Mahound’s Paradise has excerpts from the latest, extremely stinking public performance of the Evil Clown.
The following atrocious words attracted my attention more than the (almost equally atrocious) rest of the ramble.
“We are called always to live out and proclaim the newness of the Lord’s love: ‘Jesus truly loves you, just as you are. Give him space: in spite of the disappointments and wounds in your life, give him the chance to love you. He will not disappoint you,’” Francis said.
This is so gay, it redefines the boundaries of Eltonism.
Francis sounds like a hippy homo on pot: not only the “lurv” that does not care for truth is worthy of foul tomatoes, but – worse still – the clear idea that one should consider giving Christ a chance even as he does not want to change a thing in himself is the perfect denial of all Christianity stands for. What a gracious step, what a moving concession this entirely secular person would be making to Our Lord and Saviour!
I picture your average pot-smoking, fornicating, ugly, fat, aborting feminist slut out there thinking: “oh well, I love myself just the way I am, too, and I do not see any reason to change at all! So the old man got that right, for sure! Therefore, I might give this Christ the man talks about the chance to love me just as I am, and let’s see if this Christ knows what is good for him! Of course, I am expecting a lot from his unconditional, non-judgmental, guilt-free, gender-neutral relationship now, because that’s what the man in white promises”.
Francis keeps peddling around a Christ resembling a whining, groaning, whimpering, extremely beta guy dying for some attention whatsoever, and not asking anything in return: I do not say adoration, but even some basic respect and attention. “Oh please, please, just give me some thoughts every now and then! You don’t need to do anything! No repentance, no change, nothing at all! You are so wonderful as you are! If you love me,
keep my command it’s quite enough for me, and you won’t regret it!”
When I read it on Vox Cantoris I thought it might have been in jest, but actually it is real news, as EWTN confirmed: Apostate Homosexualist Michael Coren has been stripped of his Papal Knighthood, has been requested to return the medal, and has so far refused.
Boy, this is funny. A man who decides to leave the Church and insult her with his homoheresies is peeved at being told bu the same Church to draw the consequences, and does not want to return the symbol of something in which he does not believe anymore, and says publicly so.
But the funniest thing is this: that Coren must now realise that even in FrancisChurch, where even Muslims and Lutherans are treated like the same thing plus some squabbling theologians, he is considered worthy of public rebuke.
Can’t wait for the man to appeal to the Evil Clown himself to allow him to keep his medal, though he doesn’t believe in that which the medal represents.
We truly live in a world of self-obsessed, deluded hyper-individualism, in which every cretin thinks he can make up his own religion at will.
Can’t imagine what kind of people will buy his books.
Or perhaps I do.
I have published all three parts of the “With Burning Concern” letter; therefore, you all know which side I am on.
I think it very wrong that those (names not named) who should all be on our side waste their time and undoubted intelligence for this kind of mini-squabble.
I will offer this thought: it is bad to want to be “mainstream”, and it is bad to want to have a big readership. The world is such, that if you want to have a big readership, and be able to boast that you are so and so big, you will have to get “middle of the road” positions even when more uncomfortable roads are the only ones indicated. The “mainstream” is unlikely to ever be persuaded that the Pope is a heretic. They will drink all the cool-aid they have to drink to persuade themselves of the contrary instead.
This Pope is a heretic. A tool of Satan. An old, lewd man obsessed with sex and social so-called “justice”. He is an Atheist through and through. In short, he is an Evil Clown. That’s it. If you still can’t see the evidence, you will always refuse to see it. Still, the harsh truth of a heretical Pope will never be “mainstream”.
And please don’t give me that rubbish that we can’t judge people’s heart. No one uses the argument with Hitler. We can see actions, and from the actions we see the motives. As outside, so inside. You can’t act like Martin Luther outside and be Padre Pio inside.
This Pope may repent one day, and we should all pray as much as we can that he may one day come back to be (or, more likely, become) a Catholic. But if he swims like a heretic, walks like a heretic, and quacks like a heretic, I will leave this rubbish about the “not judging” to others.
Let your nay be nay. Don’t go to your judgment and be told you listened to hundreds of episodes of defiance of the Church, and all you could say was that you were “surprised” or “confused”.
Being neither cold nor hot is rather dangerous.
This part deals with the “pastoral heresy”, the blatant situational ethics, the aggressive secularist and anti-catholic behaviour demonstrated at every turn and, last but not least, why faithful Catholics cannot remain silent in the face of such a disgrace.
Once again I repeat my appeal: please spread these links as much as you can. Opposition to the Evil Clown can only be effective if more and more people are helped to understand the reality of this truly unbelievable Pontificate.
Part II of “With Burning Concern” is Out.
This part focuses on Francis’ shameless defence of Islam, his ignorance and superficiality, his worldly megalomania, his brutal attacks on orthodox catholic faithful and institutions, and his attacks to the sacraments.
Please post these links everywhere you can.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
This definition coincides with what the average Pewsitter answers when he is requested to define schism: someone separates himself from the union with the Church.
Mind, here, that the definition – and the common parlance – refers schism to the Church, not to the Pope. One is not in schism purely because he separates himself from the Pope, or the Pope separates himself from him. One is in schism because he has cut himself off from the Church.
Let us, therefore, imagine Francis (he about whom nothing is unimaginable) state that those who support the death penalty have separated themselves from the body of the Church and are now officially in schism. Most certainly, every well-instructed Catholic would refuse to give obedience to the Evil Clown in such a matter. However, they would most certainly not be in any schism whatsoever. They would be as part of the Church as they always were. They would also (being Catholics) most certainly not go around creating a parallel “church” under, say, Pope Pius XIII Williamson (no, I think even he would never do that). They would never declare themselves “severed” from the Church in any way whatsoever. They would simply point out that the Pope is a heretic, and a heretical Pope will not be obeyed in everything that is heretical or going against the Church.
I also would find confusing to state, in such a circumstance, that the Pope is in schism himself. No, he clearly isn’t, because he has never declared severed the ties who bind him to the social organisation of the Church. In order to do so, he would have to resign and declare himself separated from the Church, which he will clearly never do. One might say that he has put himself in a factual state of schism (as in the case of the notorious Dutch Schism), but even in this case this factual separation would concern him, not you; and would still make of him the Pope exactly in the same way as the Dutch bishops remained bishops, continued to validly ordain priests, and were never deposed.
What Francis would be doing, and what he actually does with Fornicationis Laetitia and his many satanical statements, is “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics“.
Pope is heretic. Faithful remain faithful to the Church, and refuse to obey the Pope. No schism happens. Pope is deposed, or not. If Pope is not deposed, his appointments of Cardinals are valid – and therefore his successors are validly elected – until a Council decides on the matter of the orthodoxy of both his papacy and his successors. If Pope is deposed, Council decides about the validity of his acts and appointments whilst being a heretical Pope.
We, the simple Pewsitters, do not decide any of that. We cannot depose Popes. We are worried about dying in the state of Grace. To do this, it is highly advisable to do our best to help the right side. But it’s not for us to foresee when, and how, the Lord will put an end to this. It is also not for us to talk of schism, because no matter how heretical the Pope becomes, we remain and want to die in communion with the Church. Church, obviously, seen as the Bride of Christ, not the Vatican Gay Mafia, no matter how bad the latter may become.
The Church is the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”, not Francis’ Gay Sauna. It is not for Francis to declare you in or out, if he is being heretical in so doing.
You are still in. He is still a heretic. That’s it.
Once again, it seems to me this talk of “schism” derives from excessive and wrong consideration for the figure of the Pope. It is as if some people would think that if the Pope officially converted to Islam the Catholics would have to a) do the same or b) be in schism, because ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia and if the Pope is now within Islam, then so must you. Nonsense.
Francis will cause no schism. He will cause (more or less) widespread disobedience to his heresy, but he will not be able to cause any schism, or to cause obedient Catholics to declare themselves in schism, or to separate even only one of the faithful from the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Pray for the painless death of the Evil Clown. Pray also for his conversion as sincerely as you can, though I think his death is by far the most probable and the only assured outcome. Pray that the Lord may soon put an end to this scourge. But never, never go around talking of schism.
Let him be a heretic.
You will remain faithful.
The following is from the latest blog post from Father Blake (emphasis mine):
When we ask for clarification from the Cardinals of the Church, as we are bound to do, we are met with either silence or told, as we were in England, by many of our superiors that Cardinal Nichols ‘was displeased’ that we should even voice such a concern in a private communication to him and his fellow Cardinals, that is the absolute moral low ground, though maybe a not entirely unexpected response.
Yep, it’s “officially official”. Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols let England’s priests know, by way of their own bishops, that he “was displeased” that they should voice their concern to him.
We understand from this something of what is going on behind the scenes in England: a reckless hierarchy scolds those among the priests who dare to think their job is to be Catholic, and the job of their bishops more so.
“Absolute moral low ground” says it very well.
I hope the retaliation against Father will be slow to come, and not too painful. Though that it will come at some point and in some form seems likely.
Welcome to the (earthly) church in the time of the Evil Clown: a place where perversion is celebrated without consequences, and fidelity to the Church causes “displeasure” in her own Princes.
Identifying likely voters by asking them how likely they are to vote shifts the electorate from the demographic composition observed in recent presidential elections towards a whiter, older electorate. While it is always possible that the electorate will be older and whiter in 2016 than it was in 2012 and 2008 — we will not know what the electorate in 2016 looks like until Election Day — given the demographic stability evident in past presidential elections we are reluctant to rely on screens that shift the composition of the electorate too far away from the composition of recent elections. Given historical patterns and the relative stability of presidential voting, our working assumption is that the electorate in 2016 is more likely than not to resemble the 2012 electorate; we trust the stable patterns in the data more than self-reported responses. (emphases mine)
I had to read it twice, because I could not believe that even NBC could be so brazen.
What they are saying is this:
“we are well noticing that we are seeing an increase in White and older voters among Likely Voters only six weeks away from the vote. Clearly, there is change afoot. However, this is very bad news for Crooked Hillary’s fans. Therefore, we prefer to adjust the reality we are seeing to something pretty similar to what we have seen in 2012. Because you see, in 2012 we had far less Whites and far more Blacks voting than it seems likely this year. Therefore, we will make Crooked Hillary look better and give her apathetic supporters some much- needed morale boost”.
2012? With Mulatto President running and mobilising (racist) Blacks all over the Country; and his flip-flopper, Mormon antagonist clearly unable to do the same with his core electorate?
2012? Without the Most Hated Bitch Alive running? The woman almost destroyed by an underfunded Socialist ostracised by his own party machine? The woman embroiled in scandals concerning her behaviou rin government, her behaviour out of government, her “pay to play” tricks, her health, and her chronic inability to tell the truth even by mistake?
2012? Did Romney pulverise Gay Mulatto for public attendance at his rallies in 2012? Can we really not see that things appear to be different in 2016? Is this not a matter of simple observation of facts?
What is a poll worth, if the pollster decide they are going to ignore the reality they see in front of them, a reality they openly admit to you they are seeing and measuring, and give you the manipulation of the data they see “safer” (read: not a disaster for Hillary) instead?
Then there is this other pearl:
Our respondents are selected from the nearly 3 million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day. To do so, for a random sample of those taking a survey, SurveyMonkey displays a map of past election results colored in gradations of red, blue and purple and they ask those individuals to “help us predict the 2016 elections.” Because individuals choose whether or not they want to help predict the election, those individuals choosing to participate are arguably more likely to be politically interested and likely to vote [ and younger, and more urban] than respondents who see the same invitation and decline to participate. (red and emphasis mine).
Are they telling us that their data are taken exclusively from a sample of people who are Internet-savvy enough to a) participate to online surveys and b) tell the pollster they want to be counted? Seriously?
Does it take a genius to understand that among a sample of real likely voters out there, those who will vote for Trump but are not interested in these Internet plays will easily exceed those Hillary fans who do the same? Trump’s voters are more likely to be Midwest welders and motorbike mechanics. Crooked Hillary’s voters are more likely to be students, internet-savvy young employees, or Starbucks failures spending a lot of time on their laptops.
I understand it when a pollster tells me that he has adjusted the data in order to make the, say, 3,000 respondents better match the reality out there. But it is very different from a pollster saying that he sees a clear reality out there, and he adjusts it because he can’t ( = does not want to) believe what’s really happening.
This reminds me of Brexit. Tweeters from all over the Country reported long lines in “deep England” full of old-ish people and people who had not voted for a long time, whilst the BBC & assorted faggots kept explaining to us how their statistical models returned a clear victory for “Remain”.
I am not saying this is in the bag. What I am saying is that even the polls which try to explain to us why Hillary is not sinking like she is the Titanic fail to persuade.
Can’t wait for a) the TV debates, and b) the leaks, and c) the next fit of cough, or d) fainting caused by (what was that? Oh, another lie…) “dehydration”.
They say in Italy that the mother of the idiot is always pregnant, a dry way of saying that there are a lot of them around and new ones are born without interruption.
There is much wisdom in this popular saying. I had the last confirmation of this by reading the comments of some already born idiots in the comment box of the Remnant blog post with the Book of Accusation (Part I) against Pope Francis.
It is depressing enough to read of the usual cretins asking why to do this if it is not likely to change the world (these people have, obviously, never heard of Christian witness, defence of truth, or such like ways of wasting one’s time), but it is outright infuriating to read self-referencing wannabe bloggers who have not published any post in two months accusing the writers of the letter of neglecting some of the heresies of the heretical machine gun called Francis…
Some people are happiest when they can criticise the effort of others.
They are, very often, those very lazy with their effort themselves.