Saint Fido?

 

 

 

Pope Francis did not say the words about the animals going to heaven; but Pope Paul perhaps did. I though I would add a reflection or two.

Firstly, it is clear that pets cannot be saved, or damned. Only a soul (I mean of a human; animals don’t have “souls”, merely an animal spirit) can be saved, or damned. The resurrection of the bodies certainly does not extend to the resurrection of the carcasses of animals. It would be absurd to believe anything of the sort.

Still, it does not seem credible to me that Paradise will be deprived of plants and animals. The Old Testament mentions a state in which animals live in peace with each other, in a kind of modified version of their earthly relatives: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

Clearly, the Garden of Eden ( that is: the original plan) was physical all right; the plants therein contained did not enjoy the beatific vision, but they were certainly there. The resurrection of the body itself does not necessarily imply, but it certainly indicates an environment fit for these bodies, made in such a way that the body has a natural function, a purpose in harmony with its environment.

Then there is the matter of the souls living in paradise. Such souls cannot, as they are in heaven, have desires contrary to God’s will. Their will is perfectly aligned with the Will of their Creator. At the same time, it seems difficult to think that these souls would not have any legitimate desire of them (and we have just said these are the only desires they would be able to have) gladly fulfilled. Whilst I have never been there and so I cannot report on the matter, it seems to this limited intelligence that either the desire for animals, trees, lakes, sunsets, or bumblebees is not legitimate, or it would be readily fulfilled as necessary part of a beatitude that can have no lack, that can leave no desires unfulfilled.

Certainly, the happiness of heaven consists of the Beatific Vision. But one wonders why this beatific vision would exclude any other ever so subordinate or secondary desire; and if this is so – and mind: it might well be so – why Isaiah would have been inspired by the Lord to something so wildly allegoric as to deny the very substance of the so inspired words.

It seems to me obvious, therefore, that animals don’t “go” to heaven or hell, in the same way as trees don’t; but at the same time, I consider it indisputable that we are told heaven will have animals living in a perfectly peaceful, perfectly harmonious environment and, by logical extension, a physical environment that is in keeping with what would make – and no matter how trivial, and how less important than the beatific vision – this environment complete, and a soul in heaven perfectly happy. And if God can put plants in the garden of eden, creating them from an ideal pattern that is not the one of deceased plants on earth; and wolves and leopards that are an enhanced version of the earthly ones, but not any one of them; so it is well thinkable that he might recreate your favourite puppy  (say: without the infection and disease risk) in heaven, and the like.

But again, I don’t know, because I wasn’t there. And again, this does not mean that an animal is saved or redeemed, or else – necessarily – damned. It can’t be! An animal has no soul, therefore it cannot choose between good and evil, therefore it cannot be rewarded or punished for them.

Pope Paul’s talk, if it ever existed, would be dangerous because it would lead the brainless, emoting masses to believe that “pets go to heaven”, which is in contradiction with the entire edifice of Redemption. It would lead to a stupid parody of Christianity, well exemplified in the scenes of “A Fish Called Wanda” about the “dog funerals”, (” miserere Dominus, canis mortuus est!”…).

But we do not know that either. In the latest weeks, the US press has uncritically published every piece of rubbish from false rapes to young thugs depicted as “gentle giants”, and frankly I wouldn’t be surprised it this of Paul VI turned out to be a complete invention, too…

There’s no “Saint Fido” in heaven. It is good to say it even to distraught children. Because if you don’t, you put them on the way to a dangerous new age religion that is not recognisable as Christianity anymore.

M

 

 

Be Strong, But Be Patient

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

Francis was so sad he was not allowed to spread his heresies in peace.

View original

Coexist! No, Really!

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

With kudos to Father Z.

Catholic-Coexist1

Coexist-Sticker-New-1024x307

View original

Deck The Hall (With Boughs Of Holly)

Why, Oh Why Are Lesbians So Fat?

 

I wonder why they're obese...

I wonder why they’re so fat…

 

‘The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why “three-quarters” of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of “high public-health significance.” ‘

This is the beginning of an article explaining to US Citizens with a brain how their own super-indebted government wastes their tax money to further an homosexual agenda and keep (as in: “kept woman”, “kept liberal”) stupid liberals in possession of some even more stupid degree in non-gainful employment.

The good news is that the “study” will not only research why dykes are obese, but also why fags tends to be abnormally thin. So it’s $750,000 for each category of perverts. Boy, that’s cheap.

So, why are dykes fat and fags thin?

Dykes are fat because they hate not only themselves, but their own god-given feminine nature. Therefore, they deform themselves to the level of barely recognisable humans, and carry around 300 or more pounds of rebellions against patriarchy, homophobia, and the likes. A dyke is a freak show inside. No wonder many of them become freak show outside, too.

Fags, on the other hand, are thin because many of them are either ephebophiles themselves, or want to be screwed by those who are. Hence the necessity of looking like a boy. You see the same in the models – both male and female – walking around in many catwalks in the West, all of them looking like boys.

There.

That was fast.

One and a half million dollar of the taxpayer saved.

But wait: this means that there will be no scrounging opportunity for “researchers” who are absolutely sure to vote for the Democrats! No opportunity to further an atheist, anti-Christian agenda! No leftist brainwashing opportunity! Aaaarrgghhhh!!!!

……

‘The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why “three-quarters” of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of “high public-health significance.” ‘

M

Tomorrow Shall Be My Dancing Day

Merry… What?

Pagans ask their colleagues what they will do for Christmas, and talk excitedly on their own plans.


Atheists proudly wear “Christmas jumpers”.


Pubs and Restaurants invite to book the “Christmas lunch” months in advance.


You receive cards with “Season's Greetings”. What on earth is this? Did you send me a card for the 21 of June?


Half of Christmas mentions have to do with stress: gifts to buy, things to do, traffic. And do you go anywhere on holiday for Christmas? They say Paris is so romantic this time of the year..


“Christmas Party” at work has become synonymous with drunkenness, or even debauchery.


Can't wait for TMAHICH telling us that “Christmas is social justice” or such unspeakable, secular, populist rubbish.


Christmas is disappearing from the radar screen as the roads become more congested by the year. It is becoming a thin varnish of no one knows what anymore. The very name is endangered, and the “winter tree” very probably upon us.


Our very own shepherds help in this. To them, Christ is a glorified “community organiser”, or a “life trainer”.


—–

 

Say it again?


What am I going to do for Christmas?


I am going to Mass, ass….!


M


 

A Maiden Most Gentle

Consistory: Don’t Be (Too) Afraid

Attila. Now giving an encore as Pope.



The new, reported yesterday, of a new Consistory for Mid-February has, no doubt, put more than one in panic mode. The longer Francis is in power, the more polluted the college of Cardinals will become. There is simply no chance that Francis may be content of making his own circus show, whilst leaving things more or less unchanged. This is the one who made Baldisseri Cardinal, and Cupich Archbishop (and, who knows, perhaps soon Cardinal, too…).


I do not know what will happen if Francis uses the Consistory to show how sngry he is, and to take a petty revenge on the Bishops who – indirectly, but clearly – booed him at the Synod. But from this little corner of Catholicism I suspect that if things become too colourful, the pressure to have Francis declared a heretic after death, Honorius-style, will grow, and at that point the question of the validity of Francis' appointments as Cardinal may well be posed.


This is, though, only a secondary consideration, and a not very probable one. More probable is, I think, one of the two:


1) The Lord, in His Goodness, frees us from Francis; either sending him six feet under, very probably to hell, or moving him to abdicate in some other way (heart attack, or the like).


2) The Lord works in the minds of the Cardinals in such a way that they prepare a “surprise” after Francis' demise, electing a much better candidate than it would otherwise be expected.


I am certainly not at ease with what is happening. It is clear to me that the longer this papacy, the more terrible and long lasting God's punishment will be. I dread to think what ten or fifteen years of Francis would make of the Bride of Christ. At the same time, I know that when the good Lord has decided that we have been punished long enough, or hard enough, He will put things right in the way He considers best, either with a slow recovery or with a spectacularly saintly man.


Don't be, therefore, too afraid. The amount of humiliation and disfiguration the Church will have to endure has been decreed already, and its end too. Our role is to participate in this plan so that, with God's Grace, we may merit salvation by being among those who have furthered His cause. Our role is, also, to endure whatever punishment God will send on us Christians and Catholics with Christian resignation, without rebelling and thinking that we know better, or this mess is too much for us, or the gates of hell must have prevailed.


Francis may think that he can reshape the Church; or he may, more modestly, think that he can give a lesson to the Bishops and assorted “Neo-Pelagians”. But always remember this: God can strike him down instantly, anytime. He could be dead as I write this, or as you read it. One little touch, and he's gone.


Terrible times might well be in store for us. Still, we won't be punished one bit harsher than we have deserved. Francis will not be sabotaging the Church one second longer than God allows him to.


I suggest you keep this in mind, and train yourselves to meditate on this often.


In the years to come, it might well become a necessary exercise.


M


 

Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

View original

“Queering” The Church

Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:

View original

The Great Pretender

“Vatican insider” has an article about the way TMAHICH sees the Synod. The amount of lies and deception spitted in only one talk is impressive, even for a Jesuit. Let us see at least some of them, because time is a tyrant.

The Pope was never a guarantor of orthodoxy: not before or during the Synod, and obviously not now. He invited a discussion without taboos, which means he invited every possible heresy to be dished. He himself encouraged heresy, and let it known he sides with it, all the time since February 2014, with his “serene and profound theology” comment.

The Pope blatantly lies about the preliminary report being published, under his watch, without the bishops having even seen it.

The Pope pretends to forget a fundamental truth: that to protect the Church from heresy means not to allow heretical talk and action in any way, shape or form; not to allow it to be publicly discussed, much less praised as “theology on one’s knees”.

The Pope omits to tell you that he himself ordered the heretical parts of the preliminary report, rejected by the bishops, to be part of the “discussion papers” to be distributed the world over. A more blatant support for heresy cannot be imagined.

The Pope blames the press for creating a “sports team” environment; which is stupid after he himself has encouraged heresy to emerge. When heresy emerges, great strife ensues. He causes the chaos, then blames the press for reporting about it.

Francis is trying to put a spin on the mess he has created, and on the heresy he keeps promoting every day, by presenting himself as the good party chairman reassuring the basis that the party line will not be abandoned. But the Church is not a party, and discussions about the “church line” is exactly what he must not allow in any way, much less encourage.

What a sad, tragic figure this Pope is.

M

Synod In February

It is with a heavy heart that I must inform you that the work of demolition continues. At the new Consistory in February 2015 further 10-11 places will be occupied. One can only fear what kind of people will get the red hat. Last times it was Baldisseri, this time it might even be Cupich, as Cardinal George has the well-known health problem (a prayer is OK).

The more this Pontificate goes on, the more lasting the damage. And whilst there is the guarantee that the Gates of Hell will not prevail, there is no guarantee that there will be no atrocious devastation in the process.

Please, Lord, free us from this scourge.

M

 

Meet God, The Mother All-Sweetie!

It may have been, on occasion, that the one or other Saint or Prophet compared God to a mother. But those who read or listened to him knew, and know to this day, that God is Father, not Mother.


This is not a questio de lana caprina. The implications are huge. Mothers forgive, fathers punish. Though both love their children, a father is needed to provide the necessary, so to speak, enforcement of love. The mother can, in fact, give unconditionally and forgive everything exactly because she has, at her side, a husband who does not give unconditionally, and does not forgive everything. The complementarity, but at the same time the very marked difference, of father and mother is as clear as the sun. Still, Jesus calls God the … Father always “Father”, not “Mother”.

The description of God as Father is more than a neat traditional use in Christianity: it is a dogma (“I believe in God, the Father Almighty…). This goes through the very marrow of Christianity: Rex Tremendae Majestatis is not a definition very fitting to a mother. Christ is King, not Queen (no doubt Francis would prefer the Queen) and (in the same dogmatic statement) “our Lord”. “Lord”, or “Lord of Hosts” you hear at Mass both do not really conjure a very motherly image. Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis, (voca me cum benedictis): where, pray, is the baby talk? Or shall I quote from the Gospel, where Jesus open talk, often brutally frank, is all the contrary of “baby talk”?

The God of the Christians is, so to speak, as “Father” as they come. Not so, though, in other religions, in which the local god is seen also as mother; if not in actual, “official” words at least in the rich imagery of, say, Hinduism and Yoga. The Pagan Greeks and Romans had goddesses. Christianity explains and promoted a different reality: one God, and He a very strong one. It’s not that for Christians God is Father just because it sounded better at the time…

Pope Francis, the disgrace that he is, has long fought his own personal war against the God of the Christians. He cannot imagine God doing more than “slapping us on the wrist”; he sees mercy as the defining content of God’s action; he implies – as he did again only weeks ago – that everyone, or at least every Christian, is saved.

Clearly, Francis has no symphaty at all for God the Father. His concept of God is not to be reconciled with Christianity. His is the god of Sixty-Eighters, unrepentant rebels, and nancy boys.

Today, things have reached an extreme, as Francis has come so far as to compare God to a mother talking baby talk to her child, uncaring of ridicule. Now, the baby talk might be sweet in a young mother, but anyone who tries to sell you this as the hinge of the relationship between God and you is, in short, selling you a fraud.

Francis’ aim is clear: if God is a mother, every “harsh” rule is not fitting to Him, and its “harsh” enforcement is extremely, well,ungodly. If God is a mother blabbering sweet nonsense to the babies in her lap, the babies can piss and poop over marriage and communion, over the liturgy and the commandments, and over sexual rules as much as they please, and she will never, ever punish them with separation from herself. On the contrary: unconditional love and boundless acceptance of everyone and everything will be the new Golden Rule.

If God is mother, there can be no hell. If God is mother, there can be no commandments (merely suggestions.)If God is mother, Cardinal Kasper is a worthy theologian, and Francis a wonderful Pope. If God is mother, we must have female clergy, and female Popesses.

But if God is mother, God is a lying mother, who has told to her babies that she is, in fact, the Father, and a father who can and will punish them for eternity if they so choose and deserve. If God is mother, He is an extremely cruel one. If God is mother, He is out of His senses, because the Church He created is one immense lie.

If Francis is right, Christianity is a fraud, and it has been all this time.

I for myself will continue to believe in God, the Father Almighty.

Francis will, one day, discover who of us two is right.


M



 

Nativity Carol

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,065 other followers

%d bloggers like this: