Monthly Archives: October 2013
And it came to pass the NSA, in its big-brother madness, decided if you spy on the German Chancellor you might as well spy on the Pope.
Moral considerations aside, it is very clear why the White House would have an interest in bugging not only the Vatican, but the rooms and phones of every Cardinal and Archbishop who are considered key players and able to influence the US electorate.
Let us imagine the – or one – leading US Cardinal had – just talking in abstract here – a pretty young thing on the side. The NSA would soon know everything about it, and at that point the above mentioned Cardinal would be entirely in their hands. The smallest hint from an NSA official – whispered only once to the ear of the Cardinal – would be enough to ensure the man plays for you instead of against you, invites Obama to dinner for the photographs, and in general limits his opposition to homosexual agenda, HHS mandate & Co. To the bare minimum to be halfway believable to the unknowing sheep.
The same game can, of course, be played with the Man in White. Find anything dirty about him – from his Argentinian past at the time of the militar dictatorship, to the cover-up of pedophile activity: the list is very long – and you will have him in front of the choice whether facing the shame in front of the planet or becoming the manageable puppet of BO in pretty much everything, perhaps even downplaying the issues of abortion and homosexuality so that the Obama-voting Mickey-mouse Catholics feel reinforced in their decision to close three eyes in front of reality.
It makes, therefore, perfect sense – from a purely political point of view – for the White House to spy the Pope, Dolan, and every other prelate that might becomr uncomfortable to them. Apparently, Bergoglio himself might have been spied since 2005, when he must have emerged as a man of power after the Conclave, and one able to exert an influence in South American issues.
One could – again, morality aside – construe an even more daring scenario: the NSA spies as many Cardinals as they can, and at the appropriate time tell to the twelve or fourteen of twenty of them who have been found with some corpse of sort in the cellar that it would be very nice – and would guarantee them peaceful years – if they directed their vote toward a pleasant, utterly vapid, rambling candidate the Obama administration knows would be a godsend for them. One they can sell as a man of “progress. An Obama in white. Hope and Change, eh? no?
Mind, I do not say this is what happened, and I discourage everyone from starting to fantasize about an invalid papal election. Searching is one thing; finding, another; manage to use the find a different one again.
Still, let us be realistic here: the NSA does not sniff in the life of Popes and Cardinals to know their favourite ice cream taste, or because they think the Russians and Chinese give them information useful for the US security. No: they do it to monitor how they influence the political discourse in, say, South America, or – next logical step – to try to domesticate one of the most powerful organisations on the planet; one that can influence the political discourse in several dozen countries – and certainly in the US – like no other non-governmental organisation could.
Who knows what might come to light one day. Perhaps the one or other strange dinner invitation or appeasing policy might be explained – if not justified – that way.
Fiction, you think? What if I told you the White House spies the Vatican?
I know there are a lot of stupid Cardinals around, but Cardinal Ravasi must lead the pack.
It is questionable whether a Catholic boy of fifteen would tweet fragments of lyrics of a just deceased musician without thinking whether he is giving the wrong example. It is unpardonable if a Cardinal does it.
Lou Reed dies and our oh so pop-culture loving Cardinal does not tweet reflecting about the fact that Lou Reed now sits in front of His judge. Like a very stupid fifteen years old, he tweets words from one of his songs, dedicated to heroine. If a Cardinal absolutely wants to tweet, he should do it to evangelise and be more efficient in his work; not to shamelessly promote himself as the cool guy. These people always talk of being “pastoral”, but what they really mean is being popular and having a quiet life.
Mind, I do not doubt stupid Cardinals have not been invented in the last half century. But in former times they did not have the possibility of showing the entire planet how unbelievably childish and – repetita iuvant -astonishingly stupid they are.
Cardinal Ravasi is a Cardinal in the mould of the current Pontiff. Being popular among the faithless and loved by the masses is clearly his first priority. There could be no other reason on earth why a Cardinal would, otherwise, tweet the lyrics of a dead pop star. In the modern race for popularity at all costs, Cardinal Ravasi did not want to stay behind, and we see the results.
One must say, though, even Bergoglio would avoid being as stupid as that. When he says something stupid, it generally is because he wants to.
Keep children away from knives, and Cardinal Ravasi away from Twitter.
Read here to see how your hard-earned Euros are employed to finance the abortion industry under the excuse of (let me check it again) “sexual and reproductive health”.
What started in 1957 to promote commerce and, with it, prosperity and peace in a profoundly Christian Europe has long become a monster bent on erasing every aspect of Christian morality from the life of European citizen.
Whatever you may think of the degree of democratic representation present in the European Union, it cannot be denied that a system of forced homogenisation is being aggressively pushed, meant to conform everyone to the heatenish immorality of which the EU organs are at the same time the democratically elected result and the engine driving the system towards more and more heathenism.
Spaniards and Italians are much different from the Danes and the Swedes. More important still, Christians are much different from heathens. Most important of all, Truth does not care a straw for the way a representative system works: if it promotes the wrong values, it's the wrong system. Democracy is not our God. God is.
The European Union must die. Let's hope the biggest madness of this immense system of political and moral engineering – the Euro – does the job for us in the next decade or two.
Find below the “Prayer for all things necessary to salvation”, a prayer attributed to Pope Clement XI and released in the Year 1721.
There is longer version, with the part starting with “All that I have asked for myself”. I have not posted it here, because I do not think the added part is original. Please show me the right link if I am wrong.
Note how Pope Clemens takes care to guide the faithful, through a long-winded prayer, along a rather complete path to salvation. All with set words, to be recited without variation time after time.
“Spontaneous” prayer was, evidently, not a favourite of this Pope, as he would otherwise not have bothered with such a long exercise. On the contrary, it is clear the late Pontiff wanted to give a prayerful “path” to the faithful on which they could meditate regularly, and that they could interiorise through months and years of faithful repetition. At the same time, the fact that the prayer came from a Pope gave the faithful – in those times Popes were very orthodox, you must know; the last clearly heretical Pope was around four centuries earlier – an iron security that nothing in the prayer was questionable, misleading, or not pleasing to God.
Apparently, all this is (and I quote) “outdated” now, as the modern, “beach ball on the altar”-bishops of Rome do not care much for this kind of repetition. They rather prefer the spontaneous outburst of the inhabitant of the favela with his uneducated conscience, praying all kind of rubbish for all kind of rubbish motives, and ending up believing in their own rubbish because that’s what their “conscience” has suggested to them. Francis, clearly, approves the mentality and the praxis. Actually, he encourages both.
You can do much worse than praying this prayer frequently (I have it in a smartphone app: very practical).
Outmoded practices save souls.
O My God, I believe in Thee;
Do Thou strengthen my faith.
All my hopes are in Thee;
Do Thou secure them.
I love Thee with my whole heart;
teach me to love Thee daily more and more.
I am sorry that I have offended Thee,
do Thou increase my sorrow.
I adore Thee as my first beginning,
I aspire after Thee as my last end.
I give Thee thanks as my constant benefactor;
I call upon Thee as my sovereign protector.
Vouchsafe, O my God, to conduct me by Thy wisdom,
to restrain me by Thy justice,
to comfort me by Thy mercy,
to defend me by Thy power.
To Thee, I desire to consecrate all my thoughts,
words, actions and sufferings;
that henceforward I may think only of Thee,
speak of Thee,
refer all my actions to Thy greater glory,
and suffer willingly,
whatever Thou shall appoint.
Lord, I desire that in all things,
Thy will may be done,
because it is Thy will,
and the manner that Thou willest.
I beg of Thee,
to enlighten my understanding,
To inflame my heart,
to purify my body,
and to sanctify my soul.
Give me strength, O my God,
to expiate my offenses,
to overcome my temptations,
to subdue my passions,
and to acquire the virtues
proper in my state of life.
Fill my heart, with tender affection,
for Thy goodness,
hatred of my faults,
love of my neighbour,
and contempt of the world.
Let me always,
remember to be submissive to my superiors,
condescending to my inferiors,
faithful to my friends
and charitable to my enemies.
Assist me to overcome sensuality by mortification,
avarice by alms deeds,
anger by meekness,
and tepidity by devotion.
O my God, make me prudent in my undertakings,
courageous in dangers,
patient in affliction,
and humble in prosperity.
Grant that I may be ever attentive at my prayers,
temperate at my meals,
diligent at my employments,
and constant in my resolutions.
Let my conscience be ever upright, and pure,
my exterior modest,
my conversation edifying
and my comportment regular.
that I may continually labour to overcome nature,
to correspond with Thy grace,
to keep Thy commandments,
and to work out my salvation.
Discover to me, O my God,
the nothingness of this world,
the greatness of heaven,
the shortness of time,
and the length of eternity.
The Pius XII Reblog
Browsing the net, I have found that this rather impressive news had already been published by the Corriere della Sera last November. The link is not accessible without logging in, therefore I will link to this for those of you blessed with a knowledge of the most useless, but most beautiful language on the planet.
The information is very clear and rather complete, and it is improbable that the Corriere della Sera would risk a blunder on such a matter. It would therefore appear that the prayer has been written by don Nicola Bux, an advisor of the CDF, and that it has already obtained the imprimatur from Cardinal Bagnasco, the head of the italian Bishop’s Conference.
It also transpires from the article ( I didn’t know it) that Rai Uno has broadcast a TV series about the life of Pius XII, obviously criticised by the professional holocaust-whinos among those…
View original post 294 more words
Let me say first that whoever expected Cardinal Pell to say: “Yes! Francis is a flaming Modernist!” needs an urgent reality check. Not only is the man a Cardinal, but in virtue of his being the quota-member for Australia of the Gang of Eight he is in a particularly exposed position. Therefore, asking him about the heresies of the Bishop of Rome is not going to yield any particularly original result.
Still, Cardinal Pell's argument is notable for his… complete lack of sensible argumentation. Bishop Fellay has explained in detail in a long sermon what is wrong with Francis. He has quoted him verbatim. He has analysed Francis' thinking – and actually only some of his many antics – in detail. Not even the most biased commenter could say Fellay's indictment was an emotional outburst. On the contrary: the fact that it came after months of controversies in which the SSPX had avoided open criticism of Francis' clearly heretical statements lends even more weight to the Bishop's entirely justified criticism and righteous anger.
What has, then, Cardinal Pell to oppose to this? If he has tried in the past to bend over backwards and explain to us why water is not wet I have missed his interventions. Still, his latest words are notable in that they are absolutely devoid of any sensible content or decent argumentation. To say that “Francis is a son of the Church” is, as an argument, rubbish, and by the way Luther was an Agostinian.
No, Cardinal Pell's statement has simply no basis: no basis in fact, and not even the attempt to provide one. The Church of V II demands that every … rubbish her prelates spit be believed merely because they say so. This is, to every well instructed Catholic, rubbish.
Let the Cardinal – now that he has thrown the stone – reply publicly and in detail, point for point, to Bishop Fellay. Let him prove with reasoned arguments why Bishop's Fellay accusations of Modernism levelled at the Bishop of Rome would be rubbish.
If he does it and does it well, we will agree with him and applaud his superior wisdom.
If he doesn't, we will know who is talking rubbish.
Ah, the brave new world of liberal thinking: completely God-free, and with as much Satan as you can eat.
Read here about a new “sexual orientation”: the “minor-attracted”.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
If sodomy is only a matter of orientation, one does not see why this “orientation” should be condemned when it is directed towards children, dogs, or one's own relatives. Either a society decides that certain grave sins are forbidden for the simple reason that they go against natural law and God's precepts, or hell is the limit.
Yet, some people – many people, in fact – are now so ignorant and stupid that they espouse the mantra of “if there is no violence, people should be free to do what they want”.
Say hello to a world where homosexuals – and some heterosexual, presumably – have sex with their own adopted children, obviously within the framework of “love” the liberal society knows so well. As for the case of euthanasia, and so slimy itself, the work of “persuasion” of these monsters will at some point make abomination seem normal, and there will be no lack of subtle and less subtle ways to pervert little innocents. One can hope the phenomenon will – horrible as it is – be at least limited to the sons of the liberals themselves, but I fear much for the orphans. And then of course the perverts will try to pervert your children already at school. Isn't this exactly what they are trying to do with sodomy already?
This stupid society does not understand that one cannot be satanic by half. If one is ok with sodomy, it will only be a matter of time until he – or his children, or grandchildren at the latest – are fine with every other sort of abomination under the sun. Then the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children, as it is supposed to be.
Naturally, give it a couple of decades and every expression of opinion against such abominations will be accused of being intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, & Co. “Phaedophobe!”, will the same people yell at you who now call you “homophobe”, among the applause of liberal journalists and self-appointed “intellectuals”.
As we have just seen, it works.
Cardinal Maradiaga is one of the members of the “Gang of Eight” and, if he is representative of the average quality of the members, it is fair to say nothing good will ever come from this strange new organ, the latest tribute to “collegiality”.
Maradiaga is a populist of the worst sort, which seems to be pretty much a speciality of South American Cardinals. The media report his exploits in the linked article and elsewhere.
There is in Maradiaga – and in those like him – an all too obvious tendency to put earth before heaven, and instrumentalise the Church to make it match with his upside down vision.
A Cardinal that thinks that “economic inequalities among world citizens” (“world citizen”: what an idiotic and oxymoronic expression, by the way) are a problem in itself is a Cardinal who has a huge problem, because he is only a socialist in a red robe, one to whom Christianity has become – an ideology.
The poor will always be with us. Some people will – unless you follow the socialist ideology, or manage to create a Communist dictatorship – always be vastly richer than others. The complex fabric of this earth is made in such a way that poverty can spiritually help the poor, and riches can not only alleviate the need of the poor, but promote the spiritual advancement not only of the rich, but of the poor themselves. Never has Christianity had a problem with the fact that some are born rich, or very rich, and many other poor, or very poor. Inheritance tax is not a Christian concept, it is a socialist one. Jesus never even advocated income tax; he advocated works of mercy, and compassion for those in need. The modern concept of “wealth redistribution” is just not in the Gospel. If anything, the existence of economic inequality is a very good way to teach us to put our hopes in the next world rather than in this one, and to invest our time in preparing for what is really important – our eternal destiny – rather than what is far less relevant in the great scheme of things – differences in material prosperity -.
Jesus taught us to perform works of mercy. He never criticised Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea for the fact that they were rich. Note that both are canonised saint, and clearly Zacchaeus remained, for all his restitutions, a very rich man. If Cardinal Maradiaga thinks that in Jesus’ times social inequalities were any littler than today he hasn’t been paying attention at school, and should stay nearer to the Gospels rather than abusing them for his socialist slogans.
Socialism has no part in Christianity. None whatsoever. Rich and poor will always be with us, and the difference in material possession between the very rich and the very poor will always be staggering. They will also have their own challenges, so that we can’t say how we would have fared spiritually if we had been born, or had later become, rich.
Still: one is born the son of the Duke of Westminster, another is born the son of an unemployed alcoholic. Do not question the wisdom of all this, unless you want to blaspheme.
The rich must help the poor. But make no mistake, they will still be rich. Whenever one comes to the conclusion – as the Cardinal clearly does: he is South American after all – that inequality is a problem, and equality therefore the aim, he has abandoned Christianity and transformed it into an earth-centred ideology – note this word: ideology – that has completely lost sight not only of the real aim of Christianity, but also of the fundamental wisdom and providential order of this world.
Has the Cardinal no eyes to see? Does he not see inequality going through the very fabric of Creation? If we observe reality with open eyes we see utter inequality not only in wealth and material possession, but also in intelligence, strength, health, ability or talent, beauty, wit, spirituality, & Co.
We are all equals in our human dignity, but boy, we are so astonishingly different in everything else! If it is unjust that one be born rich and one poor, why should it be just that one is born intelligent and strong, and another weak and stupid? Should we disfigure the beautiful girls in order to decrease “inequality” with the ugly ones, or amputate the strong man to make him more like the cripple? We don’t do it, nor do we demand that such “inequalities” be fought against. We thank God for the unmerited graces He gave us in His mercy, and have compassion for those not graced in the same way (though certainly graced in others we might not be able to see). We help alleviate poverty we see around us (a very relative concept in the West, anyway) and thank God for the financial security he may have given us, or petition Him to give it to us if we lack it. In every aspect of life, inequalities and brutal differences in the human condition help us to march toward Salvation, if we only see them properly.
In the end, life is not fair, nor it is supposed to be. The Church of “Che” distracts the faithful from the real issue – salvation – and directs them towards earthly ones: as if the world had been made the wrong way, and the omnipresent inequalities themselves were not Providence at work. The Church of “Che” does not see Providence: she sees the injustice, because to her the inequality itself is injustice. Pure earthly thinking, and a very populist one at that: aiming at the easy applause, and the popularity that comes from pandering to people’s envy; which latter is a cardinal sin, by the way.
This world is utterly and completely dominated by inequalities of all sorts. The answer to all these apparent “injustices” is not stupid populism, but Jesus Christ.
If you long for fairness and justice, don’t look at Cardinal Maradiaga.
Look towards heaven instead.
The liberal society has clearly no problems with the use of light drugs, or with sodomy, but when a bishop contracts Hepatitis A he makes headlines worldwide because he might, or so they say, have infected hundreds through the chalice.
Notice the double standard: when sodomites die of AIDS no one is guilt, and we must spend huge amounts of money in medical research for something that, to a vast extent, will only be useful to perverts, instead of having a saner approach and direct a great part of the funds towards, say, cancer research; but when a bishop accidentally and without any malice exposes others to infection the undertones abound.
Do the authorities in North Dakota feel the need to warn the populace of the dangers of having sex with sexual perverts? Surely, even in North Dakota the latter problem must be far more concrete than the theoretical, admittedly “low risk” of infection for the parishioner of five churches?
I know, I know. You can say the authorities in North Dakota are making their job etc, but I do not think I am the only one who smells a rat here. Perceptions shape reality, and I cannot imagine this case was such that it required – as opposed to: made it look advisable – this kind of intervention.
Again, it's a funny world. Obsession for health questions – possibly red-tape induced, as in “let us justify our jobs by sending health warnings around” – on the one side, extreme political correctness on the other.
If the health authorities of any place in the West really had health as their priority, they would invest time and money in a relentless work of sensibilisation concerning the health risks of a sodomitical “lifestyle”.
But no, they must let the world know a bishop might have infected hundreds.
The tax collector went away justified. There is no record he stopped being a tax collector for the hated Roman masters – an extremely lucrative, but extremely despised profession – or donated his doubtless substantial patrimony to, say, the poor of the favela.
The Pharisee, who thought himself so good – say, because he was so humble, and so much better of those Pelagians and Restorationists who count their rosaries and say prayers by rote – went away not justified.
Someone is trying to tell us something here.
He reports a quotation from JP II. Pope Wojtyla was being interviewed by Vittorio Messori. Being one in the mould of Bergoglio, Messori asks the Pope, of all things, whether he was not “obsessive” about pro-life issues.
Now stop a moment and reflect on the forma mentis of those like Messori. To them, the unpleasant parts of Christianity are those to be glossed over as fast as one can; one who insists on such disharmony-creating ideas like fighting against abortion must, therefore, be forcibly suspected of being “obsessive”. Personally, I would be ashamed of even thinking, let alone asking, such a question to anyone, let alone a Pope. But I digress…
Pope JP II answered as follows:
The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”
By all the liturgical and ecu-maniacal shortcomings of Pope Wojtyla, I doubt Francis will ever express himself in such clear-cut way, even if he were to be Pope for the next 77 years. More worryingly, I doubt Francis thinks like Wojtyla did; because as I have just said, what the heart feels the mouth will tell.
Little review: what did Francis mouth tell? A generally smart commenter, signing as “the chicken”, has made the googling for us:
I do not know about you, but I find it highly disquieting that the French clergy has now decided to change the French text of the “Our Father”. Do they really think they know better than past generations? Do they really think there is more value in choosing a supposedly more accurate or convenient translation than by leaving the faithful safe in the knowledge they will die with same prayers they were born with?
This “change” introduces the very dangerous concept that the Church might have done things the wrong way even in fundamental things like the “Our Father”. “Look” – the French atheist will say to his friends – “these people say they are the depositaries of eternal truths, and now say to us even in the case of their most important prayer they didn't get it right”.
If you ask me, the vernacular version of the most common prayers should be the one that has been honoured by centuries of private devotions, not the one the last translator who has come around thinks appropriate. A prayer is more than its words. It is an entire world. You don't mess with it.
If the slow usage of the centuries has the effect that the way people understands the meaning of certain words change, then – if you ask me- the proper meaning should be duly explained, not the words changed. The Creed in English says “he descended to hell”, and it is part of Catholic education to know this is the limbus patrum and not the Gehenna.
If we start to play with words in this way, soon nothing will be safe anymore. Is the Hail Mary orthodox? How can I know, if I am praying the version given to me by a XXI Century Jesuit?
Tradition is just this: traditio, “transmission”. Let's transmit to the next generation the prayers we have received from the preceding one. Let's explain what there is to explain. Let us not make linguistic experiments with prayers.
I often say that what was good enough for my grand-grandmother is good enough for me. I can't see why the Our Father should be an exception, nor can I imagine an army of French grand-grandmothers led to erroneous belief by a wrong interpretations of the Our Father.
They were Catholic, you see. They knew things. They weren't people who do not even know how to make the sign of the cross and whose prayers must be dumbed down to match with how dumb they are.
Personally, I think the French clergy should focus their effort on explaining and evangelising, rather than running after language usages of people who don't know jack about what the clergy themselves should teach them.
The Creative Minority Report asks how we judge a Papacy.
My answer is very simple: by the ability of the Pope to defend the deposit of faith and the entirety of Catholic teaching – even if not directly linked to the deposit of faith – and transmit it intact to his successor.
These are, to me, criteria that comes before everything else; which is why in my eyes Alexander VI was – with all his shortcomings – a vastly, vastly better Pope than our present ringmaster and bad-entertainer-in-chief.
The other criteria that are proposed or suggested are, if you ask me, merely effects of a good papacy, or symptoms of a bad one. Number and quality of vocations, mass attendance numbers etc. will all tend to reflect the way the Church – starting from the Pope – is run. As the fish stinks from the head down, a good Pope will in time cause massive ripple effects throughout Christendom, and a bad Pope likewise.
In short: the truth about a Pope is seen at the way a Pope deals with the Truth.
Which is why Francis is such a disgrace.
The usual nutcase auxiliary bishop has now advocated putting the defence of life and the fight against poverty on the same footing. This looks like a seamless garment, or rather like a shameless bishop. No doubt, he hopes Francis reads him. No doubt, he also hopes he is seen as “in touch with the times”, which is rather useful if you are aiming at your own diocese.
The absurdity of the reasoning is apparent to everyone who doesn't vote for Obama: abortion is murder, and feeding the hungry etc. are works of mercy.
Therefore, to put the two on the same footing is like saying that, in actual fact, it is a work of mercy not to murder one's own baby.
Such are our bishops.
The “Francis headline of the day” is, as we are reliably informed,
The Church has to bring Christ to everyone.
Fine; but, thinking in Francis' terms… why?
Has he brought Christ to Scalfari during the interview? Has he even made the attempt? Has he not called – whatever sophism you may try to use to hide this simple truth – exactly this very same attempt to bring Christ to an atheist, who is in most need of Christ's mercy, a “solemn nonsense”?
Further: if Francis is persuaded that an atheist can be saved by merely following his conscience – no, he still has not disowned his words; seriously, he hasn't – what is the reason he can adduce to make other people accept the “Diet Christ” brought to them? No premarital sex, no contraception even in marriage, no drunkenness, no adultery, obviously no remarriage, no abortion, mass attendance, penance, prayer, conflicts, and a lot of other nos? Why should anyone accept them, if he can get away with doing what he pleases with the benediction of the humble, look-at-my-old-car Pope?
The ugly truth is that Francis has been saying, for now almost eight months, that Christ is an option. Christ is, if you ask him, merely the – in his opinion, mind you; but who is he to judge? – more scenic way, better truth, and more joyous life. The man who says the Church can't be a glorified NGO makes of Her exactly a glorified NGO. In his mind the way is extremely broad that leads to salvation, and this way does not need I do not say Christ, but not even the acceptance of a god whatsoever, like a Hindu in invincible ignorance might believe.
He insults those who pray by rote saying they don't believe in God, but when he has in front of him one who really does not believe in God and doesn't even say prayers by rote he is very fine with it. Ah, if everyone only followed his abortionist conscience, what a better place the world would be!
Therefore, if you listen to Francis the Church must bring Jesus to the people as if He were a medicinal herb, or a new kind of aspirin. Necessary for salvation? Of course not. Should I try to convert other people? No, no, no! What about proselytism? Solemn nonsense…
Francis merely markets an option which he considers, in his humbleness, the best. He had no gut then to say to an atheist that unless he repents he will go to hell; he has no guts now to tell the world Jesus is no option, least of all for those who openly refuse Him. In short, Francis promotes Jesus like the Marlboro Man promotes cigarettes. This means, for him, that the church according to Bergoglism isn't an NGO. Oh no.
Come to where the “joy” is. Come to Bergoglio Country.
Please say three Hail Marys, rigorously learnt by rote, for this confused man.
Yes, you can count them.
This one is the last prelate to clearly and, I would say, officially react to the papal waffle of the last eight months.
Archbishop Chaput does not beat around the bush. His intent is clear: to avoid US Catholics feeling abandoned by the Church in a climate in which “youth unemployment” and “the loneliness of old people” are considered the most important problems of our time.
On the contrary, he rallies his troops and makes clear the rambling of an old Peronist Jesuit cannot change anything in the Catholic vision of the world, and will not change the priorities and the focus of those who care for Catholic values.
Smartly, the Archbishop reminds his readers not only of basic Catholic thinking, but of more than 20 years of pro-life activity (however lame, I should add) of the US clergy. Years of clear “V II” orientation, and that can therefore not be accused of being “restorationist”.
I might be wrong, but it seems to me an tragically interesting game is taking place here: the Pope ignores Catholicism, and the most orthodox among the clergy ignore the Pope.
Nor should anyone complain and say we traddies have a double moral, because we criticise the liberal clergy when they ignore Benedict and praise the conservatives when they ignore Francis. The litmus test of every papacy is its adherence to the Catholic truth this papacy must transmit intact to the next generation. The obedience to the Pope is linked – as Archbishop Chaput eloquently shows – to the higher loyalty due to Catholic Truth.
When the two get in conflict something's got to give. And it ain't Truth.
Very interesting development in the matter of the FFI.
six dissidents (oops… let me correct this: between 150 and 200 friars) have asked the Bishop of Rome permission to create a separate congregation, which would be exclusively devoted to the Traditional Mass.
It seems to me the Argentinian chickens are coming home to roost. Here we have a Pope profiting from a small number of opponents to the clearly conservative (also liturgically) character of the organisation to stage a coup and install at its head the leader of the six (six; sei; sechs) dissidents, and what is happening now is the result of another of Francis' inconsiderate actions.
The sheer number of those who made the request should prove to the blindest Pollyanna that Francis did not try to (and did not have any need to) “pacify” an organisation torn by “internal strife”. On the contrary: the organisation was and is extremely compact, and Francis used a very small number of troublemakers to subvert the organisation's spirit.
It can be that, when Francis refuses their request or refuses to answer it, a couple of dozen of them will pack their bags and move in the direction of Econe. It can, though, also be that they simply want to document where the hearts of the members lie, without drawing the consequences when it is clear they are isolated.
It seems evident to me the new leaders installed by Francis' Golpe will rapidly infiltrate the organisation with sissified elements of their own liking. Therefore, not only this request makes a lot of sense, but the decision to leave – for those who will decide to leave – will make a lot of sense too.
In time, more and more religious will understand the SSPX is an island of Catholic sanity in the middle of the lio in which the Church has been plunged by this disgraceful papal election. In time, Francis might also get to understand he is the Pope, but not the Führer, and will not receive the utterly blind and utterly unquestioning obedience Hitler enjoyed; then Hitler was the god of a religion of his own making, Francis is the first of the servants of God who made him.
This will be interesting to follow. Francis might decide to simply not answer, waiting to see if the next six or twelve months lead to the anger (because this is what it is; massive, and completely justified) deflating enough to allow him to quietly “normalise” things. He might, though, simply refuse the request as, ahem, Restorationist. He might, in theory, even admit his mistake and consent to their request, though the exodus that would follow would let him look rather badly.
Notice, though, what is happening: the Mass Of The Ages is such a beautiful patrimony that once a sound religious order has been allowed to enjoy it, its members will do whatever they can to keep it.
My rosary of today is for the signatories of the petition. May they be allowed to continue their work in the proper way.
From the pleasantly surprising mini-essay of Archbishop Mueller (I know, I know…) concerning marriage, some rather interesting excerpts. Emphases mine.
Marriage can be understood and lived as a sacrament only in the context of the mystery of Christ. If marriage is secularized or regarded as a purely natural reality, its sacramental character is obscured. Sacramental marriage belongs to the order of grace, it is taken up into the definitive communion of love between Christ and his Church. Christians are called to live their marriage within the eschatological horizon of the coming of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God.
Pastors are obliged, by love for the truth, “to exercise careful discernment of situations” […] And yet they cannot be admitted to the Eucharist. Two reasons are given for this: a) “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist” b) “if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage”.
Clergy are expressly forbidden, for intrinsically sacramental and theological reasons and not through legalistic pressures, to “perform ceremonies of any kind” for divorced people who remarry civilly, as long as the first sacramentally valid marriage still exists.
the faithful concerned may not present themselves for holy communion on the basis of their own conscience: “Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors … have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching”
The doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage is often met with incomprehension in a secularized environment.
Love is more than a feeling or an instinct. Of its nature it is self-giving. In marital love, two people say consciously and intentionally to one another: only you – and you for ever.
If remarried divorcees are subjectively convinced in their conscience that a previous marriage was invalid, this must be proven objectively by the competent marriage tribunals. Marriage is not simply about the relationship of two people to God, it is also a reality of the Church, a sacrament, and it is not for the individuals concerned to decide on its validity, but rather for the Church, into which the individuals are incorporated by faith and baptism.
in the case of the indissolubility of sacramental marriage we are dealing with a divine norm that is not at the disposal of the Church.
A further case for the admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments is argued in terms of mercy. Given that Jesus himself showed solidarity with the suffering and poured out his merciful love upon them, mercy is said to be a distinctive quality of true discipleship. This is correct, but it misses the mark when adopted as an argument in the field of sacramental theology. The entire sacramental economy is a work of divine mercy and it cannot simply be swept aside by an appeal to the same. An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God, by implying that God cannot do other than forgive. The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice. If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man. Jesus encountered the adulteress with great compassion, but he said to her “Go and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11). God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the Church. Rather it supplies us with the grace and strength needed to fulfil them, to pick ourselves up after a fall, and to live life in its fullness according to the image of our heavenly Father.
I won’t lie to you and say every thing is as good as that. But most of the article is as good as that. Please let us leave aside for the moment the problems of the text and let us focus on what is means in this particular moment, when the Bishop of Rome blabbers about “mercy” and “pastoral care” clearly engendering the impression some big trouble might be in the making. I see the following possibilities:
1. Francis got scared of the messianic expectations of the liberal crowds, particularly after the Freiburg initiative has shown him what kind of problems are in the making when one opens his mouth without thinking (which is, I would say, every time he is not eating). Therefore, he has a rare moment of reasonableness and sends forth his lieutenant Mueller to calm down the nutcases, and explain he wants to be the Nelson Mandela of Catholicism, but not at the price of formal heresy. This makes sense, because it makes of Mueller, not Francis, the “baddy”. Francis remains, therefore, the good chap who would allow adulterers to receive communion. But the cruel men around him they will not, will not, will not allow him to. Everyone’s happy.
2. Francis wants to “make a mess”. His lieutenants, who have grasped the extent of the man’s subversive madness, start blocking him in purest Vatican style. They are saying “you can be as much as a nutcase as you please, but we won’t follow you where you give such a scandal”. Notice that Mueller’s opposition is presented in term that have to do with the nature it self of the Church and the sacraments, not pastoral care. The Church can’t allow adulterers to receive communion, full stop. He isn’t saying “I think this would be wrong”. He is saying “this can never, ever be right”.
I would, at this point, be happy to congratulate Archbishop Mueller for his defense of the most elementary Catholic truths. Forgive me if I don’t, as I think the time where a future cardinal, archbishop and head of the CDF is praised simply for stating the obvious should be completely forgotten. Archbishop Mueller surprises with his show of (V II; read the article well) orthodoxy. But he should certainly not be praised for saying it.
I am curious to see what will become of this. I would bet my half pint other prelates will intervene in the matter, repeating the points made by the Archbishop. If this happens I will, personally, read this as a preventative straitjacket put around Francis to prevent him from doing immense harm to himself and to the Church. It is good that the reiterations of simple Catholic truths start now, rather than waiting for October 2014.
You never know what a bunch of hippy cardinals, led by a hippie pope, could do instead.
Allow me, for the moment, to draw a brutally frank conclusion: there is reason to hope that either this pontiff has now reached the limit of his own incompetence, or his own men will take care he does not go beyond a certain – and extremely scandalous in any way – limit of incompetence; which they can do simply by publicly recalling the Truths of the faith in such definitive terms as to castrate from the start every attempt to impose a Che-Church (shall I patent this?) on the poor faithful.
Archbishop Mueller did his job today. In a very V II way, I admit, but he did it.
This makes news. Mala tempora currunt.
I pray, like many of you, my five decades of the Rosary every day. My prayers are, obviously, learned by rote, and repeated in the same way. Like many of you, I tend to be distracted and carried away whilst I pray the rosary, but I soldier on. The modern apps with a different gospel passage for every Hail Mary are a great help, but they are no magic wand, either. We get distracted. It's the human nature. If we were to start the rosary or the decade anew every time we get distracted we could never pray the Rosary in church, and we would likely stop saying the Rosary everyday.
Try to be as focused as you can, but say your rosary every day like a military man.
Besides the main dish of my prayer day (the rosary) I have, like many of you, the sides. I never think of my deceased loved ones without one or three “eternal rest”; I never think of people I love without a short prayer for them; I say an Hail Mary for every cripple or every old man in a wheelchair I see; I immancably say the Prayer to St. Michael The Archangel every time I see a faggot on the street.
Yes, all these prayers only take a very short time; yes, life will absorb me after them as fully as it did before; yes, most of the times I do not experience any kind of spiritual “turbo kick” after praying them.
I pray, because I am a Catholic; I pray prayers learned by rote, because I am a Catholic; I pray even when I am distracted, because I am a Catholic; when I wake up, I immediately say an Hail Mary, because I am a Catholic; I pray before going to sleep, and actually often fall asleep whilst mechanically repeating “Hail Mary”, because I am a Catholic. I have a reminder on my phone that tells me it's 3pm, so I can say an “Our Father” at the hour Christ died. Small things like that. Catholicism is largely made of small things.
I am fully aware that all this has a mechanical element in it. My morning Hail Mary could often be prayed better, and many people pray much more. My intra-day prayers are said by rote, as a kind of short-circuit in my daily life. My evening prayers have, at times, a sleepy quality in them. I could certainly do better, but then again I am doing better now than I did some years ago. My rosary is good on certain days, and less good on others, but I must not fight the laziness of not saying the Rosary anymore. It goes under the skin, you see, and you end up praying much more than you used to do even outside of the Rosary. Still: I have, most certainly, room for improvement. I think I will carry it to my grave.
The prayer life of a Catholic – I mean, of most of them – has always been like this: a soldiering in Christ, where the short glorious battle events are lost in the banal routine of military life: the drills, the making of the bed, the meals, all the unromantic, unexciting, uninspiring routine. A good soldier does not say: “who cares whether my bed is properly made: all I want or care for is battle!”. A good soldier knows that soldiering is made of many little things, and that the care with which he cleans his rifle is very important even if he might never have to use it in action.
Soldiery is, in the end, made largely of routine work. It is made, if you will, by rote. Catholic soldiery has, through all ages, been no different than this.
When my mother taught me the Hail Mary, she paid attention I had learned the words. Not the feeling. Not the “dialogue with Mary”. The words. Ave Maria, piena di grazia…
Why? Because this is what Catholics do. Catholics pray in set words. Of course, they can pray differently, and it is certainly not forbidden to a Catholic to throw himself at the feet of the Blessed Virgin and pour out to her the sorrows that plague him. But being a Catholic he will know – like countless generations before him – that this is, strictly speaking, not even necessary. He knows that when he prays in the set words transmitted to us by tradition, he has prayed well. For many centuries now, all Catholics from the illiterate peasant to the refined Prince have known this. This is, by the by, one of the reason why there are so many Catholic prayers.
But there is another reason, that I do not want to leave unmentioned. Catholic prayers are set in fixed words so that they: a) teach properly, and b) give a guarantee of orthodoxy.
Our set of rote prayers tell us a lot about Catholicism. The Litanies are doctrinal expositions; the “Hail, Holy Queen” reminds us that we live in a vale of tears, that we will only see Jesus if we are saved, & Co. At the same time, by praying set prayers we know that we are led through the straight railway of Catholic orthodoxy. Prayers are guaranteed right, and are sure to teach us properly. Spontaneous prayer achieves neither.
This system served countless generations of faithful before us. Yes, we are imperfect. Yes, we get distracted. Yes, we may even fall asleep whilst praying.
Welcome to Catholicism.
All this seems, as I write this, to be rather out of favour. Whilst Francis will not tell you you must not pray the “Hail Mary” or the “Our Father”, it is not clear when he draws the lines and says “enough of rote praying”.
What is clear is that God himself has given us the “Our Father”, but the current Pontiff doesn't see the serial repetition of this prayer with a favourable eye. It is also clear that the Blessed Virgin has – with several apparitions to, among others, Saint Dominic, Blessed Alain de la Roche, and the children of Fatima – recommended the recitation of the Rosary, but the Bishop of Rome sees all this – if you can read beyond the Francispeak; which you can – as now past its shelf life, a habit of past ages that is outdated and below the standard of the smart generation of post V II Catholics.
Once again: Francis doesn't do frontal attacks. His judgments (Heavens, he does a lot of it!) are always directed towards not exactly identified “bad Catholics”, who always end up looking like your grand-grandmother.
Again, he will use Francispeak. The “bad Catholics” are always described in a way that in the end allows you to say “he is not talking of me”, whilst also saying an awful lot that actually screams he is talking about me, big time.
The prototypical Catholic of once – and the traddie of today – are his obvious target, and the message is being understood more and more clearly as the repeated affirmations make it more and more difficult to attribute the quality Francis criticises to people who do not exist at all. If these people exist, then it's us.
You pray the rosary in a – somewhat – mechanical way? Check, and actually you probably do not even believe in God.
You count your rosaries? You are a Pelagian!
You are extremely sure of your Catholic faith? You have “excessive doctrinal security”.
You pray by rote? You are following a custom of the past.
Is it a surprise this Pontiff is so ignorant of even the basis of Catholicism? Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. If his prayer life is made of inordinate waffling his very way of seeing Catholicism will, one day, follow. It is obvious this man has not the faintest idea of not only basics like the works of mercy, but even the very essence of Christianity, as he manages to be very vague, but vaguely disturbing, even when he says to Eugenio Scalfari in which strangely and I would say uniquely defined God he believes. If Athanasius would read his description of God given to Scalfari he would, I think, not call him an heretic, but would probably decide the man needs a lot of work, because his way of talking of God does sound strange indeed.
This is one who has been making his own “bespoke” religion for many decades now; the unavoidable result of making his own, “bespoke” prayers for the same length of time.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
Hippie prayers, Francis.
Two recent sentences of the Canadian justice have recently reinforced the position of normal people against the growing phalanx of Nazis nowadays going around undisturbed under the guise of liberals.
One of the two sentences is particularly notable because of the circumstances: the doctors demanded the right to kill the patient, the wife was opposed.
One truly wonders what has become of mental sanity in the West, if situations like these occur in the first place. Doctors. Suing. To. Kill. Their. Patient.
One cannot avoid thinking Satan is making overtime, and not without success.
Still, one must notice with a certain satisfaction that at least in the case of so-called euthanasia we might not have to witness the diabolical extremes reached in the case of sodomy. The Canadian parliament has overwhelmingly rejecting a relative legislative proposal, and the obvious strengthening of pro-life positions in the coming years will perforce cause more and more people to reflect very attentively about the life of the vulnerable on the other end of natural life.
Let us enjoy the good news for today. We are approaching decades in which we will have to learn to savour to the last all the good news we get.
George, the baby who is supposed to, one day, open schools and kiss babies as the King of England, will be baptised today.
He is already three months old. But hey, there must have been more urgent things to do these ninety days.
I have no idea how long did it take before former heirs to the throne were baptised. It can be Protestants were as bad as that a long time ago, and I wouldn't be too surprised.
Still, I cannot avoid seeing in a baptism that takes place three months after birth, without anyone seeing anything strange in that, another sign of the decline of Christianity.
Going around several Internet sites, it is astonishing how often one reads one of the heresies and blasphemies of our times being dishes out by people who believe they are orthodox Catholics: the idea, namely, that the Holy Ghost not only handpicked the present Pontiff (which in itself is already heresy, and I would say blasphemy), but even guides him in everything he does.
Therefore, our deluded and poorly instructed friends have – or so they think – found the panacea for all the ailments of this disgraceful pontificate: whatever Francis has said must be fine, because the Holy Ghost guides him in everything.
I do not know whether this kind of thinking is most developed in Anglo-Saxon countries because people are exposed to the Protestant bollocks of “the Holy Ghost moved me to …” (Insert here whatever they wanted to do anyway, including divorce) in a way unknown in traditional Catholic countries. Still, it can't be denied it's the Anglo-Saxon countries that seem to be sleeping most soundly in front of Francis' heresies, whilst in countries like Italy, France and Spain the biggest newspapers and mass media now routinely and quite openly voice the discomfort of orthodox, observant Catholics in front of Bergoglism.
This Papolatry leads to absurd conclusions, and it is not entirely surprising the “relax, the Holy Ghost is guiding the Pope”-crowd do not see the absurdity of it. If one can believe God can inspire heresy, there is absolutely nothing he could not be made to believe.
A truly extreme example of this already extremely brainless thinking is in the comment of that chap some days ago, who wrote something on the line of “I want to see what all these angry rad trads will say when Francis changes the Teaching of the Church with a dogmatic statement”, obviously meaning such an event would prove he, not them, right.
One is truly witnessing a show of brainlessness proud of its own stupidity; a stupidity so big that it does not recognise that the alleged argument only proves the absurdity of the premise.
One of the most important tasks of Catholic blogdom in the next years will be to fight Papolatry, and repeat very often that the Holy Ghost cannot be made responsible for the sins of men and the immorality, cruelty or outright heresy of the many Popes who have so disgraced the Sea of Peter in the past.
Liberius, Honorius, John XXII and the others should be frequently mentioned – together with sound Catholic doctrine – on our blogs, so that the very knowledge about heretical popes become mainstream and the lie of papal impeccability exposed.
Whenever you can, point out to the reality of heretical popes in your social circle and at the same time stress the greatness and Indefectibility of Holy Mother Church, to which heretical popes can do no more than some unsightly scratch.
This should, in my opinion, be stressed not only with confused Catholics, but also with everyone else, lest for example a Proddie vaguely examining the idea of conversion feel discouraged from doing so because he thinks the Church is what the pope says”, or should lose respect for the Church because he has no respect for the person of Francis (and how can you blame him…).
Papolatry is the greatest enemy. It is the food out of which every subversive attemp of Francis is fed. If Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, Papolatry is what allows Modernism to be smuggled within Catholic mainstream in the first place. Papolatry is the oil that keeps Francis' heretical engine running. It is what allows countless deluded souls to exhibit themselves in astonishingly illogical mental contortionisms to justify the unjustifiable, and may well be used tomorrow to try to push the very unthinkable – like giving communion to public adulterers – down their throat. Demolish Papolatry, and Francis' heretical machine will grind to a halt like an engine left without oil.
Again, the genius mentioned above is an extreme example, but one wonders how many would be unable to make 2+2 if the Synod of next October were to take the demolition ball and use it for “pastoral” work against the Church.
Fight Papolatry as you can. At home, with relatives, at work, with friends. Unless the Catholics on the street get this, every battle will be a lost one.
We are in front of a true Modernist. Pray that he be converted, but fight his heresies – and possibly, those of his successors – to your last breath.
The Pope's good sheep. But God's first.
Yes, I’ve had enough of this, too.
And yes, Rorate stands vindicated. Utterly and completely.
It is astonishing that as a Catholic blogger one does not manage to keep pace with all the rubbish spread by this Pope.
Enjoy the video, then.
Please take this “Frank the Hippie Pope” video cum grano salis: this is made by Lutherans, and Catholic doctrine does not say a Lutheran will certainly go to hell (though he will be certainly at risk; it will depend on his degree of ignorance). Still, I must say even these Lutherans seem to have a better grasp of Catholic doctrine and of the role of the Pope than the army of tambourine-playing Pollyannas who insist in reading Hitler through Snow White. I am, in fact, rather sure this video expresses the feelings of many Proddies who simply know Francis is talking rubbish, simply because they have a basic knowledge of Christianity; which, to be very frank, I doubt can be said of him.
If anything, those who have followed Francis closely will notice the Lutheran video-makers are, if anything, too gentle with him. It is absolutely not true that the Pope says “true, Jeff” every time “Jeff” corrects his rubbish. In fact, not one single time has the Bishop of Rome intervened to officially correct a statement of his, and to demand that it be given a Catholic interpretation. If Francis were to say: “true, Jeff” only once, the screaming of the Pollyannas would be deafening.
One thing it is now impossible to ignore: Francis is on his way to become the butt of jokes of everyone who takes Christianity halfway seriously.
How can you blame them? I have Hindu acquaintances who say to me, tongue in cheek, “who am I to judge?”. Even your average Hindu has a far more advanced ethical system in place than the kindergarten-goodism of our Pontiff, disgracefullyy reigning.
“But this is obvious, Mundabor” – you might say – “they are Proddies: of course they mock the Pope!”
Erm… not really. They do not find him ridiculous because he wants to be Pope. They find him ridiculous because he does not want to. Imagine the same authors making the same critical video about Pope Pius XII, and think of how different – and wrong – the criticism would be. Or imagine whether they would be able to make the same “hippie Pope” video about…. Benedict.
In Francis’ case, when he is made to say: “ah, man, was I supposed to get, like, a manual with this job? ‘cos I forget what I’m supposed to be doing, like, aaaall the times…” this is true and too gentle at the same time. True, in that the man certainly has no idea of the “manual”; too gentle, in that Francis has never admitted he has strayed from said “manual”. Rather, by continuously refusing to correct his statements he has made very clear he doesn’t care two straws about it.Bergoglism is what counts.
Hey, he had a mystical experience. He said it himself. Or perhaps… not really. Doesn’t matter…
In a Lutheran video mocking a Pope whilst not even saying all that there is to say about said Pope is all the tragedy of a man whose boundless ignorance and teenager-like vanity is going to make him a very bad service, both in this life and – it is greatly to be feared – in the next. In the meantime, millions of souls are being led astray by his antics.
Pray for Pope Francis. That he may not be eaten by the wolves. Though I am sure they are salivating like it’s lunch time.
Louie Verrecchio at “Harvesting The Fruits Of V II” is thinking of launching the “Defensor Doctrinae” Project.
This would be a page where all the heretical or questionable statement of the Bishop of Rome are saved in order, and with the indication of the occasion, the date and where possible a stable link. A kind of “Bergogliopedia”.
Personally, I think such an instrument would be invaluable.
For us blogger, it would be a fast reference to recover past snippets of Bergoglism. As I have often said, we must read Francis through Francis, and a ready to use collection of pearls of Bergoglism would allow to very easily link the latest madness of the Pontiff to similar utterances made in the past. Whilst Francis is very chaotic in the way he expresses himself, his streams of consciousness follow, like Wagner’s music, a Leitmotiv (or several of them) that can be regularly observed through the cacophony of his speeches. A project like this one would allow to “connect the dots” far more rapidly than by googling at random among the sheer ocean of the headlines originated by the questionable (or worse) statements of the man.
In addition, it would be a huge help for every blog reader. Whenever Francis utters something “funky”, he would be able to visit the page and compare with past statement to see whether his gut feeling was justified.
In fact, this would become a sort of “syllabus of errors” of a new type, specifically aimed at the tidal wave of Francis’ confused, confusing or openly heretical statements. Again, an extremely useful study material and occasion for proper instruction.
Mr Verrecchio asks what would be the cons of the project. I can’t see any. On the contrary, it is extremely fitting that every questionable of heretical statement of the Pope be allowed to remain on the internet in an easily accessible place, “sculpted in cyber marble” so to speak, in order for this and the following generations to realise what is happening.
Seriously, I can’t see what could be wrong with that. It is not us who publish the questionable or heretical statement, it is Francis. It should be the desire of every blogger and every decent faithful that no Catholic is confused just because one does not want to appear to “go against the Pope”. If the Pope wants that the list does not become longer, he must do only one thing: stop talking rubbish. Orthodox Popes never caused any negative reaction from orthodox faithful.
Mr Verrecchio is still gathering opinions.
If you like this project – as I am sure most of you will – you can do worse than follow the link above, visit his page and leave one or two fast lines of approval and encouragement.
Best luck to him, and – if he starts the project – the support of at least the grateful blogger who calls himself
I have read around – I suspect, from the usual V II crowd – that repression of heresy doesn’t really work, as soon after the death of the last “repressive” Pope they were everywhere in just a few years. I found the reasoning so wrong I need to write a post of explanation, in case the argument should emerge in your own discussions with friends, on the Internet, etc.
in my eyes, that repression of Modernism works fine is abundantly proven by the fact that for more than 50 years Modernists were absolutely nowhere as far as mainstream Catholicism is concerned. Their work was limited to some isolated theologians, who were promptly censored or condemned, and – presumably- to a subterranean current of followers which, being underground and therefore silent, could not be easily spotted, much less attacked.
Still, the work of the good Popes of the past was so good, that even in such a situation they did not hesitate in keeping a very strict control over what was happening. It is said Pope Pius XII had put his own “plants” in the major Catholic universities and seminaries, exactly in order to flush out, as much as he could, even the heretics working in the shade. Seriously, how anyone could do better than this is beyond me; and whether it worked, of course it worked!
Still, heresy in the Church is like the weed in a huge field. You can do as much as you want to eradicate the weed, but it will pop up again and again, and it will never be possible to eradicate it completely. Even constant attention will not lead to the problem’s extinction; but neglect will soon cause the problem to explode.
This is exactly what happened when John XXIII was elected. Suddenly, there was no real interest in the extirpation on of weed anymore. As a result, the weed started to grow at a prodigious rate, and in just a few years took over the field. To say the policy of the former Popes didn’t work merely because the following Popes refused to care for the extirpation of the weed is to put things completely upside down.
Repression of heresy works. It works, in fact, beautifully. If after Pope Pius XII we had had Popes who care for the extirpation of weed, the field would be exactly in the same beautiful shape now as it was in the Fifties. Of course, we would still have heretics working in the dark. But this has always been the case.
Those who say the Popes of the first half of the XX Century were not effective against heresy are like those who blame the good gardener who left the garden spotless for the mess caused by his successors, and for the weed now growing everywhere, undisturbed.
Don’t blame the good gardener. Blame the bad ones.
Here is the translation in English of the press release of the Italian district of the SSPX concerning Priebke's funeral.
Some Catholics should read it and cry of shame; but those who should cry more are those priests, bishops and actually one Pope who chose to be the perfect cowards.
From the statement:
A Christian who was baptized and received the sacraments of Confession and Holy Eucharist, whatever his faults and his sins may have been, has the right to the celebration of Holy Mass and to a funeral if he dies reconciled with God and with the Church.
This simple truth is inaccessible, because inconvenient, to the very man who is on record with saying
“Everyone has his own idea of Good and Evil and he has to choose to follow the Good and to fight Evil as he understands it. This would be enough to improve the world.”
So Pope Francis is wrong twice: he is wrong when he states such heresies, and he is hypocritical when he conveniently forgets even his own heresies, let alone basic Catholicism, in order not to damage the PR machine now unceasingly licking the plates of atheist and liberals the world over.
We are degenerating to a Catholicism made of nothing more than commonplaces, fake humility, and black shoes.
Pray for Priebke. But pray for Francis, too.
I read around around even the most ardent supporters of the Bishop of Rome have a problem in understanding what he is meaning.
I think I can help.
I report below part of the latest attempt of Francis at looking cool and smart.
I have often written Francis, the Bishop of Rome, and the likes of him are a danger because they mix orthodoxy with heresy in a way that allows the heretical message to go through undisturbed, whilst giving a way to the Pollyannas to delude themselves he is being orthodox. Let us go a bit nearer and see in detail how they work.
Jesuits are a cunning bunch of sly foxes. They manipulate the simpletons with contrasting meanings not only in separate sentences, but even in the same sentence. The Bishop of Rome, the Jesuit in Chief, is a prime example.
Francis very often has a way of expressing himself that, no doubt with premeditation and malice, achieves his objective in a refined way. He does so by using a double subject that I will call, for the purposes of this post, the major and the minor one. The major subject is the one meant to make the worldwide headlines, the minor one is there to feed the pigeons. I have noticed this trick several times already. If you have paid attention to Francis' utterances you will immediately recognise the style.
Imagine a phrase like this:
Gays, those who love God and do good, are the crown of Christ.
The major subject is “Gays”, the word Francis and other Modernists uses for “Homosexuals” and/or “Sodomites”. This is what makes the worldwide headlines.
The minor subject, “those who love God and do good”, is the pigeon food. The Pollyannas will immediately clutch on this straw to interpret “gays” as “those homosexuals who accept in its entirety the teaching of the Church, live a chaste life and pray unceasingly that God's may give them the necessary graces so that they may get rid of their horrible perversion”.
After the phrase has been printed into the atheist and anti-clerical newspaper of your choice, Bergoglio's Jesuitical Spiel begins: liberal newspapers the world over will run headlines on the lines of “Gays Are The Crown Of Christ, Says Pope”. Meanwhile, the “reading Hitler through Snow White” party will publish countless blog post, all more or less titled “did Francis really say that Gays are the crown of Christ?”, trying to explain to us the baddies of the press of the entire planet – yes, pretty much all of them – really do not get the humble, saintly man. You see, they will explain, he did say “Gays” (which is unfortunate, they will admit obtorto collo under the pressure of their smarter commenters) but hold on, he meant a certain particular very rare type of “gay”, who never even calls himself “gay”, and not your usual sodomite.
Some others – the “Extreme Pollyann-ing crowd” – will say “look, you just didn't get it! Gay simply means “happy, debonair”. Therefore, the Pope is saying that happy Christians are the crown of Christ! Phew! I am so relieved! What an orthodox Pope we have!”
Being an army of Pollyannas, the “reading Hitler through Snow White” fraction will conveniently neglect to notice two things:
1. 99.99% of the planet will agree with the substance of what the liberal newspapers have written and understand the words of the Bishop of Rome as they, well, very well should, because it is what they mean. This will go through the entire spectrum: from liberal to middle of the road to conservative outlets. Basically, all those who can read with their brains switched on will understand what Francis wants to say all right.
2. The Pope will not correct the meaning of the words as stated by 99.99% of the world press. He will not give any authentic interpretation of them. He will do absolutely nothing as the liberals all over the planet crown him their own “honorary gay pope”. If “new evangelisation” means to allow 99% of the planet to get the totally wrong message, this “new evangelisation” is working all right, but I prefer to call it the old way: willful heresy, and the work of the devil.
Even after this, the Pollyannas will systematically refuse to acknowledge some very simple things: the headlines are exactly what was wanted from the start; the major subject was there exactly to generate them; and the minor subject was there merely to feed the pigeons, and keep them quiet.
The Spiel can be repeated ad libitum, and Francis uses it very often. He knows perfectly well why. The only ones who will never get it are the Pollyannas.