Father Rosica has, in a not entirely unpredictable development of the recent events, made public that he does not intend to sue the middle-aged, quisque de populo blogger behind the (excellent) Vox Cantoris blog. Find the entire text on the blog itself.
I do not belong to those who say “oh Mundabor, your side has won, why insist with the accusations?”
I am fully persuaded that if Father Rosica had to backpedal and swallow a public defeat and humiliation it was not because he has suddenly seen the light, but because reality caught up with him, and taught him it was better to enter in damage control mode. There is no trace whatsoever this particular bully had a change of heart. There is no word of apology to Mr Domet. There are even lies and accusations which, time allowing, will be the object of another post. There is, furthermore, the continuation of a threatening and bullying behaviour as the parties were discussing; a threat that was ended only when the determination of the other side to engage in open battle was made evident.
Shame on you, Father Rosica! Shame on you, Father Rosica! Shame on you, Father Rosica!
Then there is the scandalous matter of Rome’s reaction to Mr Domet’s intervention. This should, time and will allowing, be the object of a third blog post.
What is important to notice here is that Mr Domet is now free from this Damocles’ sword hanging over his head, and can go on blogging undisturbed. I hope he will continue to blog about Father Rosica with the same enthusiasm. I will certainly not lose sight of this very, very peculiar prelate.
This time, the bully got a lesson. Hats down for Mr Domet.
And now for the bigger picture: was this, then, a “war on bloggers”? I never thought it was, and I am more and more persuaded of it after the most recent events. This was simply the very stupid act of an extremely vain man, who thought he could silence a blogger evidently uncomfortable for him with the threat of financial ruin. Despicable as this is, I would not read in the vain stupidity of one man a general plan that, even if it had been conceived by some six years old child at the Vatican, would not have had any possibility of success anyway. Not even, mind, if all the planet’s bloggers were to reside in Canada; the more so as most of them, or at least their blog, reside in the United States. This “war on bloggers” was, I believe, never there in the first place. No, the stupidity and vanity of one man are the reason for all this mess.
This was the senseless act of a man whose boundless arrogance caused him an obvious loss of the sense of reality; a man who perhaps had already used his dirty trick – let us say it once again: the threat of financial ruin, for which I still have to read one word of apology to Mr Domet – with some other small blogger in the past, and now thought he could use the same measure again.
The way Father Rosica has decided to get out of the worst of the mess in which he has put himself is not less despicable than the behaviour that put him in that situation in the first place.
A bully then, a bully now. But this time he is a bully with a bleeding nose, and a swollen lip.
Serves you right, Father Rosica.
People of all sorts write comments on this blog. I do not, nor will I ever, Duck Duck Go around to see what else they write on the Internet with the same nickname.
Some of them may, then, have a knack for questionable content. Do they go around spreading, say, Antisemitism, Sedevacantism, or whatever other stupid “ism”? How does this affect me?
If someone writes reasonable – perhaps not approved, but still sane – comments on this blog and then proceeds to get into a synagogue with an Uzi and make a massacre, am I to blame? I would say, he is to blame. I can’t check the mental sanity of those who at least do not appear mad. If they seem unstable or professional pains in the neck already in my combox I will not publish their comment in the first place.
And then there is another matter.
When one converts to Catholicism, who knows how much anti-Catholic rubbish might be around, written by him whilst still very confused? Shall I make this kind of enquiry? Would I want to? If I do it for Titius, why not for Caius?
Then there is more.
Let’s say one is still a Sedevacantist, but he feels attracted to my blog. He writes comments that cannot be questioned in that respect. He gets to know the blog, and Catholicism with it. Slowly, he gets to see the light. I have, I am pleased to say, converted a couple already. It may work. Or not, as the case may be. But should I leave anyone out?
I will reflect on this in the coming weeks. For the moment, the policy is that I will not put my nose in whatever else you say around, if what you write in my blog is at least reasonable. If you give me reason to think you a nutcase I will can you (or ban you) without hesitation and without further enquiries. You are welcome to comment here even if you are in the midst of some strange process of growth, because I would want to be a part of Providence’s work to lead you to the fold. But in no way I will tolerate comments that will confuse the other readers, or engender the impression that this here is a place that the wrong people can use as a megaphone for wrong ideas.
This blog exists to strengthen Catholics in the faith, and convert non-Catholics to it. I will not enquire even as to where you are now. But what you write here had better have solidly Catholic hands and feet, or you are better off lurking.
I think this strikes a good compromise. This blog also exists to bring people in, and I think this includes some leeway to take account of the confusion of our times.
Still: if you discover yourself still influenced by your thinking, by superstitions, by strange beliefs, by everything that is not Catholic tradition: let it go. A reader of this blog must face the simple fact that Catholicism has all the truth, and all the answers.
Purify yourself of the toxins of your old life. Embrace life in truth.
It is fairly easy to see why men prefer the Traditional Latin Mass. Whilst perhaps not many men will articulate the reasons for their instinctual preference, I would like to give a clue of why I think it is so. This is, obviously, not considering the intrinsic superiority of the TLM from a liturgical point of view. This here is, so to speak, purely hormonal as opposed to liturgical.
1) it is solemn, ordered and, in a way, military. Its rigid structure, the prescripted movements and gestures are vaguely military, and essentially manly. When you attend a TLM, you know that where the priest comes from he was one of the bulls, not one of the queers.
2) It has no women around the Sanctuary. It says out loud “this Sanctuary here is men’s space”. Or if you prefer another film quotation, it shouts: “this is Sparta!”
Whilst the Novus Ordo sanctuary may also be, blessedly, all-male if the priest is smart or endowed with cojones, in the Tridentine Mass this is a necessary element, and it makes a big difference. It’s like visiting a pizzeria as opposed to go to a fast food joint and hope they have some pizza of sort.
3) It has no repetitions of dubious value. Why the Responsorial Psalm should have one line repeated after each phrase is beyond me. Most who attend do not have Alzheimer’s. It sounds childish to me. Some Novus Ordo priests positively refuse to allow the faithful to “participate” in that fashion. I think they know why.
Mind: of course we repeat things in Catholicism. We pray repeatedly the same prayers (not Francis, of course; but we do). We repeat the ora pro nobis in a Litany. We repeat the “miserere nobis” at Mass, and the “Domine, non sum dignus” is said thrice in the Tridentine. But in all these cases, the repetition makes perfect sense as an emphasis, it does not create the impression the children should be prevented from chatting or being distracted, or may complain they are not “participating” enough.
4) There is no ugly, Protestantised greeting of the priest outside the church after Mass; a feat that now seems common in Europe, perhaps so that old hags do not complain Father neglects them. It’s like old women inviting for tea and scones, and watch out if you are engaged… Isn’t it a wonderful day, vicar? Oh, sorry: Father?
5) There is no risk of some smug septuagenarian old Sixty-Eighter thanking you for coming at Mass, as if you were doing a favour to him personally, or he were God’s Personal Assistant. You see the utter persuasion of their own holiness positively etched in their “welcome”. I am always tempted to answer “no need to thank, ma’am; I am not here for you anyway”.
I confess, never got the nerve. Must do once before I die.
6) It’s reverent and quiet. Never ever have I seen a mother colouring with his child at a TL mass, or playing with him as the mass goes on. Miraculously, people who attend the TLM always find alternative arrangements that do not include considering the Church the extension of the kindergarten. It truly is astonishing. To quote a famous movie for the third time: “A miracle! A miracle!”
None of these point touches on the proper liturgical aspects. But all of them touches on the difference between a place that attracts men as men, and causes some of them to be right there on the sanctuary one day as soldiers; and a place that reminds one very strongly of a kindergarten run by some ominicchio, or even by a limp wrist with a funny voice. Been there, seen and heard that.
Men prefer the Traditional Mass.
In case you should think that when all it's said and done Francis' Pontificate will leave behind only a huge amount of senseless waffle, you can change your mind now.
Francis is aggressively promoting his agenda through episcopal appointments. After Chicago, San Diego is now getting an excuse of a bishop, promoted to a successor of the Apostles because he wants to undermine them.
Robert McElroy is a social justice warrior; his main care is “income inequality”, not the salvation of souls; after his theology studies he got his doctorate in political science. Whether this speaks of a strong faith I leave it to you to decide. And he is obviously not a friend of the Traditional Latin Mass.
It angers me, it angers me no end that when we get a generally conservative Pope he will mostly make bad appointments to appease the progressives, and when we get the progressive Pope he proceeds to promote the worst people without any qualm.
Conservative prelates must stop being sissies. There is no value in helping the enemies of Christ. If a climate of loud opposition to Francis is created by Cardinals, priests and bishops, the appointment of bad bishops will be at least more difficult, because Francis sniffs the air like an Irish Setter for every whiff of massive opposition.
I did not expect a Pope like Benedict to promote Catholic hardliners, because he never was one himself. But the appointment of solidly Catholic bishops, without exceptions, should have been expected from a Pope who knows where the Truth lies.
May God forgive Benedict for his lack of decisiveness and bite. Eight years down the drain. What a chance, and what a waste. Who knows when the next chance will arise.
A small “c” catholic magazine has written a hack piece on the “Pewsitter”, describing them as a lot of many bad things, but most of all hostile to the Bishop of Rome, Francis The Most Humble Atheist.
As the “Pewsitter” is my favourite news aggregator, I feel the need to say a word or two about the matter.
It never ceases to astonish me that even as Francis shoots on the very basics of Catholicism every day, bad magazines not deserving a link feel the need to question the way a news aggregator uses exclamation points, or the like. It's like complaining about the weather whilst Stalin is invading Poland.
Yes, the “Pewsitter” is very critical of this Papacy, and this is evident from the references to the linked articles. But the problem is the papacy, not the news aggregator.
One also wonders how uncritical most contributors to said magazine (the magazine itself was, blessedly, still not in existence) were when Benedict was the Pope. I seem to notice a certain bias here. A bias, once again, against Catholics.
The good news is that the bad magazine itself admits the “Pewsitter” has made a name for itself in conservative Catholic circles. One wonders why. My take is that it is because it is run by sincere Catholics.
Long live the Pewsitter. It will remain my first choice among news aggregators. The more so now, that by merely using it I anger fake Catholics.
I can’t wait for the announcement that Salt & Light TV has given mandate to the prestigious law firm Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, Solicitors – and as everyone knows among the toughest guys in Toronto – to sue Father Rosica.
The lawsuit will obviously be motivated by the great loss of reputation, prestige and, in general, face linked to the fact that the entire Catholic world has discovered what kind of CEO they have, and what a bad broadcaster they are in general.
You see, a NuChurch broadcaster must walk a fine line between spreading heresy and not being made the butt of jokes for doing it. But when the entire planet knows your CEO interviews defrocked priests and finds them so wonderful, licks the plates of Jesuit America Magazine as “hopeful” and, in general, do whatever he must to ingratiate himself to whomever can let him have some appointment, prize, or other trinket, than the business is at risk of serious harm.
Salt & Light might obviously fire the man, and the press release explaining the fact would not even need to be very long, “for threatening to sue a blogger” being more than sufficient as an explanation. But this would only help them to contain the damage, not eliminate it.
They might, methinks, also sue Father Rosica for a substantial amount of money. In the end the man can afford expensive counsel, so we are probably not talking of St Francis here.
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern’s headed paper must be of exquisite quality, and beautifully ornate. I’d love to see the scan on the Internet.
But no, I won’t be holding my breath. Similia similibus solvuntur.
These are the chaps who have Rosica as their CEO.
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.