Daily Archives: September 27, 2013

Apps For The Perfect Pelagian


I thought you might want to know that the app market has already provided for us Pelagians.

This simple counter app for android will allow you to count your prayers (or even rosaries!) in the comfort of your smartphone or tablet.

For Iphone, I have found Bean, of if you like a more elegant surface, this here might do. Both are multiple counters, so you can count separately several items: say, the rosaries you have prayed, Francis’ heretical statements, the bishops’ heretical statements mentioning Francis’ ones, etc.

This must be Pelagian’s heaven.

I hope you will enjoy these apps and will install one in your favourite device to indulge in your Pelagianism.

Kindly do not tell Francis, though. 

He would be very “concerned”.


“Blind And Unchecked Passion For Novelty”

St. Pius X, pray for us!

St. Pius X, pray for us!

“Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense — with some modification when needful — should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. “Blind’- they are, and “leaders of the blind” puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which “they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself.”

“Pascendi Dominici Gregis”, 13. Emphasis mine. 

Some Words To The Wise

It is perhaps fitting to explain in two (or three) words how I would like to moderate the comments appearing on the comment box.

Please no comments that are openly critical of blogs I like. It isn’t the done thing that the comment box of one blog is used for this kind of exercise concerning other blogs; certainly not when the blogs in question are, in general, on our side. There is a difference between a liberal or dissenting blog and a conservative blog honestly trying to defend a certain position; even then, when we consider the position indefensible.

When I want to criticise a friendly blog, I will take care to do it myself and in a way that is not seen as hostile; at least I will try. I know it’s a difficult and very subjective exercise, but there is a level of mild criticism with which I feel comfortable, and a level of less mild criticism with which I don’t. Please reflect the one or other blog may be doing an excellent work even if you don’t like – nor do I – their position on the current pontiff, disgracefully reigning. Please also consider by publishing critical comments I would be seen as “agitating”, or offering a platform against other blogs, through the indirect way of the comments published here. This is not the way I want this blog to be seen. Whatever criticism I want to make, I’ll word it myself and put my signature below it. 

I know it’s hard at times, but we should not start to have this blog as a platform for an open criticism of other blogs, or TV channels. There are enough liberals shooting at us, let us not shoot at each other. If you must, try to take the comment box of the one or other blog as the work of humorists, brought to you for free courtesy of the blog writer. Yes, I find some commenters on other blogs astonishing, and others real fifth columns.

If those commenters – or those blog writers – criticise this blog, or blogs like this one, kindly ignore them. The beauty of a blog – as opposed to a forum – is that one doesn’t have to “answer” anyone. If you don’t like a blog, read blogs you like. You won’t change the mind of anyone who thinks Francis is the best thing since sliced bread. Use your time to write comments helping confused readers to stay faithful to the papacy whilst understanding Francis is the worst since V II instead. Again, a blog is not a discussion forum, and you should expect the commenters on a blog to espouse the line of the blog writer, and encourage him on his path. It’s par for the course. 

Secondly, please no links to questionable sites, with strange “prophecies” or the like. If you like the easy prophecy, in Medjugorje there’s a daily fax coming: more crap than you will ever be able to stomach.

It’s astonishing how fast people believe every rubbish on the Internet. Don’t believe it, and don’t post it here.

Thirdly, no Sedevacantist material. When I decide that I have to link to one of those sites I will do it myself, but I do not feel comfortable with links posted through the comment box. I notice from the comments that a number of my readers must be heavily disoriented, and very disturbed by the current events. Let us not tempt them to go along the wrong path. What for you can be a useful source of information, for others might have more dangerous consequences. There is no reason why we should help them down this road. On the contrary, one of the aims of this blog is to help its readers to live with a very stinking papacy, whilst still remaining loyal to the Papacy.

I will be very blunt: if one’s mother behaves like a slut one will be authorised to criticise his mother, not to deny that she is the mother. This we must always keep in mind, and help others – who might be in the middle of an understandable crisis – to do the same. Whatever you write here is, if published, read in time by thousands of people, and hundreds on the same day. Think of the effect this might have on the many who land on this blog because Francis is sabotaging their Catholicism.

As a closing remark, I am always happy when Proddies write here and praise the blog. But please consider that this blog is there, inter alia, to convert them. Dear Proddie friends, I invite you who chance to land here to browse around the blog (the “Vademecum” on top could be a good start; the search function another) and to consider the message of Catholicism with a mind open to learning what Catholicism really is, as opposed to what your parents – or your cafeteria catholic friends – told you it is.

The bottom line is that you are wrong, and Catholicism is right. Anglicans click here.

Harsh, I know; but charitable.  

Give this papist blog a fair chance. You might be surprised.


%d bloggers like this: