous statements on the same day the notorious report was issued.
Why did he do all that?
Simples, says Baldrick: in order to allow the bad wolves to get out in the open, and know who they are!
How can anyone be so stupid and be allowed to vote, to buy financial products, to make debts, even to drive?
How many people have you ever heard saying “Hitler organised the Holocaust in order to expose the anti-semites among the Nazis”? Or “Stalin made purges in order to expose the fanatical commies in his party’s ranks?” Seriously: can anyone be as thick as that, and be allowed to buy a car, or take out a mortgage?
2. On the same vein, but with a vaster geo-political breadth, is the other brilliant affirmation: Benedict resigned in order for the wolves to reveal themselves, and be exposed by the world.
Interesting reflection. “I am the Pope”, says Benedict. “It is obvious the Church is full of perverts, communists, and heretics. How can I neutralise them? Appointing good bishops and Cardinals? Taking care of sound teaching and that there are no homos in the seminaries? Promoting the Mass of the Ages? Making enquiries as to who the perverts are, and getting rid of them in various ways? In a word, being a sound Pope?
Pah! This is sooo outdated! I will resign instead! The homosexual and modernist Cardinals will elect an heretic Pope, and he and them together will plunge the Church in the worst chaos in 2000 years! People will be confused, doctrine will be questioned, nothing will seem sacred, or even permanent anymore! This will take care of them! What a cunning plan!”
It truly is beyond belief. As the Internet has allowed ideas to go around freely, it has also allowed every moron who can spell to get a nickname and write nonsense in comment boxes.
On the Internet, nobody knows you’re the village idiot.
From the Catholic blog New Sherwood.
“[T]here is the legal problem of matrimonial nullity, this has to be reviewed, because ecclesiastical tribunals are not sufficient for this”. – Pope Francis, 28 July 2013
“Can we eliminate the necessity of having detailed personal interviews, hefty fees, testimony from witnesses, psychological exams, and automatic appeals to other tribunals? In lieu of this formal court-like process, which some participants have found intimidating, can we rely more on the conscientious personal judgment of spouses about the history of their marriage (after all, they are the ministers and recipients of the sacrament!) and their worthiness to receive Holy Communion?” – Bishop Thomas Tobin, 21 September 2014
“CANON XII. If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session XXIV, 11 November 1543
One understands where the Fathers of the Council of Trent were coming from here. If the decision is taken outside of ecclesiastical tribunal, you end up with… Kasper or Tobin. The words of the second are utterly shocking, and I think it is time for him to pick a new religion among the many available and go to hell with it at his leisure. Unless he repents, of course. Which these people seldom do.
But certainly, the fact that at the Council of Trent the existence and relevance of ecclesiastical judges was protected by such a formidable moat (with piranhas inside) give us the full measure of their importance in the economy of the sacraments. Then without them not only Communion would be desecrated, but Marriage virtually destroyed.
Also interesting is to know that in former, more Christian times the likes of Kasper and Tobin would have been invited to retract, or face other judges; the latter able to order that they be accommodated on top of a bunch of… faggots, to be suitably burned.
Such are the times we live in.
If laws do not lead people to Christ then they are obsolete,
Pope Francis, homily of the 13 October 2014, the day of the Relatio post disceptationem.
[We must avoid] The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei”, not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it];
Pope Francis, address to the Synod Fathers, five days later.
I keep calling him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, and I hope by now most of my readers understand why.
Five days after triumphantly announcing – on the same day of the Relatio which clearly bears his heretical stamp – a new post-Christian era, this man dares to warn us from the temptation of becoming… exactly like him.
What is happening in the Vatican reminds one, in a way, of the events in Chile leading to the 1973 Pinochet coup.
A goddamn populist went to power on a socialist agenda and, among the (initial) cheers of the people, began remaking the world – or, at least, Chile – new.
It went well for a short while. Then, the problems began to emerge. The savage spending let the inflation skyrocket, the inflation let the real GDP contract sharply, the usual stupid socialist house of card tumbled down in less than two years. And when the economy began to fold, the malcontent started to rise. One of the main tragedies of the proto-commie is that he can’t count.
When the end came, the once oh so beloved Allende was, very probably, the most hated figure in the country. Time to restore sanity, then.
In that case, Augusto Pinochet took charge of the task; making himself culpable of many unnecessary, very dirty things, but certainly cleaning the Country of the Communist bubo that had plagued it in its last, terrible years. Fifteen years of financial stability and economic growth followed. Ah, the privilege of a functioning brain…
Francis is – perhaps, and if we don’t look too deep – not as bad as Allende. Still, one can’t but see some parallels: arrogant, dictatorial, obsessed with Socialism, and enemy of Christ, TMAHICH does remind one of your South-American revolutionary nutcase after he comes to power; though it must be said that our antidote to him – our Pinochet, so to speak; and possibly a less violent one – still has to appear on the horizon.
Francis started his Pontificate as the best thing since Jesus Christ. He left no doubt he thought so himself. For a while, it seemed that no liturgical abuse, no amount of theological rubbish and no beach ball on the altar could scratch his immaculate reputation. He was JFK and Martin Luther King in one. Gandhi-cum-Dalai Lama. He could have his cake and eat it.
It went well for a while. It went, actually, very well for as long as Francis limited himself to persecute the odd Catholic order, embrace wheelchairs and say stupid things to the people. It went well, so to speak, for as long as inflation did not pick up, and the medium term effects of savage spending and wild nationalisations were not felt.
But then he started to play to his friends, and make for himself a place in history. His obvious sponsors, the Homomafia, were demanding that he pays the entry ticket; and the Germans, who pay the most in the Vatican coffers, were starting to demand that their paying clients be satisfied. These were, so to speak, Francis’ Trade Unions and Party, and he had to satisfy them. Francis gave them a synod. One year to prepare the ground, another year to persuade the weak. He would take care that they, the Germans and their clients as well as the homos, are satisfied.
Enter the “profound and serene theologian”, Walter Kasper.
Task: preparing the ground.
Kasper starts a crusade – a long-cherished dream of his – about doing the contrary of what the Church says under the pretense of pastoral work. Here the problems start; or, if you wish, Francis’ “Wheelchairnomics” begins to contract. Several Bishops and Cardinals get very angry from the start. Kasper is rebuked, but not silenced. Five of the Cardinals start writing a book, and sending the signal this is not going to be a walk in the park. Most bishops stay silent. Kasper thinks he will eat them for Fruehstueck.
He gives interviews left and right (more left). The majority is with him, he says. The Pope is with him. He has discussed everything with Francis. Francis does not distance himself from his statements. The message is clear: I support the glorious Marxist revolution, the nationalisations and the collectivisation. I support everything. Those Cardinals who have written the book are, says Kasper, attacking the Pope. Counterrevolutionaries. Stalinism is ripe.
A Synod is prepared compared to which a Congress of the Chinese Communist Party is a masterwork of openness and transparency. It is immediately decided that reality shall not transpire outside. Reality will, then, have to be what the puppetmasters tell you. This sound very much like Commie Economics.
Congress Synod, initially it all works well. There is a lot of fully irrelevant talking as the bishops go through the motions of saying things in which the Pope is not in the least interested. After the first week, the pre-confectioned Glorious Bomb Of The Proletariat is detonated. There must be two or three people on this planet who think Francis did not OK the document, but they are probably in some asylum. The blast is there. It is Monday, the 13th of October 2014. Perhaps, it shall one day be said, this was the day Francis nationalised all the big copper mines, and angered too many of the wrong crowd.
It is now clear all over the planet that this little, arrogant, proto-commie Apprentice Sorcerer has, like Allende, gone too far. The mood is well described by a clearly well-informed source at the usual Rorate Caeli:
I have spoken to a huge number of prelates in the past few days, many of them Synod Fathers. They are all furious and indignant with Francis. A president of a Conference of Bishops of a large African country even called him to my face “an agent of disruption.” The right word to describe the general atmosphere reigning in the Curia and the Synod, after 18 months of a government imposed by fear and persecution, is one I’ve heard several times in the past week: “esasperazione” (“exasperation”). The experiences of the past century show that a government of fear and manipulation cannot subsist for long without rebellion, and that was what erupted on Thursday. It was as if a pressure cooker exploded at the end of an 18-month-long simmering.
Yep. This is Allende all over again.
Allende rapidly went toward his end when his own parliament declared the “constitutional breakdown”. The Pope cannot be ousted so easily, nor is there any Pinochet with an army in his pocket ready to intervene.
But the synod’s Fathers have clearly given a vote of no-confidence on the way this synod was run; and if they resist the counteroffensive of the Marxist troops, they will most certainly, with the help of the Heavenly Army, prevail.
There is no way a Pope can shove novelty down the throat of Catholicism is there is widespread resistance – and it does not have to be majority resistance – from Cardinals and Bishops. Let even a handful or two of Cardinals deny him obedience in doctrinal matters, and his papacy will be doomed.
A Pope needs to be respected, admired, universally seen as The Boss. There is no way he can get massive flak from orthodox catholics and save face for long, and the recent events have showed us that press spin and PR antics can only do so much.
A half dozen orthodox, and prestigious Cardinals can seriously wound this papacy. A dozen will destroy it altogether. Not in his official role, of course; but in the way he can operate and shape the Church, and in the way he is perceived by the entire planet.
A Pope called a heretic from his own Cardinals – people of recognised orthodoxy, not leftist lunatics – is the lamest lame duck that can be imagined. His wheelchairs embraces will be bitter. His cardinals considered not legitimately appointed. His encyclicals ignored and condemned. His homilies mocked. His death will be a liberation for everyone, possibly even for him. He will, very probably, rather resign and go back to the slums, saving that bit of credibility left, than run for the title of Most Shameful Pope Ever.
For this Pope, his boundless vanity and the way he is perceived from the world are absolutely the be-all-and-end-all. It is his Achilles’ heel. Strike him there, and you will wound him mortally.
… heart full of appreciation and gratitude…
so-called – today – “traditionalists”
Bla – bla – bla.
… the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us…
now we still have one year to mature,
The Italian text is available on Rorate.
This Relatio is the text that will be used for the next year, before the second part of the Synod begins in October 2015. All discussions will be based on this.
I have just finished it. Accurate English translations will soon be available everywhere, so I base my comment on the Italian without my own translation.
My first impressions:
1. It reflects a different religion than the Relatio post disceptationem. Whatever religion that text reflected, it wasn’t Catholicism. This one is. Yes, you can buy a good bottle.
2. What comes out of this document is, as it was to be expected, bad Catholicism. But it is not “Francis-bad”, merely “pre-Francis-bad”. I could not detect any quotation from Papal documents before V II, which tells you all.
3. Some paragraphs are weak, or, in my eyes, nonsensical. But they are never subversive (as in: Forte-subversive. V II is subversive..). They have the V-II-disease, not the much more aggressive, deadly Francis-disease.
4. As already reported, the most unChristian paragraphs have been simply suppressed. Dead. Gone. Make it two bottles, then…
Let us see some of the things that, without being a theologian, left me scratching my head.
17. Love is “at the centre of the family”. Effeminate, emotional fluff. If love is at the centre of the family, when the love is gone it makes sense to divorce; or if the love is found outside of the family, it makes sense to transfer the family where the new love, which is its centre, is. The defense of the family is on very fragile ground, if one allows this fluff to take over.
Perhaps simple concepts like sacrament, sin, duty, and children would have helped more. People got them when illiteracy was ripe. They can’t be so complicated.
35. This paragraph is ecumenical tosh. Serious ecu-maniacal tosh. Nothing new, though. This is a mistake of the last 50 years, not of the last six days.
38. This is the Father’s short journey to Planet Socialism. It is clear the Fathers think the West is too dependent on “market economy”. Forty to fifty percent of the GDP of these economies is made of taxes, that is: it is largely meant for redistribution. Leo XIII would be horrified at the extent of such an entitlement mentality. The Synod Fathers think (though they do not explicitly say) that it’s not enough.
41. Concubines. Wrong, sugary, V II tofu formulations. There is the implied affirmation that concubines have a “partial opening” toward the Gospel, and that a marriage of concubines is something good, but – alas- not the fullness of it. I strongly suspect these are all formulations already used in former V II documents. No mention of mortal sin, or of the grave danger of concubinage for the eternal salvation of the souls involved.
Then the Fathers complain marriage is challenged by modern society. Good Lord…
42. A very strange idea is floated: some people are too poor to marry, but not too poor to be concubines. What? You don’t pay an extra USD 7/day in heating costs if you are married. If anything, in some legislations (like Germany) the tax burden decreases for married couples. Again, there is no courage to tell the truth. Or do these people think Christianity developed in wealthier times than ours, and marriage is now in a crisis because we are so poor?
46. This is, in my eyes, the worst paragraph. Dangerous, wrong formulations. If Concubinage is to be looked at with “respect”, why criticise it? When did Christ walk on the road to Emmaus together with concubines? I thought they were faithfuls, not concubines. The idea of taking away one’s sandals in front of the “sacred ground” of the household of concubines is tosh fit for Anglicans. This seems to be the obligatory tribute to Francis, who is heavily quoted. Again, I have the impression this is nothing really new for V II documents, but it stinks mightily of Rowan Williams.
What I found particularly good:
53: “We must explain to the people, including some bishops and cardinals, why they can make spiritual communion but not partake in the Sacrament. There will be no charge. Not even for Cardinals”.
55: This here is Poetry.
- No mention of gradualism in the “bad sense” floated on Monday. That’s gone entirely.
These are my first reflections after reading once. I have certainly missed more than something. But in general, I can go to sleep knowing that the new religion has been expunged from this text.
What we still have, is our religion badly explained and weakly defended. But we knew that and, with all its problems, it is a completely different animal than the wholesale of Catholicism and Christianity we have witnessed on Monday.
It is a great day. Bergoglism has been almost completely excised from this text, with the only exception of the tosh of par. 46, which to me sounds like a token tribute. Speakin gof par. 46, one should take away his sandals and give them to him, straight on the teeth. A great help to his salvation. Alas, this is not allowed.
Last remark: Kasper and Forte should be defrocked.
They aren’t Catholics, at all.
Just come back home.
I have seen Rorate’s comments on the Relatio Synodi. Great, great, great stuff.
They also have the text in Italian, complete. And already a provisional translation in English, God bless them!
Let me make a tea, and read the whole thing in Italian.
But we know already this is a great day.