There is a truly excellent article of Francesco Colafemmina concerning the Vatican Totalitarianism reigning in the Age of Mercy: ruthless oppression of orthodox priest, going to bed with the world every day of the week (including Sundays), fomenting all sort of vices of the world, and at the same time insulting everyone attached to Catholic […]
In an incredible turn of events, Pope Francis makes headlines for saying something Catholic. He is – and at this point it is certainly a relief – against euthanasia.
One cannot escape the suspicion that Francis is giving something to eat to his Catholic pigeons, as he must do every now and then if he wants to keep some shred of credibility among them. His choice of words is also not particularly strong, nor is there any mention of punishment. The statement that euthanasia is a sin against God is also a bit strange, seen that actually every sin is.
But this is not the real issue here. The real issue here is: who is he to judge? What if the person who commits suicides, or aborts, “seeks the Lord” and all that rubbish? Who is Francis to judge? Should he not “walk with” the person about to dispose himself, and meet her, say, outside of the room where she is going to get the lethal injection?
When one as a Pope is so evidently wrong in fundamentals, he will never be right in particulars. Once the very premises of his “thinking” are wrong, every thought loses credibility. His own stupidity is so vast in scope, that it will speak against him whatever he says.
One day, even the liberals who idolise him will be forced to say to him: “who are you to judge?”.
Then, the fun will begin in earnest.
An Italian Canonist has presented a petition to ask the Cardinal to examine whether Francis is not in manifest heresy and, in case, decide whether he should be deposed.
The text of the petition, in English, is here.
The petition merits to be read with attention before forming a beginning of an opinion, much less writing any comment.
It is not for me to say whether the path envisaged by the petitioner is one that most sound theologians would consider applicable in theory, or whether Francis’ antics – material heresy, certainly; formal heresy, I would say for now certainly not – would justify his deposition (ex nunc or ex tunc) from a suitable number of Cardinals. I have often stated, and repeat today, than in this matter I will refer to the opinion of those who know much more than myself about it, and whose judgment in this matter I trust implicitly: the Society of St. Pius X, the strongest and truest bastion of Catholic orthodoxy. My take is, therefore, that if the SSPX declares the See vacant, or the Pope in any way whatsoever legitimately deprived of his office, I will follow their position; but until that moment, I will consider that a disgraceful Pope is in power, albeit I will – cela va sans dire – refuse obedience to him in every matter in which the higher loyalty to Christ is at stake.
The reason why I have posted this petition is that this is, literally, a glimpse into the future; at least for the case that Francis decides to go bonkers next October, and choose the open confrontation.
Whilst it does not seem to me that the way suggested by the petitioner is necessarily the way to go – again, I refer here to the authority of those I trust -, there can be no doubt that this is the kind of situation we will have starting from October 2015, if Francis pushes the nuclear button.
When even Jesuits consider the question whether the Pope is a heretic a fully legitimate one, it is clear Francis is sailing very close to the wind.
Unless the Lord graces us with a sudden demise or resignation of that pitiful individual, we are in for some interesting times indeed.
Beautiful article on Life Site News about the thoughts of a former lesbian concerning what is happening right now among the shepherds.
The article is interesting in more ways than one. Below, my own remarks.
“It’s like if one day I think my car should become a boat and I plunge it into a river thinking this is totally passible. But General Motors begs to differ. If I toss aside GM’s plan for the car and drive into the river, the car will sink and I will drown. God created us. He knows and tells us the way he made us to be.
Already with this observation – an observation born from painful years of sexual perversion; so she must know something of it – Robin Teresa Beck, the former lesbian, shows she is miles ahead not only of the progressive heretics, but of all those “sensitive” priests who buy into the “born that way” mantra.
Born that way, my foot. God doesn’t do perversion. By definition, perversion is what goes away from the direction established by God.
“I think because I was so broken and so totally sickened by my sin that for me it was like: ‘I’m never going back there”.
Another enlightening, profound phrase. Consciousness of sin allowed her to discovered who she really is, and go back to sanity, forever. A person sunk in perversion will always find ways to justify himself, and blame the planet. The discovery of faith enlightens one’s consciousness, and allows one to see clearly. I wonder how many priests would have the gut to say to their more or less unrepentant sheep with the same issue: “I think when your faith blossoms you will be so broken and totally sickened by your sin that you will say: ‘I’m never going back there’ “.
I don’t care if Pope Francis gets in the chair and proclaims homosexual behavior is no longer a sin — which of course he can’t do — but if he did, I would be like: ‘No, I’m sorry. It is a sin.’ I don’t care who tries to tell me otherwise. I am just resolute on that.”
We have it here once again, and very explicitly: another sound Catholic afraid that the Pope might, in a way or another, try to change the perception of church teaching. The Pope is rapidly becoming the number one menace to Catholicism. Everyone with a sound brain and an alert mind understands this. The perception of Pope Francis as the Attila of Catholicism (at least, if he dared to) will soon be mainstream.
This article was “liked” 6,500 times on Facebook.
“Priests need to stop people-pleasing. They need to speak the truth in love.
Please, dear priests, stop being fags. Start being men instead. You have the job of saving souls, not pleasing people.
This woman thinks better than, very probably, 90% of the Western bishops. Her voice needs to be heard.
The “hospital” is there to heal the sick, not to give them drugs until they go to hell.
… there appears to me to be a paradigm growing regarding Summorum Pontificum/Universae Ecclesiae and the TLM, that while it may be permitted by bishops/powers that be/Pope for a priest “raised,” if you will, in the Novus Ordo environment, to offer the TLM on occasion, it most certainly will not be permitted for such priests to offer the TLM exclusively.
This interesting reflections appeared on the always interesting “Blog for Dallas Area Catholics”.
On personal reflection, it seems to me that this cannot be a uniform key of reading the events. I say this because of the following reflections:
1. To my knowledge, the FFI offered many Masses in the Novus Ordo before the Great Persecution started. They were, though, becoming increasingly more critical of V II. There is also, from what I have read around, an interesting episode of the FFI allowing the Tridentine Mass in a church of theirs, just metres past the boundary of the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Bergoglio; a move evidently aimed at making the Traditional Latin Mass as convenient as possible to the faithful of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, then led by Archbishop Pothead himself.
2. Father Rodriguez was, as far as I know, already in disgrace by his own bishop because of his energetic defence of marriage against the tide of sexual perversion currently sweeping the West. It is difficult for me not to imagine that this is what made him a privileged target of his bishop’s attentions, and caused his transfer to a remote parish in the first place.
3. Bishop Lovieres Plano, another victim of this Pontiff, and Bishop Oliveri of Albenga-Imperia, possibly the next one, also had most certainly most masses in their dioceses celebrated in the Novus Ordo. In these cases, though, they both run extremely successful seminaries, which were certainly a Catholic menace for the likes of Bergoglio.
It seems to me that there is no single common denominator behind these episodes of persecution of good Catholic priest, other than this: that their being good Catholic priests is seen as a nuisance, a menace or an open challenge to the Church of Nice. The ways in which this can happen are multiform, but they can all traced back to one common denominator: Catholicism taken seriously.
If we want to understand what is happening, we must see the events in the right perspective: whilst the usual “feel-good” V II mentality was always an obstacle to sound Catholicism, Francis is, with his secular Neo-Paganism, its sworn enemy. He will, therefore, attack sound Catholicism whenever he thinks he can do so safely, perhaps abandoning caution when – as in the case of the FFI – personal animosity add to the already evident motive of attacking sound Catholics.
This cascades, then, in a sort of open season on orthodox priests. Cardinal Dolan can get rid of Father Wright under Francis in a way that would not have been possible under Benedict. The climate has changed. The bishops read the new temperature, and act accordingly.
Father Rodriguez is, no doubt, not the last to be targeted. Excuses and pretexts of various kind will never be in any shortage, and there will never be any shortage of dumbos ready to believe whatever accusation is merely hinted to.
This is the way of this pontificate. There will be no scarcity of bishops adopting the same methods.
You probably know by now about Francis’ idea of a Christmas concert. Invited this year are the stupid nun who – I seem to remember – wanted to stop after the Italian stupid TV show, and a punk rock so-called “icon” (for potheads, that is: which explains Francis’ interest in her) called Patti Smith.
Who would this cretin not invite, if they were still alive? Would an old Janis Joplin be invited? Jimi Hendrix? What about Jim Morrison?
Seriously: how can one not understand that Francis is using his position of Pope to bring as many people he can as far from Christ as he can, and straight into not only the secular society, but the worst of it?
This man is a true menace. You can be “confused” about what he does only if you think – absurdly, at this point – that he wants to promote Catholicism.
Realise instead that he is Catholicism’s biggest enemy, and you will immediately see that all pieces fall into place. and everything Francis does is perfectly clear and utterly transparent.
Short answer: duh?
Do not be surprised, dear reader, at the banality of the question. Apparently, there are people out there who say that to be demoted from the head of one of the most important Congregations to a purely honorific position is just normal. Hey, his five year mandate was elapsed. Time for doing nothing, then.
The author goes on getting even funnier, in an heroic effort of Pollyannism that I struggle not to consider disingenuous. Look, he says, now that Burke has nothing to do, he will have more time to criticise the Pope. Dear Francis is, therefore, encouraging loyal opposition!
This would be funny, but the situation isn't; so I will not laugh.
No. Being demoted and sent to the wilderness means just that: being demoted and sent to the wilderness. This being the Vatican, the wilderness is a rather pleasant place, but I hope no one considered a Siberian Gulag, or hard field labour, the usual alternative.
Burke is in his prime. At 67, it might be argued he is too young to be Pope. He is, by universal recognition, an extremely competent man in his field. He has led an archdiocese and a Vatican Congregation already. There is no end of important, effective positions he could be assigned to – including the one in which he was – if the Pope did not want to purge him.
The one with the loyal opposition is even funnier. With this mentality, I could say that when Mussolini sent dissidents into confinement, he did so in order for them to have a lot of time to write books, memories and other reflections, thus also encouraging loyal opposition.
Heavens, what people will not invent to keep you away from reality.
The reality is, though, still staring at us in the face. Only with a big effort of Pollyannism can we blind ourselves to it. But there it remains. Brutal.
It's time to wake up, and start looking at the events for what they are. But again, if one reads certain blogs reality is, very probably, exactly that from which he is trying to escape in the first place.
A number of readers have informed me that the links I post do not work with hand-held devices, at least with smartphones.
The phenomenon has been observed with both iFag and Android devices.
I am not doing anything differently, nor would I know how to do it differently.
My suspicion is that in one of those software updates that are becoming more and more frequent, a bug has sneaked in. It will be corrected in time, I hope.
ChurchMilitant.TV will not engage in public criticism of the Pope. Period.
This unconscionable statement still appears on the Church Militant manifesto as I write. This is the same outlet which accuses Chris Ferrara of “The Remnant”, John Vennari of Catholic Family News and others like, most notably, Louie Verrecchio of “Harvesting The Fruit of the V II” of being producers of “ecclesiastical porn”. It is to be noted that none of the three accuses the Pope with more vehemence than Voris himself does when he accuses, say, Cardinal Dolan, a favourite target of him (difficult to miss the mark, I concede).
Mr Ferrara published a wonderful article days ago describing, inter alia, the heavy invectives used by Voris against Dolan. But apparently, what is allowed when addressing a Cardinal is not allowed when addressing a Pope. Not even, mind, when the scandal and confusion is so much bigger when coming from the Pope. I wish I could find the article. Many thanks to the readers who can help on this. EDIT: FOUND! Many thanks to all those who posted the right link!
The position of CMTV does not make sense. It is not, nor has it even been, part of the Magisterium. It is just plain absurd, and it becomes the more absurd the more Pope Dope (very charitably called, on this blog, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, TMAHICH; and this, only because he is the Pope) goes on with his astonishingly drunken, or drugged, or otherwise, at this point, indisputably evil statements.
This absurd position has already put CMTV in a quandary, because the reality is now punching them in the face every day, and Francis does all he can to help with the punching. Even the slower witted start to understand, in greater and greater numbers, that you can’t condemn Nazism and forever refuse to criticise Hitler. The fish stinks from the head down. The buck stops at the Pope. The Pope is, also here indisputably, the man who praises to the skies (Kasper) or moves to position of great influence (Forte, Baldisseri) those who push an heretical agenda, as he removes the orthodox (say: Burke) and appoints the heterodox (say: Cupich) whenever he can. You can’t go on criticising Goebbels and Himmler forever, and say that you will “not engage in any criticism of Hitler. Period” anymore, or you credibility will be soon used to make pig fodder.
Enter the “razor’s edge” theory.
In blatant contradiction with the statement above, the new mantra seems to be that you (cough…) can criticise the Pope. The requirement, heard before, that this should be possible only to very saintly people (like Thomas More, who is rather dead, and the like) seems to have been dropped, too.
No: nowadays, every non-saintly person can criticise, and Voris will not call you “spiritual porrnographer” for this fact alone. But you see: if you criticise the Pope, you must do it in a way that meets Mr Voris’ approval. The approval, in other words, of the same man who told you, until the day before yesterday, that you were not allowed to criticise him, period.
It is all so absurd that, were Voris not a certainly nice chap and a fundamentally honest Catholic, would merit him some serious criticism. Then there’s the matter of the personal attacks, which will be dealt with later.
The new “razor’s edge” theory says that the one who is – in so many words – admitting he was wrong until now can now tell you how to do what you were right in doing in the first place. This is, we are informed, a very thin path that manages to hint at what a moron Francis is, without really saying it. Because you see, if you say things openly you will confuse the simple people.
The simple people seem to be the newest line of defence. It goes along the lines of: “I understand the Pope has made himself worthy of criticism; but you see, the simple Catholics would be confused if I said so forcefully”. They might – God forbid! – even start attending at the next SSPX chapel! Heavens! What’s next, Belzebub?
The position does not stand the test of logic for at least two reasons:
1) If simple people are easily impressionable to the point of abandoning the faith, then Cardinals and Bishops should never be openly, much less harshly, criticised. They are all successors of the Apostles, being basically all of them – all the Cardinals who count at least – bishops. It is not to be explained how this hypothetical simple Catholic would be strenghtened in his faith when Voris walks over Dolan like a steamroller, but would lose his faith at the open criticism – according to the old position, and let’s call it Voris 1.0, even of “every criticism not coming from a living saint” – of the Pope.
2) If it is a scandal, and a threat to the Church of Christ, that a Cardinal or Bishop confuses the faithful; and if it is therefore perfectly adequate, nay, dutiful, to attack this Cardinal with harsh words; then it results, with elegant inevitability, that it is the more adequate, and the more dutiful, to criticise a Pope, who causes a much bigger scandal and represents such a vaster threat to the salvation of souls; and inevitably, it becomes the duty of every Catholic to criticise the Pope far more harshly than every Cardinal, because the danger he represents is so much bigger.
It does not make sense, in this constellation, to hide behind the finger of the “respect due to the Pope”. Where have you seen, in two thousand years of history, a Pope behaving like this one!? The very public antics of this pothead, of this lurid old man, of this walking mockery of Christ and His Church have no precedent in two thousand years of Christianity! Every Catholic with a brain sees it! How is the menace to be countered, if not with the same virulence of the attack?
Again, logic here comes to our help.
Either is the Pope the biggest single influence on Catholics, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, the particular respect tributed to him has no reason to be, and there is no great risk of confusion of faithful, either. The same goes for Bishops and Cardinals. Therefore, it does not make sense to waste time to criticse either. Pray more rosaries instead.
This position conflicts with reality and is discarded by everyone, Voris first.
If he is, then it follows that the prestige and sacredness of the papacy can only be defended by explicitly attacking the man who ridicules, smears and abuses it like no other Pope in history. There is no escape from this. It is simple logic. The defence must always be proportionate to the scale of the menace. If the Antichrist happened to be a Pope, would Voris refuse to criticise him harshly because of his position as Pope?
Granted, this disgraceful Argentine is not the Antichrist. Far too stupid, coward, petty, transparent for that. But then this is why we call it TMAHICH; or pothead; or nincompoop, cretin, and the like; which is very mild considering how many devout Catholics must reflect on the profession of the female ancestors of this man, whenever he opens his mouth.
There is no escaping simple logic here. Either clergy shape faithful, or they don’t. If they don’t, CMTV has no reason to exist, because Dolan & Co. are largely irrelevant. If they do, then the Pope is the greatest menace to the Church ever appeared on this planet; more than the Muslims, the Lutherans, and the Communists. Because this time, Satan managed to get an inside job.
Before I finish, there is something that is very dear to me, and that I would like to address explicitly. It is not personal to me, but I think it should be personal to all of us.
Mr Voris has publicly slandered Mr Ferrara, Mr Vennari and Mr Verrecchio. I am sure I forget a couple, but these three are the ones that come to mind. It is now high time that a honest and public apology to these men, and to those treated like them, be made. Until this is done, this will be a second heavy stone weighing down the credibility of Church Militant TV, a Catholic outlet which in the end seems bent on defending the very worst (Francis) whilst it viciously attacks the very best (Mr Ferrara, Mr Vennari, Mr Verrecchio, and obviously the SSPX).
“Deus Ex Machina” is the new, valiant effort of S. Armaticus, a brilliant poster on this blog and on Louie Verrecchio’s excellent “Harvesting The Fruit”.
For what is worth, I vouch blindly for the quality of this blog. So much so, that it has been given entry in the very exclusive “Walhalla” of my blogs in the right hand side column (by the by, there is a “real” Walhalla monument in Bavaria. Beautiful. Leave aside the pagan ideology for a moment, and consider it just a tribute to German lore. A visit is recommended. Nearby Regensburg is achingly beautiful).
There are, alas, some little birth problems as I see them: the name “sarmaticus” in the web address line does not help the web search engines to link the blog to “S.Armaticus”, and I think the fact that the blog is not named like the web address line does not help, either.
Therefore, in order to help the blog get a first foot in the door of the web search engines, some visits in places like this one, (,home page) this one, this one, this one or this one might help both you (to know the blog better) and him (to get the blog more established).
The beginnings of a blog are always hard. Most people think the world has been waiting for their blog. This is just not the case.
When I started my little effort I decided that I would write not for a public, but for the Blessed Virgin. It helps a lot to set the priorities straight, and avoid getting frustrated when the world, erm, stubbornly keeps ignoring us…
When we die, I think our outspokenness and orthodoxy will count much more than every stat count; and yes, we are wretched sinners; and yes, we keep making what we do not want to do. Our life is full of misery and mistakes.
But with the Lords’ help, shutting up when heresy is rife even in the highest ranks of the Vatican will not be one of them.
Good luck to the new man, then. May his pen never run dry. The Blessed Virgin is watching.
First things first: Francis is not the stupid one here. Stupid are all those who read of this deceiver of souls ordering that showers for the homeless be installed under the very Colonnade and do not immediately detect the cheapest shot at popularity among the lobotomised masses ever shot by this unspeakable man.
The Wheelchairs have clearly lost their appeal. After the thirtieth one, it starts to get old. A new marketing stunt for the idiots is needed. Meet the showers!
Francis being the unassuming, publicity-shy, modest man that he is, the homeless are not provided with showers in one of the countless places run by Catholic charities and parishes. No, they must be put in the middle of a magnificent, world-famous monument, lest the risk be run that only one child does not notice who the humble benefactor is.
Let me repeat it: stupid are those who fall for this, not Francis. Francis is merely being the usual populist manipulator, feeding his Catholic pigeons. He sees that his followers are so thick that there is no amount of attention whoring they would not celebrate. Everything in this man is so kitsch, so stupidly vulgar, so over the top, that one wonders whether we will not have drunkards urinating in the Sistine Chapel before very long. Hey, if it makes a headline, he is game.
Fai del bene e non lo dire, says a Roman usage: do good, and don't tell it. Francis: not Roman, then.
All this, mind, as the Sistine Chapel – which, as the name says, is… a chapel! – is rented to Porsche for a corporate event. The sacred is offended, whilst man takes centre stage.
Forget God. Think of the homeless. This is, in short, Francis' disgraceful papacy.
Partially changing the topic, I could not avoid imagining Monsignor Ricca going around the showers, and amicably chatting with the homeless; among which, as we all know when we switch the PC mode off and our brains on, drugs and sexual perversion are ripe. Perhaps will the one or other, he will think, be amenable to being… evangelised? I can imagine a lot of “charitable work” going on from the Vatican Faggots United Football Team. The targets are delivered very near to them, and why after the showering should not follow some feeding? Yes, the butterfly collection is also there…
Seriously, I think this Pope would dance in a tutu in the middle of St Peter Square; or take part in a porn movie; or eat shit in front of the cameras; or do anything and everything, if he only thought this makes him more popular among the idiots whose approval he is courting. He doesn't do it not be ause he would be ashamed of it – I do not think there is everything he would be ashamed of – but because he realises, far more simply, that it would not be good for him. But truly, it's just this.
This is a lewd old man with no faith, no decency, and no shame. Can't wait for his photos among the showering homeless.
Bernini will roll in his grave.
Monsignor Ricca will be all excitement.
James V. Schall is an old darling of this little effort, and possibly one of three Jesuits left (but they might be seven, or eight…) who still believe in the Last Four Things.
The very same man has now published an article about heretical Popes.
The article seem to provide some – limited – answers to a question already appeared on this blog: who decides that the See is vacant, and how. But the article is not notable because of that.
The article is notable because a Jesuit registers and examines the accusations of heresy moved to the Pope, and the possible declaration of the Sea as vacant in future, as a possibility worthy of discussion; a fact of life; an issue of our times.
There are no anathemas, and no denunciation of the utter madness of Catholics who think they are more Catholic than the Pope. Instead, there is a photo of Francis The Clown, with obligatory red nose.
I invite you to read this article twice, and to carefully examine the subtext. This is an intelligent man, writing for intelligent and perceptive people. He knows how to send a message without being too overt. Intelligenti pauca.
Ah, if this Jesuit had been made Pope…!
After Father Manelli, Bishop Lovieres Plano in Paraguay and Bishop Oliveri in Albenga-Imperia, this time it is the turn of a simple priest to be smeared, whilst his obvious Traditional leaning is the real cause of the attack against him.
I would seriously never think of inviting for dinner anyone who would tell me: “oh well, the bishop has accused him of irregularities with money of the parish; so let us just shut up, shan’t we?”.
The bishop has made accusations at the same time minor and clearly specious. If he thinks Father has used donation money for his own private benefit, he should of course denounce him to the police and start a criminal investigation, of which both (not the investigation, and not even the denunciation) there is no trace as I speak. If the bishop is accusing Father Rodriguez of asking that donations be made in his own name so that the bishop cannot steal the money meant for serious Catholic purposes to finance the next dialogue group with Muslims and Perverts, there’s an administrative irregularity at most, and we should believe in the innocence of the person such accused until proved guilty.
But the real question, and the real reason for this blog post, is another one:
If after Manelli, Lovieres Plano and Oliveri you are still ready to believe every smear that evil progressive bishops launch on good traddies, what does this say of you?
And please, please do not give an ear to all those who profit of the hour to launch the usual attacks to exemplary Catholics like Father Rodriguez, saying that they are “divisive”, and have displeased many in their parish.
Of course they are! Of course they have! Nowadays you can’t, as a priest, say three Catholic things in a row without displeasing an awful lot of your parishioners, and being called “divisive”!
Remember the Synod? Or do you have already forgotten?
No? Well, then…
And for heaven’s sake, for heaven’s sake, think! Why would a person in the habit of making dirty things with the money of his parishioners attract attention and hostility on himself by being such an outspoken defender of orthodoxy? You could call him “Father Shoot-At-Me”, of Father Turkey-At- Thanksgiving” as well! A suicide terrorist would be more subtle. This is another example – not at bishop’s level, but targeting an important voice on the Internet – of what the coming eleven months have in store for us.
“Smear. Smear. Something will stick”.
It seems the troop led by TMAHICH loves to play this game.
P.s. Sabbatical from priestly activity, uh?
He can, then, blog and make videos, surely?