The interview is here, and it goes to show that when they have to choose between Rorate Caeli and a very questionable clerical blog I will not mention here (ends with “ix”), good people like Cardinal Burke have no hesitation. By the by, this interview confirms how seriously Rorate is now taken as a source of journalistic information. Just saying.
Reading the interview, some aspects immediately come to mind:
1) There is in Cardinal Burke a quiet humility, a meekness (in the good way), but at the same time a strenght that is completely absent in the vapid blabbering of most prelates of today. You read Burke and you know that Christ is front and centre; you read Francis and you know who is.
2) For, I think, the third time the Cardinal repeats that if Francis were to pull the rabbit of the “separation of discipline from doctrine” from his hat, there would be resistance. Make no mistake: resistance here means condemnation. But Francis will not do it, we are assured. Not that he wouldn’t want, of course…
3) Burke does not blabber around in any of the very controversial topics very directly presented to him. Whether Volpi and FFI or TLM or the obvious confusion now spread by the Unholy Father, you do not see Burke trying to minimise of justify. What is very grave is very grave. Communion for adulterers will always be unacceptable and a betrayal of Christ. No amount of fluff will ever change a iota in that.
4) Burke clearly censors the despicable behaviour of Father Rosica in the Vox Cantoris matter. Very good, because TMAHICH* doesn’t.
This is the man more or less exiled by Francis (exiled, so to speak, whilst remaining in Rome) ; whilst the Rosica, Baldisseri, and Cupich of the world ascend, talk nonsense or worse, and think they own the world.
This, too, shall end.
* The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.
Like everyone else, I will send you to the Rorate page for the source of the news. Now that I can write with a bit more time in my hands I would like to mention some quotes from the page, with my personal observations.
First of all let me note this: several days have passed from these declarations, and I have read nowhere that the translations were inaccurate, or the declarations have been retracted. I have not found the entire text, though, so we will have to work with the uncorrected, non retracted quotations.
Reinhard Cardinal Marx underlined in view of the family synod in autumn the bishops’ attempt to “go down new paths” and to “help that doors be opened”.
Emotional fluff. Gay language. It suggests the Church has closed doors for two thousand years that these two, in their superior and post-Christian wisdom, think it is time to open. It panders to the effete whinos who can’t face Truth, whose money the two want to see in their pockets. Disgraceful.
A Christian is not allowed to speak in this way. We believe in a perfect, immutable God. A perfect, immutable God does not forget to open doors, nor does He allow the Church to go down the wrong path since inception; until Cardinal Marx, who knows better, appears on the scene.
Doctrinally, one would remain within the community of the [Universal]Church, but in detailed questions of pastoral care “the synod cannot prescribe in detail what we must do in Germany”.
This is very right and very wrong. A synod cannot absolutely prescribe what to do. If a Synod prescribes or even allows heresy, no one is bound by it. The point, though, is a different one: it is heresy and betrayal of Doctrine to even think that there is a “German way” which allows to separate the two. Pastoral care rests on its doctrinal fundaments. It can’t make white black. This is not called “pastoral care”. It’s called heresy in the error it teaches, and schism in the disobedience it must contain.
“We are no subsidiaries of Rome”.
Well, “subsidiary” is more of a business term. But if you want to use such business terms I would say it’s very easy to answer.
Yes. You are.
You are that, or you are in schism.
Of course, by “Rome” I mean Rome as it, through Peter, legitimately exercises its office. If the Petrine Office is put somewhere in the stratosphere and here on earth we do something different from what Peter says, we are in schism. Again, I talk here of Petrine Office legitimately exercised, in accordance with Catholic tradition. If the Pope were to teach strange novelties, these novelties would not bind anyone.
Each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its culture, and must, as its most proper task, preach the Gospel on our own.
Weasel words. Pure hypocrisy. Of course the bishops are responsible. Of course cultural differences may play a role. But these differences must never lead to any contrast with what they are supposed to teach. The bishops must find the most appropriate ways to teach what is right, they must not claim their role to justify practising what is wrong! If they do, they are in open – if not openly declared – disobedience. This is a silent schism.
“We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here”.
More hypocrisy. If Marx and Bode had a realistic hope that the Synod will reach a decision agreeable to them, they would preach patience and obedience like it’s Padre Pio Day. They would also insist on the Church in Germany being, ahem, a “subsidiary” of Rome, bound to follow what the Holy Ghost yada yada yada.
According to the German bishops’ position, the reality of life constitutes an important factor for the doctrine of the Church. “We also learn from life in doctrine,” underlined Cardinal Marx.
This is a 100% Christianity-free statement. The Church is the enemy of the world. She has always been in opposition to it. The Church is there to mold life according to Truth. These two say that the contrary is the case: life must mold Truth, at least in the way it is lived (the beautiful, but abstract doctrinal tome can be kept safe somewhere in the stratosphere). The concept of “learning” is also intrinsically heretical, because it does not mean “learning the truth” (as they should) but changing it (as they want). This is not only heresy, but a contradiction in terms. Truth does not change. There is nothing new to learn for you, that your forefathers did not have to learn; and everything they rejected you must reject, too.
According to [Bishop Bode’s] view the participants do not only debate questions of marriage and family, but the possibility of a paradigm shift.
Heresy again. “Paradigm shift” is actually merely another way of saying “heresy”. We live in times in which every Bishop Tom and Cardinal Jack thinks he can support and propagate heresy by simply calling it in a different way.
The basic question was, are only Scripture or Tradition sources for theological understanding, or are [such sources] also “the reality of men and of the world.” [Bode,] The chairman of the pastoral commission of the bishops’ conference reminded his audience of the “dialogical structure” of reality, which had already been mentioned in the pastoral constitution “Gaudium et Spes” of Vatican II, and quotes this conciliar document: “there is nothing truly human, that has no resonance in their hearts.”
This here is shameless riding of V II texts; texts which, horribly formulated as they are, ultimately cannot but be read in a way that reflects truth; these texts, as everything else, are not binding or even a worthy suggestion in everything that does not reflect what the Church has always believed. Selective quotes are, therefore, a non sequitur from the start. The “dialogical” structure of reality as presented is also 1A, 100% certified, truth-free heresy. A retarded monkey understands that Truth cannot be changed by the world; nor can, actually, Scripture; nor can, actually, Tradition, or it would not be Tradition, but Modification.
Bode stated that it was important for him that the Sacrament [of the Eucharist] was not only a sign of unity, but also a means to unity, and could contribute to healing.
What is important for Bishop Bode is equine excrement. What counts is what the Church teaches.
If Bishop Bode wants to remake Communion according to his own moods and wishes, he should join the Lutherans who have a long tradition in the matter.
Cardinal Marx announced a bishops’ statement on the synod that should be published within the upcoming weeks.
We aren’t told what this statement will contain. It may only contain some impious wish that the Synod may produce heretical statements. It seems from the quote that Cardinal Marx stopped short of saying “we are going to announce our own conclusion, and we are going to live by them”. But we shall see.
Two reflections to conclude:
1. It is rather apparent to me that the German Bishops have lost hope that the Synod in October will go their way. I have already written about this. This is the good news in the bad news.
2. The undoubtedly bad news is that if there ever was a time for the Germans to start something on the lines of the “Dutch Schism”, this one is it. They know in Francis they have a powerful ally. They know they will not be punished. They know they will look very good among those who don’t care for Truth, but pay the Kirchensteuer and want to hear some lies in return.
Still, this is a dangerous game, because I doubt Marx & Co. will present a compact front. I rather think it will be a mess, with many bishops clearly and solemnly distancing themselves from the heretics, and the entire planet calling it as it is. It will be an Ardennes campaign instead of a World War, but I think it will be a huge mess anyway.
We shall see hos this develops. We keep praying for sanity, and fighting for Truth.
In the end it will go as it always does: unicuique suum.
It is strange that I have to write this, but unfortunately I do. A consequence, perhaps, of the circle of readers this little effort has slowly accumulated.
A blog is a kind of dialogue between the blog writer and his readers. Even when the readers cannot comment, they are linked to the blogger in the evolving of the story he is narrating (in this case, largely the Catholic events in the time of Bergoglism).
The way I see it, a blog post is not a BBC article. It does not necessarily tell you the entire story. Rather, many times it will develop a story through several blog posts. This presupposes that the reader is actually following not only the article, but the blog. It’s like taking part in, or listening to, an ongoing conversation.
Most of my readers, I am sure, understand blogging in this way and therefore follow me without difficulties. Others seem not to get the format.
When you read the BBC article, a chap there has worked all day. A text editor has reviewed it, perhaps several times. A separate professional has made the title. Other people might have been involved in research. The end product is a story, from beginning to end. Often with several links to other stories that help to better understand, or amplify the issue.
A blog is a series of short, personal reflections written who knows where, when there is time, perhaps with such a bad internet connection that it takes forever even to post a link. It does not give to the reader the pre-digested food, so that he does not have to make the effort to chew it. It does, however, presuppose that the readers knows what the blog author is talking about, because the reader is supposed to follow the ongoing conversation.
I often write several blog posts on a certain topic. If I refer to, say, “Rabbitgate”, I expect my readers to know what I am talking about. This is not a TV series where every blog post starts with “previously on Mundabor….”. If you, my dear reader, want to have all the story in the same blog post you are better served elsewhere, because I will not bore my readers with endless repetitions or spend time to explain my blog to those who, frankly, do not follow it.
Then there are those who complain about the missing link to a story. In the age of internet, three or four words about what the Pope is said to have said on the occasion in question will lead the reader to not one, but several links; at times it is literally everywhere. But no, there seems to be people who are lost and feel neglected as non-paying customers if, when the entire world is talking about the latest papal gaffe, you don’t give them one of them.
Look, at times it takes very long to make a link work; and this, for reasons you will have to take from me, and I don’t have to explain to you. I prefer to spend this time writing my thoughts for people who are interested in reading them, and already know the story or can found it instantly. I won’t do the work for you. I write a blog to comment on a story. If I can link to the fact, fine. Otherwise, I will write about the story. The facts are out there anyway.
Even professional semi-blogs work in this way. The “American Thinker” does not explain to the European reader what the topic is about. Very often you will have to inform yourself about the topic first, and then you will understand the context of their post. And you see, over there, a succession of posts which all imply that you already know. If you don’t, seek and you shall find. I never complained. And they are a professional site.
It seems to me that the fact that more and more blogs look damn good let people forget what is behind: a mother struggling to pacify her children; a father writing tired at the end of a long day; and many such like situations.
The content is the comment. The facts are easy to find, and even if it costs you to read back a half dozen of posts. I will link to Catholic blogs who deserve mention, or little known blogs, or little known stories. I will not link to what is on the mainstream media. Life’s too short for quarreling with a bad connection.
I wish I had less readers, but readers of my blog.
This is not a press agency.
Father Ray Blake has a very good and stealthily funny post about all that has happened in the Vatican in the last week or two.
The gist (not that you should not read the rest) is eloquently given in the last paragraph:
Many of the Cardinal electors had hoped that the election of the ‘new Pope’ might be about clearing Rome of its cliques and anonymous accusations, its denunciation by innuendo and its bitter feuds and corruption it is simply not happening – on the contrary it is happening with renewed vigour.
How is that “new transparency” working for you, then? What has become of this oh so new and modern papacy, getting rid of all those conspirators and corridor rats, and bringing “hope and change” to the Vatican?
The new ones are so bad, they let the old ones appear amateurs. You remember Benedict’s butler? When did he steal almost 200 books from his own bishops? Mind, the man has house detention. Will Cardinal Baldisseri have to suffer the same destiny? Don’t bet your pint.
Unfortunately, there are always those who – either because they are naive, or because they are disingenuous – manage to bat for the wrong team.
The very first comment of the post is from a certain “Denis”, who commits to cyber eternity the following words:
This article is trading in the kind of tittle tattle it appears to be condemning. Perhaps during Lent we should all be seeking to build up rather than knock down.
This is the kind of comment which, if I did not write a rather candid blog, would motivate me to start one post-haste.
Good Lord! A mess without precedent in at least seven, and probably twenty centuries is devastating the Church, and those who rightly criticise the utter moral decay of the Vatican personnel should be accused of “knocking down”? We have come to the point of common theft on a grand scale, and we should shut up because it’s Lent? We point out to the shameless bullying of a poor family father in his Fifties, and we should be held for people trading in “tittle tattle”? Who is this man, Grima Wormtongue?
This passive-aggressive, or rather aggressive-passive attitude of some people is truly disturbing. It advocates silence in front of evil in the name of… what again? What in Hades does “build up” means, if it is detached from that solid Catholic thinking that must condemn this kind of corruption and scandals? When was Lent the time you don’t talk, of all people, of the moneylenders in the Temple?
It truly is sad. Very sad.
Learn to recognise your Grimas.
They tend to appear so peaceful at first.
Cardinal Pell’s post is so pithy, that you will read it in perhaps a minute. But he punches hard, for sure.
I keep being unable to see how Francis can even think of trying to see his revolutionary agenda sanctioned at the next Synod. He might as well fall on the sword. It is very obvious there will be a huge counterreaction if he tries another stunt like he did in October.
I will leave it to another post to comment on the open threat of Schism that Cardinal Marx has formulated, and that was everywhere yesterday evening. The words used by the Cardinal are so provocative, so unbelievably stupid that they deserve a detailed “copy and paste” I cannot do now.
What I notice here, though, is that the unworthy, schismatic Cardinal would not even think of formulating such threats if he had some founded, realistic hope that the Synod will, less than eight months from now, substantially accommodate the heretical requests of Prostitution & Simony Inc, aka the Church in Germany.
If, therefore, the heretical line has no chance to pass, a schism will have to be threatened and, possibly, put in place. Not officially, of course, but unofficially: exactly as the Dutch did with the notorious “Dutch Schism”, which ravaged the Dutch Church from the mid-Sixties to the beginning of the Eighties and delivered to Catholicism in the Netherlands a blow from which it never recovered. On that occasion, the Dutch started doing everything the “Liberal Presbyterian” way, but stopped short of saying “we are officially in Schism”. No doubt, Marx & Co. are planning to do exactly the same. This will not be an easy task (I am sure there are plenty of Catholics left in Germany), but it is feasible seen the very strong tendency of the German people to follow the Obrigkeit without questioning, and even to the point of self-destruction. I have already written that this man should be defrocked. It is clear I was right.
Still, the main point here is another one: it appears that Cardinal Marx is throwing the towel on the Synod.
This makes sense. The idea of an open clash of worldwide proportions is not viable for anyone but the maddest of pothead Popes. Francis knows that such an atomic mushroom would atomise his Pontificate. His lío does not extend to self-destruction.
We have seen last October, in the clearest possible way, that If Francis sees that the revolution cannot be accomplished without grave harm to himself – make no mistake: he does not care a straw for Christ or Truth – there will be no revolution. In the months since October he has tried to push his heretical, unChristian, sacrilegious agenda, but he has clearly met with strong resistance both and public and – it can be safely assumed – private. The signs are multiplying that he is about to give up on the project, fearful of months of negative barrage before the Synod.
Mind: we do not know what goes on in the head of a man who thinks it a capital feat to steal a crucifix from the hands of a dead man, admitted to smoking marijuana and had once found a stash of it on his luggage when he was Archbishop, has a notorious heretic as a spokesman for the English speaking Countries, lives under the roof of a homosexual, finds it normal to consort with Trannies, and the like. We do not know. The man is just a walking disgrace.
But that he is so detached from reality that he does not understand in what troubles he will put himself if he keeps running head on towards a very hard wall: that, perhaps, he has understood.
A source told me that Baldisseri was “furious” the book had been mailed to the participants and ordered staff at the Vatican post office to ensure they did not reach the Paul VI Hall. Reports of the book’s interception have also appeared on German news sites in recent days.
Those responsible for mailing the books meticulously tried to avoid interception, ensuring the copies were sent through the proper channels within the Italian and Vatican postal systems. The synod secretariat nevertheless claims they were mailed “irregularly,” without going through the Vatican post office, and so had a right to intercept them.
The book’s mailers strongly refute this, saying they were legitimately mailed. Some copies were successfully delivered.
The words above are nothing but a confirmation of the heist, thinly veiled with “procedural” reasons.
What does it mean that a book is mailed “irregularly”? That it did not say “Buongiorno” like a good book is supposed to do? And as the books were mailed through the Italian post, where else would they be mailed but in the place provided for it in the working relationship between the Italian and the Vatican Post?
And why were they seized? Did Baldisseri fear that the packets contained bombs? If so, why was the police not called?
How can Baldisseri, or anyone else, maintain that they did not know that these were books? How seizes a book because it has not – he says – delivered through the “proper” channels? And even admitting – absurdly – that there were reasons for holding the books, why were the addressees not informed that they have received a packet that could not be delivered for (absurd) procedural reasons, like the Italian custom office does when you receive CDs from the USA for which custom duties must be paid?
Thieves, and liars too.
I hope some bishop (or several of them) presses a formal charge of theft to the proper Vatican authorities, informs the press, and demands the start of a serious investigation. Not in order to force Francis and his to become Catholic, but to expose the filth in the Vatican at every level.
Oportet ut scandala eveniant.
This is a serious scandal.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
And as yours truly had already noticed, the cannonade against heresy is going on unabated. The Pollyannas can happily keep dreaming. All the others know the object of this brutal verbal attack is… the one by whom the buck stops, the one who made the mess possible, and the one who was most certainly behind the Synod.
This time, it is Bishop Athanasius Schneider who takes it on himself to fire from all the cannons at his disposal. We are accustomed to clear words from him; but this time, his words are of unheard-of brutality. Clearly, this one is not a Jesuit.
Bishop Schneider attacks the mentality of the entire midterm Relatio in terms I have never heard before in a prelate criticising a church document, even if a provisional one. To call a Vatican document representative of a
radical Neo-pagan ideology
is very probably the worst conceivable offence any…
View original 636 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
This is probably not the first time it happens, but it is indicative of the intention of some Cardinals not to allow Kasper and Francis to have their way.
The Eponymous Flower published yesterday a blog post about an interview to Cardinal Scola, in which the latter stated, very diplomatically, that he did not think Pope Francis would plunge the Church in a huge chaos, whilst unmistakable stating why it would be so.
Yesterday evening the same Eponymous Flower published a new a blog post about an interview to Cardinal Müller, who clearly states that… the separation of doctrine and praxis would be heresy.
Francis’ and Kasper’s ears must be whistling, because there can be no doubt about the target of Cardinal Müller’s statement.
Cardinal Müller is here very publicly drawing a line in the sand, and forbidding Cardinal Kasper…
View original 107 more words
It is a fine morning in the Eternal City, and the Bishop of Rome has just finished his very merciful rest. Soon the air will be filled with the fragrance of Spring; but alas, we are not there yet.
The Bishop of Rome dresses himself, and then meets the homosexual priest that runs the establishment where he occupies an entire floor. Some words occur between the two. One has a strong South American accent, the other a somewhat high pitch. A homosexual, this one. Several scandals already. Francis is not at all disturbed. He likes the company of perverts.
Francis says his morning prayers, obviously without counting Hail Marys, because he doesn’t like it at all. He uses a small crucifix that has been with him many years now. He has stolen it from the cold hands of a dead priest. He holds the crucifix in his hands every day, and the thought does not disturb him at all. What a smart move that was.
Today, Francis has a guest. An Argentinian Rabbi. The man is often a guest these days. They chat a lot. The man refuses Christ every day, and seems intentioned to die in his refusal. Is Pope Francis fazed by this? Not in the least. He pays attention that the man eats kosher, a subject matter in which he is rather fit. He leaves the discussions about the “details” to the theologians. Hey, the man believes “in God”! OK, this does not include the Son or the Holy Ghost, and can therefore, strictly speaking, not even include the Father. But who cares? These are “details” about which theologians quarrel, not him.
He moves along and starts to walk toward the Papal Apartments, where he has his office and a second (unoccupied; because of his humility, see…) apartment. He throws a glance out of a magnificent window, at a distant building where some of the calligraphers worked. There were many of them, sending beautifully written papal blessings to newlywed couples, and the like. A nice business, too, and a very pious one. What a joy for a newlywed bride to see on the wall, beautifully framed, the papal blessing for what will now be the care and vocation – and the tears, and the sorrow perhaps – of her entire life. But Francis didn’t like it. “Have I got rid all those people?” He thinks. “I sure remember they were supposed to be unemployed come January? Better ask the secretary, I think”. Yes, Holy Father. Think. Where can a calligrapher find another job as a calligrapher in a place like Rome? Hundreds, all or pretty much all of them, you wanted to make redundant. In a city where this means a tragedy for the entire family. Did you do that in the end? Was that so evil a profession? Sorry, I am talking at the clouds. Yes, Francis did want to make all of them redundant. he was not at all disturbed.
Francis arrives at the office, and meets a Cardinal very near to him. This Cardinal is accused – publicly, for all the world to see – of having stolen almost 200 copies of a book he did not want as many bishops to receive. A heist, and a criminal energy, for which in Italy he would realistically expect a conviction, and very possibly home jail time straight away. Francis knows of the accusation, because it’s everywhere in Catholic circles. The Thieving Cardinal, people say. Francis smiles at the thought of the Cardinal making so many copies of that horribly sanctimonious book disappear. Ah, the derring-do! The chutzpah! He likes that! “Hmmmm, I will ask him if he has ordered the heist. If he says no, that’s it. If he says yes and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
He is now about to open his diary (in Italian: agenda) and is reminded that he has said marriage for priests is, actually, there. “I’ll have to discuss this soon”, he thinks. “If a would-be priest wants pussy, who am I to judge?”
He sees the programme for the next days, and is angered that there is nothing very fit for the media all week. “I will have to do something”, he thinks. “Let us see whom I can receive. Hhmmmm… Hmmm… Pro-homo priest? No, done that. Concubines with fruit of sin who want to be married? Hhmmm, no, used that already, too. Phone call with adulterer who wants communion? Ouch, that too! Then an interview with Scalfari perhaps? We could make another book of it! Salvation for atheists, conscience as substitute for Christianity! I like that! Or, I could meet a Trannie? No, wait…Ah, I got it! Anti-fracking, proto-comunistas activists! Oh no! Got that too!!
Then comes the meeting with Father Rosica. The man has threatened to sue a poor Catholic blogger and family father. The blogosphere is aflame. But hey, why would this bother him… “
¿Como estas, Tom?” No, better not touch the issue. People will forget. All this mess for a Canadian chap. A churchgoer. Blah! Whatever. Who cares.
The meeting with Rosica ends, and Francis remains alone. He throws a glance at St Peter’s Square, below. The masses have long disappeared. Fewer and fewer people want to see him. He has tried everything, even the showers for the homeless. But nothing. He can’t keep embracing wheelchairs anymore; even at Patheos they have had enough.
Oh, come on. Something will be found. It’s just a momentary dip. Perverts love him. Communists love him. Abortionists love him. Environmentalists love him. Why should he be bothered with these sanctimonious people smelling of holy water? Cazzo!
Oops! He did it again! He must pay attention. Once already it slipped, and he got the benefit of the doubt. A second time would be a mess. These damn hypocrites, always out to find fault! Ca… aargh!
So thinks our man, Francis, the Humble Bishop, and goes back to his splendid desk.
We leave him there, in a fine Roman morning.
A day in the age of Mercy.
Firstly a short premise: I do not approve of Sedevacantism. Sedevacantist comments are not allowed. If I see that your comments aim at pushing – overtly or covertly – a Sedevacantist agenda, you will be banned. Some have already tested me in that and you do not read their comments anymore, so there. In these things, one must be a Fascist. Yours Truly does Fascism well.
Having said that, some Sedes have quality sites, to which I link as little as I can, but at times I think are worth linking to.
One of these is Novus Ordo Watch; who, it must be said, make an admirable work (if from the wrong premise) of collection and exposure of Bergoglio’s madness. I am sure many of their readers are not Sedevacantists, and visit the site because of the quality of the content itself.
This time they have some very interesting content from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro. Gnocchi writes a comment in response to a reader, and this comment developed to a kind of article in itself.
Your humble correspondent identifies almost completely in what Gnocchi says, with only two small observations:
1. It can be misleading to say that “we cannot say” whether Bergoglio is Pope or not. Bergoglio is the Pope, period. What I think Gnocchi wanted to say is that we are nobody to start questioning the legitimacy of the one whom the Church considers the Pope.
2. I do know why we are being punished with Bergoglio, and Gnocchi says as much implicitly when he says in Bergoglio the (earthly) Church has the Pope she deserves. We are being punished for our sins of arrogance and rebellion to Truth. As I have already stated, it is as if the Lord would ram down our throat a big quantity of the very excrements we thought would be wholesome in smaller doses. If you liked V II, why, you must love Bergoglio!
Please click the site, enjoy the article, and do not be influenced by the Sedevacantist argument.
V II stated, in a way, the principle that Catholic drugs are fine, thinking that this would be limited to the marijuana as everything else was unthinkable. Then a Pope comes who has lived his entire life in this marijuana-filled atmosphere and reasons that hey, we must take this seriously here: if drugs are fine, then… drugs are fine. What follows is injections of heroin like it’s Catholic Junkie Day.
Bergoglio is recognisable as a Catholic only when he reads statements written by Catholics. He himself is as much Catholic as my cat. Can a Pope be as bad as that? Of course he can! Many have certainly become Pope who were atheists in every cell. The Holy Ghost does not assure that the Pope will have fear of the Lord, or believe in Him.
Gnocchi is also right in the disastrous Ratzinger attitude, and in saying that another Ratzinger would, at this point, not stop the decline and decomposition at all.
The day Benedict dies, I do not think he will have to fear for having resigned. But he must live with the fear of being punished for the way he has wasted eight years of Pontificate thinking that a varnish of orthodoxy and Summorum Pontificum would be enough, whilst he proceeded to the most atrocious appointments to please the Modernist crowd around him.
The Gnocchi Reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
“Will God accept being put to the side like a useless toy for much longer?”
These are the last, ominous words of a beautiful article appeared in Riscossa Cristiana, and beautifully translated courtesy of Francesca Romana at Rorate Caeli.
I invite you to follow the link and to read there the entire article.
You will find, there, several other ominous statements. The most beautiful is from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro:
“We will find ourselves more and more faced with someone who professes to speak to us in the name of God by telling us that we have no need of Him.”
Gnocchi is right. But I do not want to spoil the fun. Enjoy Marco Bongi’s explanation of why this is the case.
Our clergymen have forgotten God. They worship the world and, ultimately, themselves.
It will all end up…
View original 4 more words