Usque Quo, Domine?

If we are honest, Martin Luther would make for an orthodox Pope compared with Francis.

If we are honest, when compared with Francis Martin Luther would make for an orthodox Pope.

I am, I must admit, a rather short-tempered chap; particularly, as it is natural, when the provocation concerns something I deeply love. You can, therefore, imagine how I feel as I write this, on the day the interview between Dr Scalfari and our Subversive-In-Chief is published.

I have read the Italian version this morning, and (even by the standards to which Francis has by now accustomed us) it took my breath away. “No two weeks without unspeakable scandal” seems to be the real motto of this – we can safely say it – historically appalling pontificate; a pontificate that will go down in history as one of the most infamous low points in the entire existence of the Church.

The translation of Rorate Caeli of the most important parts is here, where you will also find the link to the original Italian. Note: same left-wing newspaper, and same atheist, anti-clerical interlocutor already seen in the notorious 12,000 words interview.

They are becoming real buddies. What a fool Francis is.

What happened here is, I think, one of three:

1. Francis was rather peeved at all the attempts of sanitising him after every interview. You know, the “what he really, really wanted to say is…” semantic and theological acrobatics from every corner. Therefore, he thought he would, this time, shout his perverted heresy (“Bergoglism”, I think history will call it) really, really loud, and make the neutralisation of his heresy as difficult as he can. Or you can put it this way: Francis already told us when one speaks much one runs the risk of being misunderstood. Now he repeats his heresies in much shorter form, so that there is no risk of misunderstanding.

2. Francis has, after the experience of now very many episodes, understood that there is no limit to the blindness of his army of Pollyannas. He now considers them his best allies in his heretic campaign. Thank to them, he is now free to shout his heresies as loud as he wishes, safe in the confidence his useful idiots will keep honest Catholics at bay whilst he spreads them.

3. The man is not compos mentis; he is just not there with the head anymore; he is losing control of his own thoughts, and is now unable to remember even the basics of the religion of which he is at the head. This is the most charitable hypothesis, that I do not want to leave unmentioned.

Now, if the last hypothesis does not apply, what on earth moves a Pope, of all men, to this? Again, I see only two realistic scenarios:

A) The man is a deeply, deeply deluded, pathetic old man who in his misguided desire to “feel good” and, at least as importantly, “feel popular” forgets the very basics of Christianity, trampling with his feet on its most sacred principles. I do not think he has any excuses for this – at least if 3. above does not apply – and cannot avoid thinking this man is marching toward hell like a high speed train. He might repent, of course, and we must pray he does. But look, this is an old Jesuit of 77 very ill-spent springs, with decades of devastation of Catholicism behind him. He shows such brutal signs of reprobation it’s truly scary. He does not even stink of favela anymore. He stinks of brimstone.

B) The man has lost his faith a long time ago, and every fear of the Lord with that. Like many who do not believe in God, he seeks solace in an alternative religion. For him, this is clearly social work and extreme “inclusiveness”. He clearly think he is better than the God in which the Christians have believed these two thousand years. This makes logical sense only if you believe this God is a tale, and you can improve on it.

I wonder, at this point, if Hans Küng would have been so much worse than him. I do not doubt Martin Luther would have been much better. At least Luther required faith in Christ to be saved. It was wrong Christianity, but it was Christianity. The heresy of Bergoglism is a fluffy, effeminate, emotional relativism without any need for faith in Christ and, consequently, without any need for proselytism; the latter is, therefore, a “solemn nonsense”, something that “makes no sense”. You read Francis talking of atheism, salvation and the rest, you understand Francis’ heresy is way past Luther’s, and is rather akin to Kueng’s Weltanschauung: a sort of all-inclusive, everything-goes world religion where everyone feels welcomed as he/she/it feels or defines him/her/itself; without the uncomfortable, unsaleable, and utter uncharitable encumbrance of having to convert people. 

We have a Pope for whom Christian faith, adherence to Truth and even a generic faith in God are optional. A Pope not interested in converting people, or even atheists. One who considers such an effort “solemn nonsense”. I can’t imagine any Christian age of the past in which one like him would not have been considered an extremely dangerous heretic for preaching just a small fraction of what he goes around saying every day. 

I will leave to another post (or to other posts) some more detailed analysis, according to what my simple, but authentic faith in Christ allows, of some of the things this man has said. We have come to the point where every time the man speaks, the rubbish is such that it can be only tackled in installments. I am also hoping – against hope, it must be said – that the Vatican will accuse Repubblica of having not given a fair account of the interview, perhaps due to translation (?) or other problems. Frankly, though, it’s improbable.

I am extremely curious now to know how the spin artists will spin this. Popcorn is, notwithstanding the intrinsic tragedy of the situation, in order.

Let me close – for now – with a small observation: not for the first time, by reading this man I have the impression he slaps Jesus in the face, and boasts of it with the atheists and the world.

How long Jesus will allow this little deluded heretic full of himself to slap him, is the question.

Usque quo, Domine?


Posted on October 1, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 18 Comments.

  1. I’m grateful he wasn’t elected right after Blessed John Paul II. If we got him in 2005 instead of Pope Benedict, there would be no SP, Ordinariates or new and improved English translation of the Pauline missal. A lot less Catholics would have access to a Traditional Latin Mass.

    • Ah, for how long there will be Ordinariates, or Summorum Pontificum comes to that, is another interesting question.

      This man does not give a straw for Christ. I wonder how much respect he will have for the Ordinariates, Summorum Pontificum, or the rest.


  2. I must admit I walk the world these days with a feeling of disorientation and profound sadness and continue to pray for Francis and the Church. That’s all we can do. What do you make of him saying that his favorite hour of the day is between 7 and 8 pm for adoration? Do I cling to straws?

  3. You (and Rorate Caeli) were among the earliest and loudest to sound the alarm on this pontificate. Well done. John V. has a good take at his website ( that is worth listening to as well. You’ve got a great blog. Thanks.

    • Thank you, Sir!

      I am also on the look for good blogs for future use.

      The number of useful sensible sources of information is getting thinner.


  4. I wonder whether sooner rather than later there will be a realisation by the cardinals who elected him that Francis’ foot-in-mouth proclivity is as much a disaster for them as for the Catholic Church. What I’m trying to say is that he may be going too far off message, even for them; that every risible utterance is causing bulging eyes and loosening of collars, (after all, the cardinals are mostly sophisticated politicians, unlike Francis), as their woeful collective judgement is laid bare day after day. Is it possible, then, that their personal vanity will be so piqued that they will close in on Francis and close him down? Perhaps this sounds too much like a Morris West fiction about the papacy and my own wishful thinking?

    • I think the same.

      At the beginning it is the great novelty.

      Then it becomes boredom.

      Then it becomes ridicule.

      If this kind of antics had some use, the US Presbyterians would be growing brutally, and be much respected. They are neither.


  5. Mundabor,
    You are absolutely correct regarding Pope Francis. Well done!

    By the way, I had a recent encounter with a looney-bin Protestant. His blog is border-line demonic. You can view my analysis of it here.

    I bring this up because there are many more psycho-Protestant blogs than Catholic ones. We Traditionalists need to get our message out in order to drown away the Proddies and the Libtard Leftists.


    • I chance to land on the one or other of these blogs at times, they obviously use tags that are commonly used by others.

      I think they are a great ad for Catholicism. Normal people will ignore them of discover some Truth of Catholicism they did not know. The loonies who read them were loonies already.


  6. Dear Mondabor. If the Bishop of Rome is like Luther, we are in much worse shape than I thought for Luther was not even a Christian: he was a fat lying vow-breaking drunken gnostic

  7. The corruption in argentine church during the bergoglio era was such that not only there were scandals involving sodomite priest but also perverted nuns , those who understand spanish can read here about this disgusting story: Two argentines nuns were convicted of the murder of a female teacher who had a lesbian relationship with the nuns, after the trial the nuns got married in jail…. Francis would say ¿ who we are to judge them?

  8. I agree with you that the chirpy reassurances like “He’s devoted to the Blessed Virgin! He says the Rosary! He goes to Adoration!” are feeble straws. Once again, go to the Anglicans to see how deep corruption can go. You will not find one, not even the most depraved homosexual libertine, who won’t proudly announce that he “recites the Creed” every Sunday. Only when you dig a little deeper, you discover that while they can say the same words everyone always has used, they’ve secretly substituted their own, personal meaning, so that it means whatever they want it to. Here’s a very notorious example:

    So I feel no comfort when I’m told that Francis says the Rosary; how do I know what he means when he says those words? How do I know what he thinks he’s adoring when he’s on his knees in a chapel? His Catholicism is his original creation – why would the devotions fare any better than the rest of the faith he’s concocted to suit himself?

    • The Antichrist will certainly be able to make great show of piety.
      The Devil can certainly quote scripture, as shown in the Gospel.
      I would be surprised if Francis wouldn’t be able to muster some token devotion to the Blessed Virgin.


  9. María Victoria what a terrible story! I’m Danish but speak spanish and what I read left me speechless, note the nuns met the teacher in a slum where the teacher imparted lessons and the nuns “practiced the charity”.. this clearly illustrates the disgusting message of Bergoglio, these women were lesbians, perverts but they helped the poor… so one can be sodomite, lesbian, kill babies.. but if you help the poor, donate money to save the artic seal and welcome illegal inmigration then you are automatically saved. This is not Catholicism this is Bergoglism! He combines the filthy resentful populism of Eva Peron, Che Guevara with the vulgarity and arrogance of Maradona.. what a disgrace! he says that the Church is too “Vaticancentrist”, I think he might decide to move Vatican to some slum where the priests and nuns are free to smell like its filth.

  10. I am going to peep out of the Protestant trenches for a second and make a couple of comments. The first is that the rot of liberalism is in all the churches — where there is a committee and a heirarchy and a book of order (and all churches need these things) then the committee has been subverted, and there have been strenuous efforts to change the book of order (the Presbyterian Church here has kept gay clergy out (barely — those who snuck through are still there — unlike the PCUSA).

    So we are fighting the same fight. It’s not about transubstantiation vs symbolism. Or the place of ikons and saints. or what is or is not a sacrament. (Yes, these are important, and these issues are why I’m reformed and not roman but….)

    The key thing is the defence ot the gospel. Ratzi knew this. JPII knew this.

    Not the therapeutic acceptance of all, but the reality of sin, damnation, and atonement: of Christ;s work in death and resurrection.

    And that is what is being subverted.

    So I’m going to double down. Luther is better. Calvin would be better. Wesley would be better. For they preached the gospel.

    I am praying for my Catholic friends, that the gospel — which their ancestors so ably preached,– is preserverd. I’ve given up on the Wesleyans, but us reformed need that roman bulwark, for we cannto fight or tour fronts at once.

    • I approve the spirit and I agree with you about those who (wrongly, but still…) preached the Gospel.

      You are invited to click around and have a taste of Truth. A wrong Pope does not change any truth, merely his chances of salvation.

      Chances of salvation which, my friend, you would greatly enhance by hopping on the Barque.


%d bloggers like this: