Desperate Helpers

Circus Bergoglio was open again

One of the funny (if you are in a very good mood) or infuriating (if you aren't) things about the increasingly more worrying utterances of Francis The Confused is the limitless fantasy and inventiveness of those who seem to have chosen as their life mission to find an explanation why Francis is not a dangerous, confused, possibly stupid, certainly ignorant and most certainly arrogant bad priest.

Whilst Francis continues to deliver with almost daily frequency ample evidence of the new religion he wants to shovel down their throats – a religion in which atheists can be saved, but counting rosaries is bad; sodomites in his own entourage should not be judged, but orthodox Catholics should – they produce themselves in the most extraordinary circus numbers to try to persuade us that whilst he did say what he said, he did not really mean what he said; he meant… what we mean; and he did so… because it must be so.

It is as if – helped by the in the meantime notorious difficulty of the man to write two sentences in a row that are logically correlated – they had decided that we can give to Francis' utterances whatever meaning we decide is acceptable.

This is obviously wrong. Whilst it is clear to every child by now that this Pope can't write, can't present an argument in an halfway logical way and is absolutely not concerned about his utterances having the semblance of coherence, the sheer tsunami of his declarations, homilies, & Co. does not leave any doubt as to the general direction of his very confused thinking: a sad mixture of ignorance, Peronism, ignorance, extreme ecumenism, ignorance, religious relativism, ignorance, pauperism, ignorance, arrogance and more ignorance of which he thinks – if he is simply ignorant instead of outright evil – that it deserves the name of Catholicism. I begin to think not only the man writes like a third grader, but his Catholic instruction is at pretty much the same level.

When I read the daily products of this man's confused mind – and I shudder at thinking what I will read today, tomorrow, or in the weeks and moths to come; I hope we are not talking of years here… – I have no doubts about the general direction of his confused thoughts. One can well be a heretic even if he is confused, and Francis manages the first on a regular basis, and the second on a daily one. Still, my dear reader, be aware that in his confused way, most of the time he is criticising… you.

Every time, the desperate helpers are immediately out there is force, trying to explain away what – mediocre as the man's speaking and thinking is – is clear enough. They insist in telling us that the Pope means “triumphalism” is when people think vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream, or Golden Retrievers are superior to Labradors; but this is not the teaching of Christ, so Francis is right. Or they concoct strange theories according to which the Pope does not say that counting rosaries is bad, but that counting rosaries with a bad attitude – or whilst being an evil person; or after eating carrots – is bad. Or they explain that when the Pope says that he who refuses God can be saved if he “does good”, he really means that, erm, I mean, in a way, well if he believes in believing in something than he still believes, right? I have read so many of these pathetic equilibrisms I now simply smile.

Poor souls. That Pope Francis has been shooting at them – yes, at them – for six months now they still haven't noticed. According to them, a man who has done nothing else than demolish the way the Church understands herself and Catholicism has always been intended, truly from the first moment, actually wants to protect them. The day Francis says that the commandments are abolished and from now on love for the poor will substitute them – he would not say it in such a clear way because he is unable to; but the meaning would be clear enough – they will rush to explain to us what he really means is we must not neglect chocolate ice cream and Labradors.

For heaven's sake, one can be mistranslated a couple of times, not every time. One can express himself in a confused way on very rare occasions, but if he is always confused you must at some point draw some conclusion. One can at times make statements that might be read in an heterodox way, but then he would also correct the wrong impression he caused, or have it corrected; and he would not do it on a regular basis.

Francis does nothing of the sort. How blind must one be not to see that if it is leaked that he has heavily criticised and mocked those who count rosaries and he does not have a half word to say in their defence he really thinks them worthy of condemnation and mockery. How naive must one be not to realise that his “who am I to judge” in front of scandalous sodomy from people in his own entourage was exactly mired at garnering the approval of leftists and perverts the world over, and at the same time proclaiming him as vastly superior to all “judgmental” Catholics, including his predecessors. How long will it take before they understand Francis has started his work of demolition the very moment he was elected – the choice of name; the Mozzetta, or the shoes are all from the first hours of his pontificate – and has simply carried it on since. Good Lord, this is a Pope who does not even want to be called that way. Can you imagine a more subversive attitude than this.

Make no mistake: if Francis had been a priest at the time of the Inquisition he would have been burnt at the stake a long time ago; and the worst is that I am pretty sure he would agree with this statement himself, but without understanding the consequences of his agreement.

We live in times when not only the Pontiff spits heresies like it's going out of fashion, but an army of desperate helpers rushes to explain to us he is really, if you twist every single word of his until it means what you want it to mean, actually fine.

I can't wait – so to speak – for the next heresy; and for the abstruse excuses the army of desperate helpers will invent to explain the heresy away, for the 150th time.

Poor desperate helpers. He's having them all. They do not notice.



Posted on September 12, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 24 Comments.

  1. After his most recent outburst re. you do not have to believe in God to go to heaven, I saw that the SSPX website posted the Syllabus of Condemed Error. Gee, so much of what the bishop of Rome has said lately falls under any number of the categories listed in the Syllabus.

    • That of the atheists who attain he’ll if they “do good” wins the prize for the worst piece of rubbish of the first six months of pontificate hands down.

      I fear he liked it a lot, though, so I will prepare myself for other such like rubbish.


  2. Funny – I just read such a post:

    “But at the same time, I think it is clever of his Holiness is to goad the media into saying something stupid because it is sparking interest in the teachings of the Catholic Church – wait, do they really believe that?! – and hopefully people will delve further.”

    Sparking interest in the teachings of the Church? Ah, no – that’s not what’s happening at all.

    […]But to Catholics, this Pope is giving us a challenge – and that is, to be ready to educate the masses when he states a teaching-in-a-nutshell and everyone loses their mind.

    The writer then quotes from paragraphs on conscience from the catechism which in no way comports with what the Pope has says and calls it good – or something.

    That’s what I call jumping through hoops to explain something that’s mostly unexplainable.

  3. Alarming to say the least ….Pope Francis has me really concerned . But as a whole I am alarmed at what I am seeing with my own eyes these days. What has happened to the Holy Catholic Church ? I pray daily for HER and for her purification and deliverance …God have mercy on us all!

  4. On a hopeful note, if “Francis the Confused” is the best that tne V2 gang could come up with at the conclave, then the future must be bright.

    • I have a “German moment” perhaps but I do not get the joke…
      My great fear is unless Francis frees the sea sharpies, the Invasion of the Francis Clones at the next conclave is upon us…


  5. The job description of a priest is to lead and help as many souls as possible attain Salvation. The job description of the Pope (St. Peter) is to lead the Cardinals, Bishops and priests with clarity and orthodox Catholic teaching. The babel has reached the point that it will take the second coming of Jesus to end this spiraling crisis of faith.


    George Brenner

    • I will settle for a heart attack for Francis for now. Not a deadly one if it can be avoided. Then the cards would be mixed again. The problem is, the cards are bad anyway.
      But let us not lose courage. The Lady of Quito told us when everything seems lost, orthodoxy will come back with a vengeance. You don’t need to wait for the Second Coming, which is traditionally linked to other events very far in the future (the Antichrist etc.).


  6. Excellent post, Mundabor, about a horrendous and disgraceful Papacy. I can see less and less of a connection between the Butlins-style ‘Eucharistic assemblies’, with their near Protestantism, their infantilism, their inept mid-Atlantic English, their banality and their doctrinal dubiety, presided over by the likes of our current Pontiff and the traditional Roman Mass; between the miserable conciliar circus, with its open heresy and blasphemy, and the One True Fold of the Redeemer, the Holy Roman Church, which I have loved and sought to serve since I was brought into Her fold.

  7. You have to admit though, it’s utterly amazing how those who rush to the defense of a statement somehow know with precision what he means.

    God Bless.

  8. St. Benedict's Thistle

    Thank you. The Pope’s apologists are shining us on (and probably themselves in some instances). I prefer the truth.

  9. Why does it matter that atheists go to heaven since they don’t believe in heaven? On the contrary can we assume that Catholics, or more specifically orthodox Catholics, are the only ones who are going to end up in hell (for being orthodox Catholics, and counting rosaries)?

  10. Thanks for writing this; it’s what I’ve been thinking all day since reading the story in the paper this morning. I left the Anglican Church for the Catholic Church, and I saw the exact same pattern of behavior among conservative Anglicans, for years. I think it’s a panicky, “This can’t be happening!” rejection of reality, and it can go on for a surprisingly long time. I’d hoped I’d left this sort of fantasy thinking behind; I’m sorry to see it arrive in the Catholic Church hot on my heels.

    What you should remember is that not everyone who reacts this way is an innocent. These trials will sift the honest from the dishonest; while some do indeed believe that this is all just an unfortunate misunderstanding, and surely the Holy Father will demonstrate he’s really “on our side” any day now, others will keep up the lie to the very last minute. These false comforters are so devoted to the “institution”, often because they make their living from it, they will do anything to delay the realization of the truth on the part of the victims. They’ll try to stall and wheedle, and dissuade people from taking any “rash” action that could disrupt their comfortable existence. Mostly they’re afraid of losing the money these now-despised conservatives provide. For years I heard Anglican bishops urging calm, and all that came of it was that by the time conservatives DID realize that the revolution was upon them, it was too late to save their church.

    • Very well said. I always wonder where the stupidity of such commenters end and the stupidity of their readers begins…
      We aren’t in such a bad shape as the Anglocans but you are right, the reactions and the human types involved are the same.
      These day, I also often think of the Grima Wormtongues criticising us for criticising the Pope…


  11. The Modernist as Reformer

    38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, some idea may be gained of the reforming mania which possesses them: in all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. Reform of philosophy, especially in the seminaries: the scholastic philosophy is to be relegated to the history of philosophy among obsolete systems, and the young men are to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. Reform of theology; rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be for the future written and taught only according to their modern methods and principles. Dogmas and their evolution are to be harmonised with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been duly reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, or at least steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. Ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic parts. Its spirit with the public conscience, which is not wholly for democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity, and authority should be decentralised. The Roman Congregations, and especially the index and the Holy Office, are to be reformed. The ecclesiastical authority must change its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political and social organization, it must adapt itself to those which exist in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, both in the estimation in which they must be held and in the exercise of them. The clergy are asked to return to their ancient lowliness and poverty, and in their ideas and action to be guided by the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, echoing the teaching of their Protestant masters, would like the suppression of ecclesiastical celibacy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed according to their principles?

    One can’t say that Pope Saint Pius X didn’t warn us…

  12. I am a Catholic who divorced to extricate myself and my children from a marriage to a physically abusive spouse. I abandoned my faith and re-married outside of the church several years later, Twenty years later through the grace of God, I regained my faith at a traditional (SSPX) parish, but because there were no valid grounds for annulling my first marriage, my pastor has informed me that I have several choices: 1) I must separate from my lady (not my wife in the eyes of the church) or 2) I must live with her “as brother and sister” or 3) I must live in a state of mortal sin and without the Eucharist…until one of the three of us dies. I understand the sanctity of marriage and the damage done to my soul in breaking my marriage vow. I am praying for the Holy Ghost’s guidance. Neither my wife (of 15 years) nor I had any inkling that I might return to the Church and that my return would impose such harsh punishment.

    I suppose Pope Francis would welcome me back into the fold–even though I do not deserve it–and that bothers me greatly. There is either right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, or there is no point in Catholicism. In my dark moments, while I find it strange that a murderer can confess his sin and regain the Eucharist, while I cannot, there must be a rock of truth and belief upon which our faith is anchored. Francis has interjected another new shroud of doubt over my faith.

    • Do not let Francis confuse you, or – and the temptation will come – think that Catholicism and its rule must be a fraud because of him.
      The SSPX priests are the best you find in Catholicism, I am glad you did not go to V II priests who would have bent over backwards to tell you your situation is fine.

      Continue to pray for the Holy Ghost’s guidance, though I am sure He will give you exactly the same guidance the SSPX gave you. So let me rephrase: continue to pray the Holy Ghost that he may give you the strength to get out from an adulterous relationship. I frankly doubt the “brother and sister” thingy would work, because the scandal would remain. As I understand it, you already know what there is to do, though the strength to follow up is not there. You have a great grace in the SSPX. They are in the business of saving souls, not pleasing them.

      If it may be of any consolation, millions of Catholic men and women prefer to live alone rather than in an adulterous relationship. There is always a price to pay. In your case it is more difficult because the relationship was formed during your years away from the Church, but then again this might tell you something about the sanctity of this union at least as things are now.

      Stay near to the SSPX. I suggest you do not even listen to Francis as people like him are the most dangerous for the salvation of people like you. Resist the temptation of finding someone who gives you a “get out of jail card”, even if he should be a Pope. It’s a counterfeit.

      Best luck to you.


  13. “But let us not lose courage. The Lady of Quito told us when everything seems lost, orthodoxy will come back with a vengeance. You don’t need to wait for the Second Coming, which is traditionally linked to other events very far in the future (the Antichrist etc.).”

    The problem with this premise Mundabor, is that the “smoke of Satan” within the church is not the only precursor to our Lord’s Second Coming. The signs inside the church, and everywhere else in the world, are all around us, and theres nothing to lead me to believe that the Second Coming must be linked to anything “very far in the future” !! Do you believe in a Second Coming, or like many Catholics, discount or minimize it as some kind of Aesop’s Fable? If not near, why not near, or even imminent? Please do not disrespect this line of thinking. The “events” and signs are all around us, and my eyes are wide open. There is no pushing this train back in the station. You post mounting evidence everyday on this blog, that supports this. God Bless everyone here. I am blessed to have access to a wonderful Priest and TLM, I pray my Rosary daily, as well as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy daily, and am in Eucharistic Adoration every Friday at midnight (what a blessed opportunity to be with the Lord) and believe Jesus will come again in my generation. Why not now?

    • I have read a book of an old French theologian, called “the end of the present world and the Mysteries of the future life”, a book opening with an impressive endorsement of St. Therese of Lisieux.
      The author of this book states that it has been traditionally believed that some conditions must be present before the Second Coming: by memory, the complete triumph of Christianity, followed by a phase of complacency which will precede the coming of the Antichrist, who will in turn be a kind of dictator of a planetary government and an age of illusory planetary peace and unity masking his great evil under the usual slogns, followed by the Second Coming and the showdown between Christ and the Antichrist.
      I do not see the first or second or third of this in my lifetime.

      What the author of the book writes matches what I have heard from priests above suspicions concerning the theological “necessity” that one day Christianity be the only shop on earth; with the last ones to be converted being the Jews, in a sort of “full circle”.

      Again, it does not have to happen that way, but it all makes sense to me.


  14. Is the good Bishop joking? Say my conscience tells me that abortion is a good, compassionate act, and that I should perform as many abortions as I possibly can. I do not sin?

    Does the Bishop of Rome not understand that it is an informed conscience that is decisive – not a bunch of rationalisations?

    ¡Qué raro!

%d bloggers like this: