And it came to pass that the Evil Clown married a couple on the airplane, between the safety announcements and a snack, to the delight of those idiots for whom a marriage is something that is better if it unusual, or “fun”, or in any way different.
The spouses were concubines, and at this point I wonder whether Francis would, if asked, refuse to marry any couple that are not already living in mortal sin. Obviously, there is no mention of the two showing any kind of contrition for their public scandal, much less living at separate adresses in preparation for their holy sacrament.
With Francis everything is like this: sacraments must be banalised, downplayed or outright attacked. Let's marry the concubines in the airplane; it is “fun” and it will make a couple of headlines!
Poor deluded ass. Poor arrogant boor. Poor, stupid chav* in white.
It is embarrassing even to us to see the man sink in a small, dirty puddle of indifference, ignored by the masses whose approval he so vainly seeks as he gets slapped in the face by newspapers thrown at him by, hopefully, faithful Catholics.
This man must be ridiculed and demolished in his reputation, if any left, without any mercy, and no matter how cringeworthy his pathetic search for attention becomes. He has deserves nothing but contempt. He deserves to have coins thrown on his coffin, the ultimate insult Italians reserve for corrupt politicians who have kicked the bucket.
The more shameful the descent into oblivion of this disgusting man becomes, the better the chance that, by God's grace, the Cardinals will give us some half decent Pope at the next attempt.
* 'Council House And Violent' . The magic of politically incorrect British English…
This is the astonishing picture of the epic failure of Francis in Chile.
Who is interested in an old, lewd, bitter ass spouting sugary nonsense or socialist drivel every time he opens that stupid mouth of his?
Who has any respect for someone constantly sabotaging the Sacraments?
When will the Vatican (and the endless choir of sycophants constantly licking his booths) admit that this old, lurid scoundrel not only does not attract, but positively repels the faithful?
This man is an embarrassment not only for the Church as a whole, but even to those who support his destructive agenda. Too vulgar, too lewd, too grumpy, too short-tempered to keep the lie of the “humble Pope” going.
The more he keeps traveling, the more we will see pictures like this one, which will couple well with the one of a more and more deserted Saint peter Square at home.
If you put a white cassock on an ass, don’t be surprised if after a while no one is interested in the show.
Hit by a newspaper.
I admit: I would have preferred a foul tomato (a better picture too on the white papal robe); still, I will gladly settle for the newspaper. Quite funny, too, seen how the mainstream press has flattered the man for now almost 5 years: Finally, a newspaper that actually is useful for something!
Still, besides the effect of an ass taught some manners by a newspaper, the fact remains that Francis' stellar incompetence has made him the target of both Catholics and anti-Catholics. His brilliant way of appointing bishops based on favours and personal symphaty, united with his propensity of keeping questionable bishops in place just because he likes them – or just because he can – is now causing fire from multiple angles.
Francis has lived for too long on the almost unlimited cachet given to him by his extremely elevated position. But he has also relentlessly worked on the demolition of his prestige; not only with his stunning incompetence and favouritism, but also with his wanting to appear one of the people, which at some point will have him treated exactly like that, including newspaper treatment. When you say to everyone that you are one of them, don't complain when they treat you like they would every other person. There are worse things that being pelted with a newspaper btw; like, say, martyrdom or prison.
Some of you might say that physical violence on a Pope is a mortal sin. Normally I'd agree. However, I would have my doubts whether this qualifies as “physical violence”. Besides, we must all admit that a Pope sabotaging the papacy in such an unprecedented way might justify unprecedented defensive actions. There has never been a Pope like this one, and perhaps the rules of engagement should take account of this.
Hated by Catholics and anti-Catholics alike.
You don't believe it?
Come on, haven't you… seen the newspaper?
Trump's decision to appear live at the US March For Life shows once again a handful of very evident facts:
1. This President is way more Catholic than the Pope. As Francis invites us to “not obsess” about abortion, Trump actually does exactly that.
2. Trump engagement in favour of the Unborn is more than a mere slogan, as such a hard pro-life profile is not sure to bring him additional supporters. This is a man of integrity keeping his word, not an Auntie Merkel saying what is convenient on the day.
3. The cowardly US Bishops relentlessly working against the most outspokenly pro-life President since the Gipper show that they do not care about the unborn, and are perfectly at ease with the pro-death agenda of the Democratic Party. This, with the excuse of their socialist-spectacled decrying of “social injustices”.
4. The unborn US babies are, mostly, legal US citizen in fieri. Too much Stars and Stripes for the Democrats and their Bishops, I suppose. They prefer to let these oppressed, innocent US Citizen (in fieri) die, and prefer instead to import illegals from (let us say this again, because repetitive iuvant) shithole Countries, who then proceed to Somalise and Haitise the US as much as they can, perpetuating the power of the Democrats in the process.
5. Thank God for President Trump.
Bishop Schneider’s French is slow, but accurate.
The entire interview is interesting, but the real meat on the grill is from 6:20, when the interviewer asks what to do if Francis does not answer the Dubia.
Bishop Schneider’s answer is clear: then it is the Bishops’ job to restore order. Note, here, that the poor man has already abandoned any hope that the two surviving Kitten may do what they promised they would.
This is followed by another intelligent question: will this, though, not engender a schism?
Again, the Bishop’s answer is very lucid, and it is a bomb: we are already in a schism of sort, he says: one in which the schismatics are in unity with the Pope, but not with Christ. What this means is obvious: the Pope is, whilst factually still in charge, in a de facto schism with all his predecessors.
The attacks to corrupt bishops that follows closes with a beautiful statement of Catholicism: it does not matter how many prelates try to peddle a false Gospel, both doctrine and discipline will never change because they are divinely instituted.
The Bishops addresses here a point that I myself, in my little sphere, have tried to make: a false doctrine is not a change in doctrine, a perverted discipline is not a new discipline.
It is important that we get these concepts right, because words are important. You must never engender in those who listen to you the impression that doctrine can be changed or discipline can become heretical. What we are witnessing now is an obfuscation of doctrine and a perversion of discipline, not their modification.
A transvestite is not a woman. He is merely a pathetic fake, a grotesque attempt at imitation.
Francis presides over a Trannie Vatican, insulting the teaching of the Church everyday as it abuses its office and allows countless degenerated to scrounge an existence at her costs.
Thankfully, the Church is indefectible, and She will survive this just as She survived the Arian crisis. An event, the latter, which, having no precedents at all, must have seemed to the contemporaries far more terrifying than even the crisis we are witnessing now.
The truthful Catholics in those times kept soldiering. We do exactly the same.
I welcome President Trump's “Shitholes” comment; and if he has not made the comment, I regret that he didn't.
One of the greatest things of this Presidency is the disregard for the increasingly more oppressive rules of political correctness, driving people to what is pure and simple denial of reality. Most sensible (not sensitive!) people would call, say, Haiti a shithole all right, and the more so when they want to make a forceful point. It needs a PC Libtard to see “racism” where the others see a simple reality. Libtards don't care for reality. They will excise from their consciousness and call “racist” every fact that threatens to destroy the stupid bubble in which they live.
This attitude is preventing us from saying things as they are in so many other areas, and when the language loses the sting the bad behaviour or bad situation is encouraged of perpetuated.
Sodomite, not “gay”. Adulterer, not “in an irregular relationship”. Perverted, not “gravely disordered”. Heretical, not “problematic”. And so on and so forth.
The refusal to call things with their own name (yes, shitholes too) is what has given us a society that encourages sodomy, has rampant adultery, think you can choose your “gender” and allow Francis to go on virtually unopposed and certainly not challenged at least by the clergy.
I look forward to more tweets like this one.
Don't want to be called a “shithole” by the President of the United States?
Try not to be one.
I have recently read, in a book supposedly friendly to traditional Catholicism, suspiciously conciliatory remarks about the situation of Jews. It is probably fitting to remind the reader of a thing or two.
There are no two Covenants in place. The call to conversion that Jesus made was directed to the Jews just as well as to everyone else. In fact, in the very first years after Our Lord's Resurrection it was considered normal for the first Christians to consider themselves Jews who – in contrast to the others – had recognised the advent of the Messiah promised to them. This feeling was so strong, that St. Peter himself – erroneously – thought that a Gentile would have to convert to Judaism in order to become a Christian (error which, as we know, was opposed and defeated by St Paul at the First Council of Jerusalem).
There is no mistaking the fact that Peter and all his contemporary taught it a grave danger to his Salvation that any Jew would not recognise Christ as Lord and Saviour. Things haven't changed just because we have a Jewish friend who is awfully nice.
The other way of seeing it is this: whilst Judaism is the matrix out of which Christianity arose, a Jew is simply one who denies the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost. If you don't see in this a very grave offence to the Holy Trinity, I must question your Christian credentials.
It is, obviously, reasonable to hope that, among these Infidels – make no mistake: a Jew is not a Christian and is, therefore, an Infidel – more will be saved than among Infidels of any other religion, because of the special bond that once existed between the chosen people and God. However, we must not think that a Jew can ever be saved qua Jew, that is: in his religion, and we must make every prudent effort to convert those around us who follow this now outdated, surpassed persuasion.
This does not mean aggressive Proselitysm, nor does it mean harassing people who do not want to listen to us. It means that we clearly formulate the tenets of our faith and, when the time is right – say: when we have an interlocutor willing to listen – make clear to the Jewish friend or colleague the risks of his position.
Whilst we recognise the Davidic persuasion as the nearest to Christianity, we must also profess that this persuasion is deeply wrong and offensive to God, and clearly outside of the Christian world.
This might seem superfluous, but I thought that it had to be said, as I have the impression that here and there there might be Catholics who even consider themselves conservative but think that it is, in a way, “OK to be a Jew”.
Everyone who is not a Christian is conversion material.
There are no exceptions.
As we are living in unspeakably evil times, let us imagine that the unspeakably evil happens:
Saturday, 13 January 2017, Pope Francis solemnly proclaims ex cathedra the truth of the Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide Protestants tenets. He orders all Catholics to adhere to the new proclamation, which he very formally declares infallible in exercise of the Pope's Extraordinary Magisterium.
Can you say, then, that the Church is a fraud? Certainly not. The Church cannot be a fraud, because it is de fide that the Church is the Bride of Christ and if we declare that false we must declare the whole of Christianity false, which is an absurdity considering that the Church, sound theology and sound reasoning tell us the contrary.
Are works, in this case, not necessary anymore for salvation? Certainly not, as what was true yesterday must be true today and if I do not believe today what I believed yesterday it means that I have lost the faith, and that's that.
If, therefore, the Unspeakably Evil happens, what conclusion shall we draw?
That the Church still exists. With all her rules, traditions and institution.
And that the Sea is vacant.
This is the correct understanding of the situation. Any other interpretation leads ad absurdum, because it contradicts Catholic teaching either in one way (the Pope has the authority to change doctrine) or in the other (a pope who officially, solemnly proclaim heresy has not, ipso facto, made the sea vacant).
Obviously, such a Pope would still be, factually, sitting on the throne of Peter. But it would be only this: a de facto situation which is the fruit of abuse and usurpation, as if Napoleon had proclaimed himself Pope. We would have the duty to refuse obedience to both the usurper and everyone asking us to help him in any way, shape or form.
If the worst happens, there is still a simple, logical, coherent explanation fully in line with Catholic doctrine.
Do not lose your sleep, therefore, thinking what would happen if the Unspeakably Evil came to pass. The Church that has protected sixty generations before you will protect you, too. But she will demand that you believe in Her and in Her Truth, and in Her Bridegroom and His Promise, too. To abandon the Church when you have most need of Her (and She has most need, in a sense, to be defended by you) would be the height of pride and arrogance. But you will stand on the side of Christ and His Bridegroom, no matter what.
I have read somewhere today that the Evil Clown has invited the faithful to silence during Mass, because when one is silent one can “listen to his heart” and, more importantly, “to the Holy Spirit”.
I will gloss over the inanity and banality of the words, probably inedible by a smart child of five. What I would like to point out is the subversive message hidden behind the stupid platitudes.
If I can claim to have the ability to oh so emotionally connect to the Holy Spirit, it might not be long before I claim to “recognise” a message that goes against Doctrine. Being thus persuaded of the goodness of my heart and my Direct Line to the Holy Ghost, I can easily persuade myself of the legitimacy of pretty much everything, like living in adultery and even daring to sacrilegiously present myself at the Communion Line.
What Francis does – in that stupid, sugary, childish way of his – is to encourage his (un)faithful to the very epitome of the sin of Pride: thinking that, in the end, I know better than God.
As you laugh about the arrogance of this man and the travesty of Catholicism he peddles to the Reprobates, please reflect on the many similar ways in which your local priests might try to smuggle the same impious message.
Reality check: I cannot listen to the Holy Ghost like I listen to music, nor can you. The Trinity speaks to me through the Church given to me for my salvation. The Bride talks to me every day through her beautiful, bimillenarian message.
Do not listen to Francis. Francis is an ass, the only thing you can learn from him is how to become unbearably stupid, supremely boring and diabolically subversive. Listen to the Depositum Fidei instead, and learn to know and love Church teaching. Therein, not in your own delusions, lies the Holy Ghost.
Yesterday, Oprah Winfrey enchanted the Libtarded crowds by spouting an amazing string of third rate platitudes in front of the local Feminazi, EnviroNutcases and assorted perverts*. Apparently, it was enough to move people to tears. To tears, I tell ya!
What better candidate for the Dems in 2020 than this remarkable, remarkable woman? She ticks all the boxes, too!
Please, please, dear Libtards: give her the Nomination for 2020! We have a lot of precedents already: after Trump she does not need to have political or military experience, and after Hillary she does not need to have a Pimmel. Oprah's victory would, in fact, be immediately expropriated by Hillary herself, The Bitchy Pathfinder! Why is Oprah not 50 points ahead?
However, Oprah alone would not be enough for the Dream Ticket 2020. What we need for VP candidate is what the Democrats do so well: give the position to someone who has been the wife of a President, because Dems are people who like their women utterly self-made.
Yes, Michelle is what I am talking about!
Imagine the powerful impact of
in the ticket! The Democratic base would be so energised! Hollywood actresses would be unable to refrain their tears of joy as they all together join Oprah in conquering the White House, attracting the Presidency through the sheer power of their visualisation. The Black Glass Ceiling would crush in 2020 pieces! Oh, joy!!
Please, please do it, dear Libtards! Do not listen to the Democratic establishment, and give these two courageous women the Nomination, and may the Bern with with you !!
I for myself could not ask for better. I think it would be a-we-so-me!
Only one wish I would have.
That Mike Pence be, after two successful terms as VP, allowed to run for President, and run the Country as the perfectly decent guy he is.
*Includes the Hollywood producers and actors not yet exposed.
The Evil Clown has published a kind of hippy list of proposals for the new year. It is, as you might expect, the usual, sugary nonsense the Dalai Lama or Barack Obama might say. The first point is, rather predictably, “build bridges, not walls”.
From the socioeconomic – and, well, patriotic – point of view, it is not only allowed, but mandatory and praiseworthy that a nation preserves its prosperity and prevents indiscriminate immigration. Smart Countries will, in fact, import those who are useful to them, and will not allow them to become part of the fabric of the Country if they know that they bring a mentality not compatible with the values of their host Country: the Germans and their Turkish immigrants are a valid example, or at least were before the Age Of Madness.
More importantly, and from the religious point of view, it is our duty as Christians to avoid exposing our Continents to the evil influence of false religions, particularly Islam. As a Christian, you cannot wish Christianity to become only one religion among many or, more probably, undergo a conflict with Islam merely because you want to feel good with yourself. The defence of the Christian fabric of the West is a duty of all Christians, not an option for the right-wing fringes.
The USA in a way, but much more obviously Europe are now in such a state that Christianity is no more than a thin veneer in their social fabric. We are now in the defensive, and we must preserve what has remained of Christian values from both internal and external assaults. This state of things will remain as long as we have dumb Papacies inspired by dumb Vatican II. When the Church is strong again, she will be able to reassert her role in Europe and to vigorously expand abroad. For now, everything must be done to protect Christianity inside, and there is no need to say that preventing massive waves of Infidel immigration is the mere start of it.
Build walls, not bridges.
And pray for the end of this Pontificate.
The Commie Cardinal, His Homo “Close Friend” And The Merciful Protector Of Commies, Perverts And Thieves
Cardinal Maradiaga is, apparently, not having a gay old time as accusations of personal enrichment have reached him even as his “close friend” auxiliary bishop is accused not only of being inverted, but of having given Church money to his “intimate friend”, or friends as the case might well be. Link on Gloria TV.
One wonders how could Matadiaga not know of the gravely depraved tendencies of his “close friend”. One wonders also, if you allow me the thought, about how close this close friend is to the Commie Cardinal. One can also not avoid thinking that the inverted bishops might know things about his Cardinals that should rather remain in the closet.
Let our be yeah be yeah here: if a Cardinal has a close bishop friends that turns out to be a homo, it is perfectly legitimate – nay, it is sane – to suspect that: a) the Cardinal might be a homo or even an active sodomite, and/or b) that the “close” friend is an agent of the homo Mafia who can avoid being kicked out because he knows compromising facts about the Cardinal.
Maradiaga has, today, resigned, certainly in the previous knowledge that the Evil Clown would refuse to accept his resignation. But if he thinks that this is the end of his troubles, he is very badly advised.
What, therefore, do we have? Cardinal is a potential thief, his close friend and auxiliary bishop appears to be a homo, and the homo also appears to use Church money to… you imagine that very well.
Francis, the Merciful Protector Of Commies, Thieves, and Perverts, has come to the rescue for as long as he can.
I can't even manage to be angry, as the Evil Clown has now shot himself in the foot once again.
I Can't wait for the guy berating us again, starting from tomorrow, for being decent Catholics.
I could not trust my eyes as I first saw that Cardinal Brandmueller has given another interview about the Dubia.
Seriously, can you believe this guy?
I have not paid the man the compliment of reading further once I realised what the Cardinal has not done: officially correct the Pope and demand that he retracts or faces the call for a council meant to depose him. But I have perused the article in order to be sure that the correction is not contained therein. I intend to treat every future interview from either him or the other still living kitten in exactly the same way. It's more attention that they deserve.
At this point, it seems fair to me to say that Cardinal Brandmueller is quite happy with his actual position: trying to pose as the orthodox guy and trying to live the rest of his life getting as much press exposure as he can out of his ridiculous, unanswered, half-baked attempt at orthodoxy, even as he has no intention of doing the only thing that would justify him approaching a journalist. He is, truly, like the man who wetted his lips and never whistled, but wants to be praised for his whistling courage anyway.
This behaviour is extremely vain. Vain and shameless. Vain, shameless, and utterly inexcusable.
The Cardinal should, once it is clear that even at his age he is too cowardly to really do anything, at least have the decency to shut the Francis up and live the probably short rest of his life in shame, rather than seeking publicity as if he was a star of conservative Catholicism or even a halfway decent Prelate.
Such a cowardice, and such a vanity, and at such age.
Really, it is no surprise that this disgraceful V II generation has led us to utter chaos.