Do you know Italian politics? Well, you should. Or politics of all sorts, come to that. Then people are the same everywhere.
In every Country which calls itself “civilised”, the barrage against a person in a position of great authority, or even the chef (the Primo Ministro, or Prime Minister, or Bundeskanzler, or whoever he may be) begins with absolutely damning statements along the lines of “he’s such a wonderful gardener”, “I love his choice of ties” or “his concern for kindergarten teachers is just wonderful”.
This is the way people in position of power and influence criticise their boss in a way that still does resemble, very vaguely, some plausible deniability. But seriously, everyone who has a brain understands what it is all about. Newspapers thrive about this, because when what it is left unsaid is left unsaid very loud it can only be manna for them.
The game usually goes on – and I am sure this time is no exception – with the powerful (former) supporter stating that no, you all got it wrong; how could you misunderstand him; you naughty boys; of course, the Primo Ministro is so much more than a wonderful gardener! And there was, obviously, no intention to criticise in any way such a wonderful head of government! Who, as everyone knows, has been so successful, and has the undivided confidence of the entire nation!
In this way, the critic safely comes back in a covered position, after having launched the message for all the planet to see. The attacked, meanwhile, has no ways to mount an open attack against him. He looks revengeful if he acts, and weak if he doesn’t. The impression for everyone who has brains is clear: he is losing the support of his own people.
This is how politics works. If you do not understand these dynamics, I suggest you limit yourself to Mickey Mouse.
Cardinal Pell today launched what, for Church standards, must be one of the most scathing attacks launched on a Pope in modern history. A member of the “”Gang of Eight”, Pell is in charge of re-ordering the finances of the Vatican, both in terms of spending and governance. He is, therefore, at the very heart of Vatican power. But he also, apparently, believes in God, which I can’t say for the… wonderful gardener. Pell not only has the chuzpah to thunder, but he also has a newly acquired position from which Francis cannot remove him without looking extremely stupid even in the eyes of the Polyannas. This will get interesting.
Let us, then, read what the good man had to say about Francis. He was ill, so he sent a written address to the Summorum Pontificum fan waiting for him. I quote:
1. “Pope Francis is the 266th pope and history has seen 37 false or antipopes,”
2. “The story of the popes is stranger than fiction,” [...] [and today] “we have one of the more unusual popes in history, enjoying almost unprecedented popularity. He is doing a marvellous job making the financial reforms,”
The first cannonade is terrifying. Talking of a very contested Pope, the Cardinal reminds the Traditionalist faithful that… they should not be so shellshocked, because we have lived all this many times.
” But Mundabor! He does not mean it that way!”
But dear reader, oh yes he does!! No one in his right mind would, otherwise, have chosen to speak of the scaffold when everyone is talking about the convicted felon!
Not happy, the good Cardinal is mindful of those who would think, in their innocence, that he is not really making a comparison between Francis and his numerous heretical predecessors. Those, he decides to help with another generous helping of Traditional Tiramisu, if they are smart enough to appreciate the ingredients. He goes on praising a Pope who has made nothing else than headlines for his heterodoxy because of his… job as a financial reformer.
Oh, how this old heart laughs!
This is not even “damning with faint praise”. This is shooting with the cannon of an M1 tank, and then saying to Francis: “don’t worry, Frankie boy. It’s merely a bit of faint praise…”
I give you my reading of the events here. If I am right, you read it here first. If I am wrong, I have left my crystal ball home.
What I think is happening is that as Francis keep positioning himself as the “good reformer”, Catholic Cardinals start positioning him as the “heretical Pope”. All, of course, in view of the 2015 synod, which will be a real “make or break” for Catholicism as we have known it up to now.
Francis keeps spouting heretical drivel every day, and now his own cardinals start saying: “look, don’t listen to the old man, he is a disgrace that has recurred many times in Church History”. A dozen of orthodox Cardinals and Archbishops among the most prestigious can destroy this papacy, as it ha snot happened for now many centuries that Cardinals openly criticise a Pope in doctrinal matters. If Francis does not get this, then we are steering the biggest conflicts in many centuries, because I can’t imagine the Church remaining silent as an old lewd man walks and defecates all over Her.
If Pell’s warning shot does not make Francis understand that his own very cardinals are ready to call him heretical, I do not know what will. One of his own close entourage has just fired a warning shot so near to the target, that there can be no doubt he has the target in his sights, and will keep him there. If Francis still has a brain at all, he will understand that the warning shots are now landing increasingly nearer to the hotel run by the faggot, and he should prepare himself to run for cover if he continues with his heretical folly.
Obviously, the “counter-interview” will soon come. Francis here, and Francis here. So orthodox. We all love him. Wonderful Pope. What had you understood. Can’t believe it. Perish the thought.
But all those with ears heard it loud and clear.
God bless Cardinal Pell.
We need tanks like him against Francis’ “Revolutionary War”.
And here is Yours Truly wanting to write some short reflections about the feast of Christ the King, and comparing the Rex tremendae majestatis with the spiritual heroin of our times, the “religion of mercy”, of which Francis is pusher Numero Uno.
But why invest all the time, when Father Z already said it so well?
This feast reminds us that the Lord Jesus is indeed coming and that He will not come as “friend” or “brother” or “gentle shepherd” with hugs and a fluffy lamb on His shoulders.
Follow the link for some very sobering considerations.
Do not be deceived by the Lamb.
Remember the King.
Realise that Francis is the most dangerous wolf in the whole forest.
To hear today at Mass the pathetic message of Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols assuring us that at the Synod Francis has not been defeated by the Bishops reminded one strongly of Comical Ali (I am informed in the US he is known as Baghdad Bob).
It was surreal. It was like being told by Dr Goebbels that the battle for Stalingrad had not been lost, as the newspapers want you to believe.
Nice try, Your Disgrace.
We will stay by the facts, though.
Whoever has ever read the Gospel must immediately notice how strong Jesus’ words and acts are. Jesus’ words must appear particularly strong to anyone grown up in the effeminate, sensitivity-obsessed Anglo-Saxon society, where everyone is so afraid of even pronouncing the word “sinner”, lest anyone were to be oh so gravely offended in his delicate psyche whilst, say, sleeping with the husband of another woman.
This must stop.
Jesus wasn’t very worried about being blunt. He mentions hell with a frequency and harshness that would be shocking to every Presbyterian, if he were to ever read the Gospel. Jesus whips, uses physical violence against the moneylenders in the Temple. He uses Sodom and Gomorrah as the very epitome of depravity and abomination. In short, he does not “do” political correctness in the least. Nor does St. John the Baptist. Or Paul. Or Peter. Or anyone else.
Why is that? Because the truth must be said whole, and only the truth said whole helps people to change.
It is, therefore, entirely counterproductive – nay: it is dangerous for the soul of all those involved – to try to find expressions which still conveys the idea of sin, but bring the message in a “gentler” way. If the sin is shocking, the description of it must also be. If the sin is grave, the description of the sin must also convey its gravity. Neither Jesus, nor Saint Paul, nor any of the other great Saint I know ever made any effort to find a word they would use instead of, say, “adulterer”. They used the word “adulterer” because it was, and it is, the word that describes the fact.
It is not in the interest of the adulterer that his sin be called in a way that still reminds him that he is doing something wrong, but says it to him in a gentler way. The adulterer isn’t a retarded child, who must be treated with very special care. He knows what he is doing, and he must be told very clearly of the consequences of what he is doing. It is difficult enough to abandon one’s grave sins if one is told the truth straight; just imagine how difficult it becomes if the truth is hidden under a wall of flowers.
Mortal sin unrepented leads to hell. Public scandal is grave sin so grave, that not even the confessional can be approached until the public scandal is removed first. Every fornicator, every easy girl, every thief, even every murderer who do not give scandal can approach the confessional at any time and, if they have the proper disposition, leave it with at least the guilt of their sin – the pain is another matter – absolved. But to the public sinner, the Church says “do not even *think* of going to confession until you have put an end to *that*”. Just imagine how serious is this. Why on earth would anyone want to find different and gentler ways to express the gravity of that? When the soul is in danger, why should the sensitivity of the person be respected? What is more important? What right to sensitivity does the person have, whose soul has lost the ability to gain heaven?
Besides, there is the matter of effectiveness. Grave matters cannot be expressed with ways that do not help to understand their gravity. It’s just the way it is. Ask Jesus!
Truth must be said in charity, but it must be said whole; and if the truth is brutal enough to warrant damnation, the charity in attitude will have to be matched by the brutality of the message; because there is no way to express to the public sinner, or to the convinced atheist, a brutal concept like “the Church teaches that if you were to die this instant, you would be to hell this instant” in a “caring” and “sensitive” way.
The way I have always seen it – and the way I have always seen it done by the best priests I have been in contact with – the priest shows charity in the sincere care he has for the destiny of the soul entrusted to him; but he shows the same care and the same charity by refusing to obfuscate the message in any way whatsoever.
Christianity is brutal. Catholicism is, today, even more brutal than the various heresies. There is no way “an eternity of suffering in hell” can be depicted as “a suboptimal solution, causing the soul to be deprived of eternal joy”. Hell it’s not about “missing out”. It’s about eternal torment! It’s not that you don’t get the icing on the cake. It’s that you get a cake full of excrements, and have to eat it forever!
Similarly, there is no way sexual perversion can be described in a “gentler” way than Jesus chose to use. If Jesus takes Sodom and Gomorrah as the very epitome of atrocious and well-deserved divine punishment, so must we. To call sodomy something like, say, “wrongly directed desire acted upon” is poison for the very soul that is supposed to be cured, because unless the expression is the proper one, the impression conveyed by it will not be the proper one, either.
The real issue is not whether the person is gravely offended by the word, but whether God is gravely offended by the behaviour described by the word. If the offence is graver than the word something is seriously wrong with us. If the offence is graver than the word we are being unwittingly, but very effectively acting as accomplices of the devil in not making the sinner aware of the gravity of his sin.
Strong diseases require bitter medicines, and in these cases there is no way the medicine can be sugar-coated. A good priest is the one who administers the medicine with all the love for the souls entrusted to him, but still administers the medicine whole. The patient is no child, and he has no right to scream that he does not want the medicine. Thinking of it, the parents give no such right to the child, either.
It is astonishing that countless thousands of people ill with cancer agree to subject themselves to a very harsh chemotherapy regime to save their body, but the very same people would consider it beyond the pale to be considered adulterers, public sinners, or sodomites when their own soul is at stake. Why do they do that? Because they perceive the danger for their life and limb as very real, but they do not believe in any danger for their soul.
Ehi, they love the environment after all, and go around with a pink bra every year like freaky transvestites to “raise awareness” against breast cancer; so they shall be fine, surely?…
I suggest to all my fourteen readers – though by now they could be a couple more – that in their dealing with such matters they are very careful to convey that what they are about to say is due to sincere interest for the interlocutor’s soul; but then give to their friend or relative the medicine whole. They will not be much liked on the moment. But they will have at least the hope that in time, the medicine will work its magic. I can tell you from bitter personal experience that at times the medicine is almost entirely forgotten, but works silently in one’s organism, and its healing power reveals itself only decades later.
Do not water down the medicine. Such medicines do not work.
Cancer for the soul requires no less than chemotherapy.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Via the usual Rorate (but strangely, their video does not work on my browser; you might have better luck) this beautiful excerpt of a video interview from the South African Archbishop Napier; who, I am afraid, will not see the red hat in this pontificate:
The good Archbishop is good in what he says. He could, though, in my eyes, have said more. Possibly he did, but it did not get in the video.
What he said:
1. How can parents chose the “easy way out” and say to their children they must make a lifelong commitment?
2. In life, you must carry your crosses with Christ.
3. If Europeans can be de facto polygamist and receive communion, how can you deny the same to the non-Catholic polygamist in Africa, who marries a “c”atholic wife (among others) and desires to “receive communion”? Such situations are (cough)…
View original 404 more words
The Unholy Father has lost another occasion to keep his mouth shut, and this time he has regaled us (together with many other stupid assertions about the death penalty; truly, there’s no time to deal with all the ways this man hates Church Doctrine; so this is just an aside) with this pearl of wisdom, that corruption is a greater evil than sin.
The phrase does not really make sense. Corruption (financial, or otherwise) must translate into sin, or it would be no corruption. Corruption is, in fact, by definition the abandonment of a state that is considered the proper one, be that in the realm of financial probity, sexual morality, or other.
What TMAHICH wants – in its confused and inconsequential way of non-thinking – to say is that adulterers, concubines and perverts should sit back and relax; because others, the corrupted politicians and rich people and, no doubt, rosary counters are all much worse than them.
It is, as always, tragically amusing that the man who has been persecuting the FFI without even a shred of a credible accusation for now fifteen months should be so incredibly hypocritical as to go and lecture us about justice. I insist on the moniker The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH, ® Mundabor 2014) because in the case of this man this trait is as evident as the blindness of the Voris school of thought is scandalous. It is healthy to look at reality as it is. It is stupid, and dangerous for your soul, to keep ignoring the attacks of this oh so humble man on everything Catholic.
The petty man who persecutes entire orders just because he feels like it, deposes bishops (one in Paraguay; one, apparently, rather soon in Italy) without any accusations being leveled at them, and keeps around him a circus of faggots and liars of all types (Ricca, the scandalous fag, was last time I looked still at his place both as “banker” and “hotelier”, and Kasper is no less “serene and profound” for having lost face and having been exposed as a lying scoundrel; but then again Francis does not care for his own face, just imagine others’…) is the same one who goes around telling us how oh so very unjust the world is.
An oriental Satrap lectures us about justice. Pope Belshazzar plays Just Guy. Funny world. And by the way, I found the phrase mentioned above pretty judgmental.
But do not listen to me. Read instead this beautiful blog post, expressing in one go what so very many – among the clergy too, it is more and more evident with every day that goes by – think of this Papacy.
This man Frankie The Humble Blasphemous Bully has dug himself into a hole out of which he will – bar a true, and profound conversion – never come out; and the more he talks, the more he digs. This is the unavoidable result of his continuous, uninterrupted, un-Christian, ridiculous pseudo-religious farting.
An exercise, this, that might perhaps impress the simple and the outright thick, and will certainly delight the enemy of Christianity of all colours and stripes; but is increasingly less able to save the face of this man as more and more people finally realise the huge gap between the professions of meekness and humbleness and the reality of a bullying, atheist, socialist enemy of everything Catholic, a man bent on spreading heresy and confusion every day that God still allows him to spend on this planet.
Can’t wait for Francis’ next lecture ,and I can well imagine he will warn us from hypocrisy.
Pope Belshazzar may think that he can go on like this for as much as he pleases, and take down orders and bishops as he pleases. But more and more are noticing that for this Papacy the writing is on the wall.
Is this mission really possible in the world as it is today? Would it not be more appropriate that all religions get together and work together for the cause of peace in the world? The counter-question is: Can dialogue substitute for mission? Today many have the idea, in effect, that religions should respect each other, and, in dialogue with each other, become a common force for peace. In this way of thinking, most times there is a presupposition that the various religions are variants of one and the same reality; that “religion” is a category common to all, which assumes different forms according to different cultures, but expresses, however, one and the same reality. The question of truth, which at the beginning of Christianity moved Christians more than anything else, in this mode of thinking is placed within parentheses. It presupposes that the authentic truth about God, in the last analysis, is unobtainable, and that at best one can make present what is ineffable only with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems convincing and useful for peace among the religions of the world.
This is, however, lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and seriousness, if everything is reduced to symbols that are at the end interchangeable, capable of referring only from afar to the inaccessible mystery of the divine.
Stop beating around the bush now: this is an indictment of Francis’ papacy, at least as far as his non-ecumenism is concerned. Benedict is saying, klipp und klar, that Francis’ quest for peace goes at the expense of Truth. Which is obvious, considering the man does not believe in God, much less Truth.
Francis is, Benedict says without mentioning him by name, lethal to faith.
Yes, of course he will deny he was attacking Francis. No! God forbid! Perish the thought! He was merely saying the Truth. Can it be the poor man’s fault that every time someone says the Truth this is clearly in opposition to what Francis says?
The second point is to do with the matter of salvation.
This point is,alas, a negative one; and here, yours truly must alert his readers to the fact that Benedict himself has, and always had, the V II bacillus.
Let me take this example:
Love demands to be communicated. Truth demands to be communicated. Whoever has experienced great joy cannot keep it simply for himself. He must pass it on to others. The same thing is true for the gift of love, through the gift of recognizing the truth that manifests itself.
When Andrew met Christ, he could not do anything but say to his brother: “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41). And Philip, who was also given the gift of this encounter, could not do anything but to say to Nathaniel that he had found him of whom Moses and the Prophets had written (John 1:45). We proclaim Jesus Christ not to get as many members as possible for our community, and least of all for the sake of power. We speak of Him because we feel that we have to share that joy with others that has been given to us.
We will be credible proclaimers of Jesus Christ when we have encountered him in the depths of our existence, when, within the encounter with Him, we are given the great experience of truth, of love, and of joy.
We see here more of that sugary “religion of joy” that has been such a part of Catholic apologetics in the V II era. This is, so to speak, half way down a slippery slope, at the end of which Francis is awaiting.
The Pontiff Emeritus describes not only Faith, but the reason for his propagation, as a matter of joy. You find the joy, you must share it.
But this is simply beside the point. The reason for evangelisation is the salvation of souls. Evangelisation is not primarily about what we get in this life, but what we get (in positive or negative) in the next. The question is salvation or damnation, not a joyful life in Christ or a joyless one without him. Christianity is first, second, third and thirtieth about the next life, not this one.
Whilst Benedict always links truth and joy, he never goes to the heart of the matter. Words like “judgment”, “hell”, “damnation” do not occur once in 1700 words. Salvation and damnation here are not even an afterthought, they are simply nowhere. How can you evangelise without thinking of damnation? What is this religion, an organisation sending around many Dulcamaras selling their “elixir of joy”?
This is tofu evangelisation in the best V II tradition; an evangelisation which, whilst orthodox in principle and well-intentioned, is left deprived of a solid foundation or, better said, of the eternal foundation given to it by Our Lord:
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”
Note the words here: “saved” and “condemned”, not “joyful” and “joyless”.
Francis is lethal to the faith. But Benedict is, like all of V II, a very ineffectual help to it.
Still: I am very glad the Pontiff Emeritus decided to intervene. It was high time. Now there will be a predictable storm, and the predictable visit of the two, with photo-ops, biscuits and tea. But the substance remains:
Francis is lethal to the faith.
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.
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.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
If you have not done so already, you may do much worse than visit Rorate Caeli and read there the excellent translation of the article from Antonio Socci appeared on Libero some days ago.
Socci says many very useful things, and he says them very well. He quotes figures, and the figures alone tell you everything you need to know about the real causes of the shameless persecution of the FFI.
V II is bankrupt. The persecution of the FFI is the necessary step to avoid the bankruptcy becoming too public. Others will follow. If I were a FSSP priest, I wouldn’t sleep very well right now. Only the SSPX, with his presence and courageous witness for sound Catholicism, prevents the total annihilation of every conservative stream within the Church.
Still, this blog post is not about what Socci says. It is about what Socci…
View original 405 more words
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.
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.
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.
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.