Monthly Archives: November 2013
You see below an extremely mild, but highly indicative criticism of the Pope’s latest inordinate waffling.
It is very interesting that even when buried among 50,000+ words, the biggest pieces of nonsense coming out of Francis’ obviously limited wisdom do get noticed.
This here is a priest in good standing. Feel free to read behind his extremely mild and well-presented criticism, and to realise the disapproval that must be cooking behind the extremely gentle words.
This Pope is enraging everyone who can think.
Why are conservative Catholics so intent in bashing everything that is Un-Catholic? Why are they unable to just let people be, and embrace “tolerance”? Do they really need to show all the others how good they are? These questions fly around, more or less directly, in this or that blog post.
Perhaps yours truly should say a word or two.
The modern world – who doesn’t learn anything by heart, because it feels too smart for that – has forgotten that to admonish the sinner is not only acceptable, but highly desirable. It is, in fact, one of the spiritual works of mercy. The one who helps the other to understand the consequences of wrong behaviour truly is the one who often helps the wretched creature more than all others around him, and claiming to love him and to want his good, are doing. Lucky is the sinner who…
View original post 317 more words
In an interview with Catholic News Service, Mr Eberle said “many points” in the Pope’s apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”) suggested the German Church was “moving in the right way” in its attitude toward remarried Catholics.Uwe Renz, spokesman in the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, also defended the bishops’ stance. He said he believed the bishops were acting “in the spirit of the Pope’s teaching.”“Our own dialogue process has shown this is a major issue for both lay Catholics and priests,” Mr Renz said.“Pope Francis has called on bishops to exercise a wise and realistic pastoral discernment on such problems, and our bishops want divorced and remarried Catholics to be a full part of the church community, with full rights.”
I do not entirely blame Mr Eberle. I mean, of course I do. But he is not the first responsible for the impending schism in Germany. Francis, the Pope who does not want to be called that way, is.
One must be either utterly evil or very, very stupid, not to understand what all this popularity-seeking waffle is leading to. It is unavoidable that all this stuff about decentralisation and calling for “pastoral discernment” opens the way to the worst evil imaginable. Let me repeat it again: utterly evil, or very stupid. From today, “German Schism” enters the number of my tags. I am afraid I will have to write many, many posts with this tag. I pray that the Angels ask for vengeance on the Pope who allows this happen; nay, encourages it. The Church is being raped under our very eyes, and with the stupid acquiescence or evil complicity of the very Pope. What times are we living in.
Francis needs to seriously wake up, and this charitably supposing he is asleep rather than complicitous. Every day we see the enemies of Christ take another centimetre of sacred Church ground, whilst Francis sneaks out in the night to “help the poor”, or buries us under 50,000+ words of more or less heretical waffle.
Enough. Enough. Enough.
Stupid or evil. Tertium non datur.
If you have the stomach to watch the video in its entirety (frankly, I hadn’t) you will see ugly dykes – yes, dykes are ugly. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be dykes – strutting their unimpressive naked stuff in front of extremely patient boys, whose only answer to being spit in the face (as in: being spit in the face. No trace of police) is… continuing the recitation of the rosary.
Truly, hell and heaven separated by centimeters.
I commend the reaction of the boys, and their truly heroic patience (way beyond my means) in the face of provocation.
Still, let me tell you this: it is not right that in a traditionally Catholic country things have to come to this point, and reaction to such provocations is entirely legitimate.
If yours truly were to be the last of a long list of dictators in Argentina, these satanical people would get to feel the stick on their backs; and a blessed stick it would be that helps them to see reason, if at all possible.
You can say what you want of the Duce, but he knew how to deal with these people. I miss his, as they say today, “can do” attitude.
The Germans have a beautiful way to say it: Wer nicht hoeren will, muss fuehlen: “He who does not want to listen, must feel”. For the sake of clarity, the “feeling” is here the physical pain inflicted to them.
God willing, a time will come when those vicariously spitting on Christ and painting His followers with spray (and obviously spitting on Christian values besides spitting on people) get to feel , in this life, a small part of the suffering awaiting them in the next.
Please don’t give me any of the Gandhi stuff. Look at the video and see whether punishment would not be fully in order here.
All this, whilst our unworthily reigning Pope boasts about the great number of people who are baptised. I bet most of the dykes in the video are baptised, too.
We need to wake up. And Francis first.
Pray for those brave people in the video. God knows how they could keep the calm.
I fear I would have made a massacre.
Lifesitenews.com reports about an intervention from Cardinal Burke in an interview released earlier this month. From Life Site News’ article:
Asked about Pelosi, [Cardinal Burke] said,
“Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied.”
Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
“This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic,” the cardinal said. “I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.”
I will be frank with you. I was appalled at the “disciplinarian” attitude of…
View original post 140 more words
This post contains strong language. Sissies, click away now or forever hold your tongue.
Paragraph 54 has emerged as one of the parts of Evangelii Gaudium worth the exploring. Many others have commented. Allow me to contribute my two cents here.
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.
Economic growth in free markets is a tremendous creator of opportunity for everyone, and a great leveller of social inequalities. In non developed capitalistic societies (say: India ca. 1920) your family and socioeconomic environment were much more likely to be your destiny than in the very mobile Western societies of today. In Western societies wealth seldom remains in the same family for more than three generations, as a new breed of self made men takes the place of the old ones. Opportunity and equality at work. Obviously this is not a perfect world: but that economic growth, encouraged by free market, by itself makes the world less inequal (or let us say better: less unfair; inequalities are bad only for communists) cannot be denied.
This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts,
Keep dreaming, Your Holiness. And please never look out of the favela. The shock could be fatal.
expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.
The only one who is naïve here – nay: blind – is Francis. He should visit a lost, isolated village in India, or in the Mozambique, that has never heard of modern Capitalism, compare with the “poverty line” in Rome or Paris, and tell us about it. The “prevailing economic system” is not only the one that has worked best, ever, but is the one that foots the bill for the poorest of the rest of the planet. Francis simply ignores this, Castroite as he clearly is.
Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.
More Castro-thinking. Entire countries have seen the condition of the working class improve enormously in the last decades, as the “prevailing economic system” is introduced in those countries and brings more security for everyone. Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, India (60+ million people comfortably middle-class for European standards, and growing like it's going out of fashion: how's that, Francis?). Those who do not improve are the Countries mired in violence, populism and corruption, that are the real enemies of the poor and the first causes of poverty. Even countries like India, that have adopted some of the lessons of sound Capitalism, are still far too corrupt, inefficient, exploitative to even deserve to be called part of the “prevailing economic system”. The real fight is against violence, populism and corruption, not Capitalism. Capitalism is the best economic ally of the poor.
To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed.
More slogans. What is a “lifestyle that excludes others”? Aren't the Western economies doing more to alleviate global poverty than the Castroite dreams of Francis would ever allow? As to Globalisation, it is clear to the blind that the “poor of the world” profit from it more than the West, where the availability of cheap products is paid at the price of higher unemployment among the low-skilled, creating more social costs and higher taxes to compensate for those, say, cheap socks. The unemployed of the West are also poor, at least in a relative way. They pay, in the end, the highest price for Globalisation. Francis doesn't say it. He doesn't even realise it. To him, to be poor is to be on the right side: that the poor in Pakistan and Britain are competing for the same work in, say, the Western textile industry does not even occur to him. Yes, the UK-made socks would use less work. But yes, they would still create an awful lot of employment, reduce social transfers and tax burden, and increase satisfaction at home, where the charity begins. How about these poor, Bishop Francis?
Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
This is a gratuitous affirmation. There is no tevidence at all that the rich Western societies do not care for the needy. On the contrary, they have never cared so much. Here in London, last time I looked food banks threw away more than half of the food they collect, because it's just not needed. Millions of people live without working one freaking day in their lives, or for any meaningful period, becoming skilled handout professionals instead. I have known a couple personally and some are real artists.
The paragraph ends here.
More in general, the entire idea suffers from the usual construction mistake of all those easy criticisms and whining complaint: find a system that has delivered better results, or shut up.
Everyone can reinvent the world from the comfort of his armchair, but the world has this funny way of not caring a bit for people's dreams and fantasies.
On the contrary, when I read Rerum Novarum I see nothing of the creeping socialism of our time. There was no dole then. No socialised health care. No unemployment insurance. No universal state pension. Not even minimum wage! Did Leo XIII create any of these? No, he didn't. Germany has lived perfectly well without minimum wage until 2013, go figure.
Catholic thinking is that solidarity and charity do the job, not an omnipresent state apparatus adding countless administrators, controllers, regulators, and assorted other people who are there just to give the government of the day more power over our lives. Solidarity and charity can do all that the “social state” does, much better and much cheaper. In Christian countries people did not die of hunger, and you can still see the vestiges of all the charitable organisations meant to help the poor. The deserving poor were helped, the undeserving were not. There were orphanages, and the wheel. People knew each other. They knew who was in need, and they knew the money was well spent. They knew the meaning of Christian charity. Alleluia. No army of apparatchiks in the middle deciding who gets what, and that everyone gets the pill; or an abortion; or maintenance for life paid by people who don't even know she exists, and how she lives. Those were the days.
As Christianity shrunk from Western countries, the governments took its place. Out went the charity, in came the entitlement. Out went the gratitude, in came the hate.
Give me Leo XIII every day. Down with the omnipresence and oppression of government, and let Christians tackle the problems of life in the Christian way. It will still be a vale of tears, but one that fosters charity and gratitude rather than entitlement, envy and godlessness.
When did Christ mandate state-imposed health? Income tax? Forced redistribution? Cost-free abortion on demand? Flats for girls having babies? You are confusing with rabid Liberalism and the Social State, dear.
Francis is not only implicitly asking only for more statism. He is doing worse: he is demanding some vaguely dreamed system of world kindergarten economics that very well matches his system of kindergarten Catholicism: shallow, rhetoric, utterly unintelligent, and totally unworkable. He is like a globalised Obama, without the need of being elected. Boy, if he got together with Bono and the Dalai Lama, how they would change the world, at least in their dreams!
Francis talks of things he does not understand. He does it about Catholicism, it is no surprise that he should have a go at economics. He is fully imbibed with the whiny victimhood of South America, which gave us the Peron and Chavez of this world. He is the product of the same mentality that led many Southern American Governments to declare they would not honour their debts, plunging an entire sub-continent in up to two decades of stagnation whilst the Asian Tigers left South American countries far behind. Congratulations, morons.
This is what Castroites do to you. They spoil you rotten until you see only persecutors and oppressors, and make you unfit for honest employment. It goes for collective entities as far as for individual ones.
Beware of wolves in Castro uniform. Particularly when they don't know what they are talking about.
P.S. Comments are closed. Life's to short for debates with the “Occupy” crowd. If you like this post, please tweet and “like” on Facebook instead.
So, let us plunge into the paper lake and see where our eye falls.
Very randomly taken:
If something should rightly disturb us and trouble our consciences, it is the fact that so many of our brothers and sisters are living without the strength, light and consolation born of friendship with Jesus Christ, without a community of faith to support them, without meaning and a goal in life.
More disturbing still is when a Pope gives an interview to an atheist journalist for a secular newspaper and sends to them the message that if they follow their conscience they'll be fine.
The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.
This is not a man very versed in history. The modern capitalistic societies have far less poverty, and far more abundance for the generality of people than every – and I mean: every – economic society of the past. Not only that: western capitalism keeps entire continents from dire need, providing a substantial part of the GDP out of pure transfer in many countries, particularly African ones.
As even a man who considers Beethoven a luxury for Renaissance Prince should know, “idolatry of money” has been there in every age, and will be with us as long as the sun shines. But notice, only one who has lost his faith or never had it can make of money his idol. These are exactly the people Francis deems fine not to convert.
A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.
” I have no idea what I am talking about, nor have I to offer any solution besides some trite slogan. Let's try this: “money must serve, not rule!””. Please applaud. I am so 'umble.
It would show a lack of trust in his free and unstinting activity to think that authentic Christian values are absent where great numbers of people have received baptism and express their faith and solidarity with others in a variety of ways.
It shows a great lack of reality not to understand that many who are baptised do not even know hot to make the Sign of the Cross, have no idea of even the Ten Commandments, and think Jesus is a, like, cool guy.
In the case of the popular cultures of Catholic peoples, we can see deficiencies which need to be healed by the Gospel: machismo, alcoholism, domestic violence, low Mass attendance, fatalistic or superstitious notions which lead to sorcery, and the like.
“Machismo” is there with alcoholism and domestic violence, and akin to sorcery. This is one for the dykes and the all-out feminists out there. Spoken like a true nun on the bus.
Out of respect for the office, I will stop here, though I will still say that Francis should spend less time with his “gay” (his word) buddy, Monsignor Ricca.
Cattive compagnie, queste frocette. Eh? Ah? No?
At times our media culture and some intellectual circles convey a marked scepticism with regard to the Church’s message, along with a certain cynicism. As a consequence, many pastoral workers, although they pray, develop a sort of inferiority complex which leads them to relativize or conceal their Christian identity and convictions. This produces a vicious circle. They end up being unhappy with who they are and what they do; they do not identify with their mission of evangelization and this weakens their commitment. They end up stifling the joy of mission with a kind of obsession about being like everyone else and possessing what everyone else possesses. Their work of evangelization thus becomes forced, and they devote little energy and very limited time to it.
This is very well said. The ghost writer is a smart guy. He describes the Vatican II mentality in a beautiful way. By the by, the sentences apply wonderfully to the vast majority of priests in the West.
There are Christians whose lives seem like Lent without Easter.
There are Popes who make clowns of themselves without running a circus. Give me the dour Pope and the severe old woman every day. And no, I am not one of those. Just so you know, I am an extremely funny guy.
A second area is that of “the baptized whose lives do not reflect the demands of Baptism”, who lack a meaningful relationship to the Church and no longer experience the consolation born of faith. The Church, in her maternal concern, tries to help them experience a conversion which will restore the joy of faith to their hearts and inspire a commitment to the Gospel.
This would be the right time to invite them to repentance and warn them about the consequence of disobedience. Not a word. Instead, a sort of inferiority complex which leads him to relativise or conceal his Christian identity and convictions. Wait, where have I read this…?
Lastly, we cannot forget that evangelization is first and foremost about preaching the Gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ or who have always rejected him. Many of these are quietly seeking God, led by a yearning to see his face, even in countries of ancient Christian tradition. All of them have a right to receive the Gospel. Christians have the duty to proclaim the Gospel without excluding anyone. Instead of seeming to impose new obligations, they should appear as people who wish to share their joy, who point to a horizon of beauty and who invite others to a delicious banquet. It is not by proselytizing that the Church grows, but “by attraction”
The hardened atheist is put in the same boat with the poor chap who does not know Christianity, as if their situations would not be radically different both as regards their earthly prospects (the second is possibly fertile ground, the first an arid desert) and their heavenly ones (the ignorant chap might bank on the invincible ignorance and save his backside, the willful atheist is more screwed than Elton). Clearly, atheism is made harmless here. A problem of lack of information. Perhaps if we were more “joyous” the atheists would be converted? How about a red nose?
Not one word about the dangers of damnation. If not here when, then…
As a rule, I would say some good formulations are overshadowed by the omnipresent stink of Vatican II.
Not a fruitful reading.
Spend time on your Garrigou-Lagrange instead.
I did not know there are people as stupid as that, but evidently I was wrong.
The Poofington Post has an article about a kind of vegan/affirmation cafe shop clearly riding the wave of the many people thinking they can solve their problems, or their existential questions, with extremely gay new age bollocks.
Can you imagine a grown man going to a cafe and ordering his product saying “I am peace” instead of saying what he wants? Apparently, the server answers with “you are peace”, or the like, not only to confirm the – exclusively Vegan; only bad people like Jesus eat meat – order, but clearly mainly to let the sixty-Eighter in front of him feel so good with himself.
These people must be three years old. Five, tops.
The entire linked article is an involuntary parody of liberal America. The chaps “give thanks” to the neighbourhood supporting them. What? Is this Thanksgiving? I assumed that to be grateful to God for your prospering business on occasion of Thanksgiving would be so… un-Vegan.
The shop owners talk like post-lesbian feminists just back from their last Indian trip. They talk of their business as “making a difference”, which means every greengrocer was always a benefactor of humanity without knowing it. The entire thing stinks to the skies of the main ingredient of every conversation among liberals: the desperate desire to feel good with themselves, and to make themselves beautiful with others. No surprise the business is good: the target audience in Southern California must be huge. Ehy, the omnipresent “celebrities” visit! So it must be cool! I wish one day someone would make a census of “celebrities”, and tell us why we should care about what they do. Don’t hold your breath.
The liberal way is obvious: do not care for your salvation. Follow every stupid fad. Behave like a faggot in front of an audience. Praise yourself without ceasing. And most of all, think happy thoughts. It’ll give you a mini-fix for the next two minutes as you keep sliding away in a life without Christ, but making you ohh so thankful to your cat for making your life so wonderfully unique.
We do not know much about the Temple Veil. We have the usual Flavius Josephus, and some Jewish sources with descriptions that might, following the use of the time, be willed exaggerations in order to make the point.
What is undoubted is that the veil was not a proper veil, but an extremely thick, finely interwoven curtain, extremely beautiful and extremely heavy. It had the role of a “movable wall”. As it procured access to the Sancta Sanctorum, entry to which was forbidden to almost everyone almost every time, there was the need of a system making necessary the cooperation of several men to procure entrance, thus avoiding the possibility of “sneaking in” on the sly that a door would have easily afforded. In this way, the veil procured security from entrance without having to tear down a wall every year. As you can imagine, a work of this sort would be of exceptional strength and weight, the finely interwoven tissues giving it extreme resistance and making it unthinkable that anyone may ever rent it to obtain entrance.
The “veil” was, therefore, not a small matter. Firstly it was a beast of a thing, and secondly with its magnificence and its role it was a massive witness of the sacrality of the Sancta Sanctorum, which contained the Ark. The highly symbolic character of this exceptional artifact is absolutely evident.
This “veil” is reported by the Gospels. Matthew says:
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
A big earthquake takes place immediately after Our Lord dies. The veil is torn, but not simply damaged: it is “rent in twain from the top to the bottom”, and the comparison with the rocks leaves no doubt about the magnitude of the events (both the earthquake and the astonishing renting of the veil). The fact itself and the emphatic report of the Evangelists do not leave any doubt: at the very moment of Jesus' death, Judaism stops being the religion of the Covenant. The veil is torn and access is possible to everyone, because the Sancta Sanctorum is no more necessary. Christianity is born, and Judaism is now officially past its “sell by” date. In a few decades the Temple itself will be destroyed by, in another symbolic turn of events, Rome, the appointed fulcrum of the new religion and of the Only Church. The humiliation is total and definitive, and the consequence inescapable: the Temple is gone because God has no use for it. Nothing like complete and irreversible destruction screams “you're fired”, but the real “pink slip” was the renting of the veil with its unmistakable meaning.
The disciples of Jesus clearly grasped it. We see this in the Acts, with Peter boldly calling the Jews to conversion on the day of Pentecost. Evidently, there is a need to convert Jews to the new faith if they are to be saved. If it were not so, Jesus' very death on the cross would make no sense, and the entire Christian message would be a fraud. But it is so, and the Jews recognise the great danger coming from the followers of Christ. They understand that the Christians are far more than a strange branch of Judaism: they are an alternative to it, and one that risks to wipe them out. Saul understands the dangers very well, and is very zealous in his work of eradication. The rest is, well, Scripture.
There can be no doubt that for the first Christians, and for all those who came after, a Jew belongs to the wrong shop. The wrong one, not the nice old one. The Jews themselves certainly can't think they belong to the new religion, and would in fact never claim they do. The Jews do not believe in the Trinity, or the Holy Ghost, or Jesus. A smart child of seven would understand that the two religions are not compatible. They are, in fact, two religions, of which one is now false, because past “sell by” date.
A child of seven would understand all this, but a Jesuit of 76? Hhmmm, let's read from Evangelii Gaudium:
“We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for ‘the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable’ (Rom 11:29).
The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the Sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word”.
No need for conversion to Christ. Actually, no need for Christ in the first place. In this vision, Jesus is a nice chap and bringer of “joy”, but is ultimately superfluous as “we cannot consider Judaism a foreign religion”, and we do not include them among those who need to convert. When Peter told the Jews on the day of Pentecost they need to convert, he was clearly wrong. Tsk, tsk! Should talk to the atheists instead. No, wait!…
The gravity of these words does not need any comment, but I note that this is exactly, to the last word, the mentality that allows Francis to consider his pal, Rabbi Skorka, perfectly fine in all that he does, and even worthy of encouragement to do it even better and in general go on with his own religion.
Converting him? No, no, no!
This exhortation seems to me just another Modernist document: orthodox here, perhaps laudable here or there (51,000 words is a lot), but then clearly heretical in some statements, thrown in almost casually in the midst of the ocean of words but such that they will slowly shape the public consciousness in the matter.
We will see what else comes out. I have read some good things about abortion, but then again he is the Pope.
Also, keep in mind this is something for insiders: most readers of “Repubblica” will barely notice the event, and will not be motivated to go on the Internet and read it. Which, by 51,000 words, is rather understandable.
Therefore, the public perception of the Pope will continue to be dominated by the interviews. This here is, in the end, merely a sideshow.
Someone tweeted me the question whether I believe that V II was not the work of the Holy Spirit. The tweet was possibly a joke, as anyone who takes two minutes to read my blog cannot really have many doubts where I stand. Still, we must confront the tragic reality that as I write this there are people out there who in fact believe the Holy Ghost, instead of Satan, was the source of inspiration for the entire matter.
So let us think for a moment what the logical consequence of this thinking is. If the Holy Ghost inspired V II, it follows that the Holy Ghost has changed his mind very radically about the way to say Mass, thinking on second thoughts that the injection of Calvinist elements and the removal of Catholic elements from the Mass is just the ticket. Following, we must also agree…
View original post 577 more words
The Germans have a beautiful saying; they call it Die LKW-Theorie.
The theory in question says that if you want to avoid close scrutiny for your project, you can submit to the deciders an entire truckload of documents at the last minute, pointing out that the decision is now expected very fast or else the client will walk away. The deciders have therefore the double whammy of time and sheer quantity of material put in front of them, with all the bad news conveniently buried in the middle of the paper avalanche. Only the strongest will resist the trick, but many are those who will cave in, faced with the pressure of angry salesmen threatening to lay at their feet with the powers that be the charge of every misconduct from, and including, Adam. Every time this happens, men are divided from boys; then you discover that just a few men, and a great many boys, walk around in your typical office on any given day.
The theory is there because the time has honoured its application, making of it a staple of German – and, I am sure, not only German – office life. In short, it works.
I had to smile and think of the “LKW-Theory” when I realised the sheer mass of the papal exhortation, exceeding the 50,000 words including the notes. This is more than four times the 12,000 words interview to Civilta’ Cattolica. It would appear that after the scandal caused by the 12,000 words interview a new strategy is employed, based on the drowning of the prospective reader under such a tidal wave of information that he will not be encouraged to read anyway. And who would, on reflection, want to be “encouraged” for hours on end? It would make despondency look appealing.
This is, I think, part of the motivation for an effort reaching Soviet Politburo proportions. Most people will just not touch the document, or shall I say the small book. I can’t imagine this effect was not intended.
Still, from what I could read up to now another theory might be applied. Yours truly would like to name it, following the German habit, the Smorgasbord Theory.
According to this theory, you need to offer a buffet in which absolutely everything and the contrary of everything is present, so that everyone will be able to pick and choose the food he likes most and everyone will be happy in the end. The smoked herring lover will find Francis’ take on the herring absolutely fascinating, whilst the the chocolate mousse fan will declare that Francis is a dessert champion and the apple pie lover will praise the perfect balance of the ingredients, with the pastry just after his liking.
In this never ending exhortation – evidently written in its groundwork by a pen far smarter and more lucid than Francis, as you can see comparing the writing style with Francis’ inordinate and shallow ramblings – there is pretty much everything most V II Catholic hearts – not mine, not mine! – can desire. Vatican II rhetoric is pretty much everywhere, and once again one has the impression these people think that before 1961 we were in the Stone Age. There are the strongest words against abortion ever heard from the non-obsessing, non narrow-minded Francis, drowned somewhere in the mare magnum of the work. Apparently, Pius XI is mentioned in a note (wow! What a blessing! The Holy Ghost truly is making overtime! Give me the tambourine!). The rhetoric of “joy” is everywhere, which should work well with the tipsy readers. Francis the writer contradicts (not corrects) Francis the interviewee with beautiful regularity (say: on “proselytism”), showing that the skilled anonymous ghost writer knows a bit more of Catholicism than Francis; but still remaining within solid V II, peace ‘n joy, inclusive ecumenical stuff. At least one blunder (actually: heresy) is huge: the idea that the covenant with the Jews is still valid and when God tore the veil in the Temple he was merely suggesting to the Jews that it might be wise to build a new version, with electric motors and extensive use of carbon fiber. This, I suspect, is another V II fad that evidently had to be part of the Smorgasbord to please… Francis’ buddy, the pro-homo Rabbi.
For the rest, one would have to dig deep in the paper mountain. Let me tell you that I refuse to do it and reject the idea Francis can use the LKW-theory with me, or take me by sheer exhaustion. The best and worst parts will come out in the press anyway, and I will comment on them as and when I see fit. But I refuse – as I already did with the 12,000 words interview – the logic of “how can you criticise Marxism if you have not read “Das Kapital” “. I do not doubt in the word mountain there will be tons of V II waffle, some well worded phrases, and some horrible statements.
Still, one thing can be said already. For one who doesn’t even want to read the homilies prepared for him, Francis asks us an awful lot of reading.
In a “shocking” story that is, we are assured, provoking “much emotion” in France – emotions rule our times: thinking is sooo overrated – a couple of vecchi malvissuti (“old people who have lived badly”: Manzoni was a giant…) has decided to send themselves directly in the hands of the devil with a carefully planned, coldly executed suicide. One of them – the wife, I gather – has even left an angry letter because hey, she should be free to take her life in the manner most agreeable to her, and who are we to judge…
If you think God will have pity on these idiots, you are sailing on very dangerous waters and are in danger of considering hell a place from which we will be kept out no matter how big our effort to get there. From there to Father Barron the step is but a little one.
We cannot know how God decides in the individual situation, but in His mercy he thought it fit to let us know what his criteria are. As God cannot deceive us, we know with absolute certainty that He will stick to them. This means, in clear words, that either the respective guardian angel managed to achieve a perfect contrition for his charge at the very latest moment – an hypothesis going far beyond any reasonable assumption, but that we examine in acknowledgment that He is the one who decides – or the two must, if God is God (and God is God) perforce be in hell, having shouted their arrival rather loudly. Make your own mind about the odds, and shiver.
Double suicide. Carefully prepared. With two letters left. I would not want to be the Catholic priest who, in such a situation, gives scandal and confuses the faithful by allowing – provided any such is asked – a Catholic funeral for the two, and dies one day without repenting for his folly.
Still, let us be clear here: the folly is becoming mainstream. Millions of Frenchies will now see as “unjust” that a man cannot terminate himself as if he were a hamster tired of the wheel, and will abandon the Christian front like it's 1940. They will demand “compassion” and ask that what God has given human folly may throw away, feeling terribly good in the process. Methinks, the attitude will be shared not only by atheists – which is coherent with being an atheist: if there is no God, even a Holocaust is a matter of choice and a man not intrinsically different from a hamster; merely more complicated – but even by people who believe themselves at least vaguely Christian, and seem to think God must have been utterly wrong in those old dark and judgmental times, times not yet enlightened by the compassion of societally accepted suicide and mass abortion.
The liberal press will go at this like the devil's whores they are. Perhaps even beyond France. Other like them – Cameron, Clegg and Miller come to mind – might profit to obtain other cheap points for themselves. We have seen it happening in Ireland already.
Everyone who supports even indirectly any form of euthanasia is clearly sinning gravely, and putting his salvation in grave danger. Yes, even if it is our son, or sister, or cousin. We must never tire to say so and pay the price – there is always a price to pay for siding with Christ: this is how the system works – and pray for those, particularly if loved ones, who mock or insult us.
One day, we will have our reward. Those who want to decide about life (abortion) and death (so-called euthanasia) and willfully die in their stupidity will, alas, get theirs.
One hundred years ago, such an event would have filled an entire community with unspeakable dread at the sight of the impious monstrosity committed. Nowadays, it's a competition for the one who has most understanding.
We live in times when fornication is considered clean, and ozone a pollutant; when the suicide, the most abominable criminal of them all, is looked at with sympathy, and the religion that condemns him condemned in turn; when countless people seriously think they are too good to accept Christ's moral standard.
The modern religion, aided and abetted in the highest places, can be reassumed in five terrible words:
Who am I to judge?
A chap who is trying to obtain from British courts the right to commit suicide, and previously known as “Mr L” to protect his anonymity, has requested and obtained that his anonymity be lifted. His name is, no less, Mr Lamb.
Predictably, the liberal troops are in a state of great excitement, and the always satanical BBC reports today about Mr Lamb’s “fight” for his “right to die”. Classic FM (five million British listeners in the morning, and therefore an extremely important news outlet notwithstanding the harmless sounding name) also had glowing expressions of support for Mr Lamb in the early morning, though the 7am edition already struck a different… note.
Interestingly, Mr Lamb says he is “suffering”, but also that he often goes to sleep at 5pm because his life doesn’t make sense anyway. This sounds more like boredom than sufferance to me. I’d suggest a good…
View original post 287 more words
Let us imagine the Church in the US were to say that from now on a free “all you can eat” buffet will be offered to the pewsitter after Mass.
Would there be an increase in Mass Attendance? Probably. Would this be the result of more people embracing the values of the Only Church? Nope.
Already this would be enough to silence every supposed “argument” concerning the increase in Mass attendance that has come from certain probably not entirely disinterested corners. If you take Christ out of the Church and tell them church life is a party, you will get the ear of those interested in partying. With his kindergarten version of something that is not anymore recognisable as Catholicism, Francis has done exactly that: getting the ear of those eager to delude themselves their way of living is fine, and the enthusiasm of the enemies of the Church.
But has this led to, at least, an increase in Mass attendance? No. It just hasn't. Notice, the news is launched from a liberal site; that is, from the people who desperately need to sell this Pope to the masses in order to promote more church devastation. This is no good news for them, for sure.
Surely the US, a country with 60 or 70 million Catholics, is big enough as a statistical sample of the West at the very least. The more so considering that this country, plagued by a huge number of CINOs, should have reacted extremely favourably to such “party time”- announcements, leading to an army of people formerly feeling “rejected” (or so they say) now enthusiastically embracing the end of the age of “narrow-mindedness”.
Alas, it's not happening; and it's very easy to see why.
By all talk about “peace and joy” in the expectation of an unavoidable salvation, as long as no seriously edible buffet is offered most will prefer to go to real parties – or simply to go on with their lives – rather than going to Mass. And why wouldn't they? If salvation is open even to atheists and following the individual conscience is all that is required, the only requisite will be that one's conscience does not demand – with implicit Papal blessing – that one attends; and if one happens to be an Atheist, his despise for the Church and his general unbelief will only grow and be reinforced by the praise of a Pope so much out of tune with Church teaching. They will like, perhaps, the man; they will certainly think even less of the Institution. Most certainly, they will not feel motivated to give Christianity a second, hard thought.
The Francis effect is the V II effect on steroids, and it will yield in the end exactly the same dividend: the banalisation of everything Catholic in the hope of awakening an interest that will never materialise, whilst the Church slowly disappears as a mass religion, and Christianity as the defining religion and mindset of the West.
Such are the fruits of Vatican II. The remedy to such a disgrace is not to further dumb down everything Catholic – embracing a man in a wheelchair every now and then – but rather to recover in its entirety the message preached everywhere before the disgrace of V II.
I am persuaded that the best and fastest way of doing this is to ditch V II in its entirety, making tabula rasa of everything that has come out of it and has happened after it: the new liturgy, the encyclicals, the catechisms, and so on: in short, everything from the children's books to the Ford Focus.
There is no aspect of Church life for which an extremely rich Church tradition, or sound Catholic sources, from pre V II are not available. One could utterly and absolutely ditch every word that has been written during and after V II and discover a far more beautiful Church that he ever imagined, utterly free from the temptation to be loved, or liked, or at least not mocked.
The solution is doing everything the Catholic way, without compromise; and I am sorry to have to say this to you, but the whole V II is nothing but a big fat compromise.
I have posted yesterday a video of a beautiful version of “Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat”. This is Gregorian chant, and the same version sung at the Brompton Oratory.
It is reverent but strong, and devoutly masculine. It is music written by a man, and meant to be sung by men.
Not inclusive enough, then; or enough effeminate, come to that.
Have your little “YouTube” tour searching for other version of this very song, and notice the utterly castrated rubbish of the same text that have been created after V II. Frightful stuff. Either girls' chirping, or as bent as Elton.
Now, why would anyone who has at his disposal a wonderful patrimony of ancient music recur to such utter rubbish? Because the rubbish is in his head first, that's why.
The desire to be “inclusive” and have music that would not let women feel “excluded” perfectly matches the agenda of the many Monsignor Riccas out there, to whom the Church must become as faggoty as just possible. As a result, the unholy alliance between the PC crowd and the perverted one creates an atmosphere of effeminacy, and makes of the sacred liturgy a hostage of the stupid and the perverts. Then we complain there are few altar servers, and a crisis of vocations.
Instead of blabbering about the role of women in the Church (there is no record the Blessed Virgin ever complained about her own, or the role of women within the Church in general) the Catholic clergy from the Pope down should talk more about the role of men in the Church. Priesthood must be seen again as something eminently and unmistakably masculine, not the last refuge for young males with uncertain sexuality – I have seen more than a couple of those – or worse – I think I have seen a couple of those, too -.
Men will be men. They will be helped to discover their vocation if they see in it their destiny as men, the accomplishment of the men God made them to be. If they see a camp atmosphere around them, they will naturally be put off from the priesthood. Not only is this very natural, but in agreement with God's plan, that the earthly Church be provided with many and good priests when she deserves it, and punished with a crisis of vocation, and mediocre or worse than mediocre clergy – up to the very top, of course – when she doesn't. We have seen this at work in the last 50 years.
As we pray for vocations, we must pray for an earthly Church that creates the conditions for both the abundance and the quality of them.
Keep the fags and the effeminate out of the temple.
Christus Vincit. Christus Regnat. Christus Imperat.
From Rorate Caeli: emphases theirs.
Pope Francis then asked: “Are our temples places of adoration? Do they foster adoration? Do our liturgical celebrations foster adoration?”. Judas Maccabeus and the people “were zealous for God’s temple because it was the house of God, God’s dwelling place, and they went as a community to find God there, they went to adore”.
“But, I think – I say this humbly – that maybe we Christians have lost a little the sense of adoration, and we think: we go to the Temple, we come together as brothers – that’s good, it’s great! – but this is where God is. And we worship God.”
Yes. Have we?
What about the Pinocchio Mass, for example? Does it foster adoration?
Or perhaps is the Tango Mass more in tune with God’s dwelling place?
What about, for example, openly admitting past mistakes (so that they can never be used as excuses for other liturgical wreckovations) and crushing down very hard on the abominations happening all over the West?
I seem to detect a certain dissonance between words and facts, and you know which ones speak louder.
Keep praying for Francis; that he may, one day, always practice what he, at times, preaches.
This, my dear readers, is the problem when a President tries to polish his image by honouring and being photographed with fags: fags are perverts, and they are going to get themselves into trouble, and the President with them.
The young fag in question, a Caleb Laieski, was managing to build a rather precocious political career as “fag liaison”, or “youth and diversity liaison”, for the mayor pf Phoenix, who obviously considers it extremely important to know first hand what young faggots think and, it is to be supposed, how they act. Clearly, Obama could not let such a photo-op go to waste. Unfortunately for all parties involved, the “think” part may make them look beautiful among Libtards, but the “act” part led to statutory rape.
Alas, it turns out the young fag was even completely aware he was committing statutory rape and resisted at first; but in the end his perversion got the better of even his political ambition. One horny fag, this one.
Lesson for everyone past kindergarten age: a pervert is a pervert is a pervert. Scratch the veneer of White House respectability, and the truth will come out.
Notice that the fag doesn’t write to his young victim “this is wrong”. He writes to him, in so many words, “this could damage my career”.
So selfless. I am moved to tears.
Also notice that – as some of the commenters have pointed out – there seem to have been no fathers around, and it is alleged the mother of the youngest was in agreement with the sodomitical activity of her child. This is the liberal society at its best; that is, its worst. No father figure around, mommy thinks with her liberal v@gin@, and allows her son to be thoroughly perverted so she can continue herself to do what she pleases in an utterly non-judgmental environment. Unnatural parents begetting unnatural sons. The sins of the… mothers, and all that.
I know, I know: dyed-in-the-wool Liberals can cope with Roman Polanski sleeping with a thirteen-years-old child, so they will not have for this fag anything else than sugary understanding. To them a fag is more worthy of protection than a Panda cub, or the Polar Bear.
Still, many other people, who are not so blind, might begin to see behind the thin veil of liberal progressivism, and discover the ugly truth of satanical perverted behaviour.
Well done, Barry Boy.
You deserve the photo with the statutory rapist fag, for future memory.
I read from Sandro Magister that Pope Francis is now in the process of “correcting” some of his mistakes.
No, he isn’t.
A correction is “something that is substituted or proposed for what is wrong or inaccurate”. Basically, it entails saying “that was wrong, and this is right”.
Francis doesn’t correct himself, and therefore doesn’t “critique” himself in the least. What he does is doing a bit of hunting with the hounds after he has done his media-effective running with the hare.
At the same time, he allows his spokesman to let it be known that whatever he says should not be taken too seriously by Catholics – because it’s just an off-the-cuff comment, you see – well knowing that every time he brings water to the mill of the liberals they will take it extremely seriously, use it for all it’s worth, and continue the narrative of the liberal Pope doing his best to free the church from bla, bla and bla.
Do not be fooled. It may be that Francis strikes a gentler note in the future after his Che Guevara phase. But if this were to happen, it would be because he has seen how much this damages himself , flooding the huge construction site of his own monument.
You recognise an orthodox Pope from the simple fact that he is:
1) consistently orthodox, and therefore
2) hated by the world.
Francis is neither. On the contrary, he is consistently Modernist, mixing orthodox and heretical statements. He is not correcting himself. Not in the least. He is contradicting himself, in order to better confuse you.
Let us read once again what Pius VI wrote in auctorem fidei: (emphases mine).
They [ our most holy predecessors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner.
[…] if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error.
Rejoice at the pope that was lost and now is found, if you so wish. I am deeply mistrustful of a Pope that is clearly lost, fills the planet with “shocking affirmations”, and reacts to the criticism in that he “develops along orthodox lines”, and one day might “even corrects in yet other places” (though he has not done so yet) whilst still remaining the buddy pope of perverts, rabbis, atheists and assorted liberals.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of orthodoxy is in the… hating.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Francis is of the world, big time.
The world loves him accordingly.
Beware of the wolves in Ford cars.
Rending unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, I link to a document published in a Sedevacantist site (something I try to avoid whenever possible; today, in honesty, it wouldn’t be fair).
This document is the translation in English of the introductory part of the Bull Auctorem Fidei, with which Pope Pius VI condemned 85 propositions taught by a regional Synod held in Pistoia (Tuscany) in 1786.
Whilst I am not an expert in the matter, it would appear – if we think of the years and the climate of the time: we are in the full swing of the so-called enlightenment, and at the vigil of the French Revolution – that in the Council of Pistoia some “lio” was made, in the attempt to “modernise” the Church faced with the new “springtime” of the “enlightenment”.
The Sedevacantist site above has, then, undertaken the very laudable task to translate…
View original post 748 more words
And it came to pass Francis stopped shouting heresies to all corners of the planet, and we are now supposed to believe he is trying to steer his papacy into the path of righteousness. Pat Archbold already breathes a little easier. Other will breath much easier. Other still will say they have never breathed so well.
Personally, I don’t share the enthusiasm.
Let us see the arguments adduced, and the reasons why they do not persuade me.
1. The notorious interview has been removed. Fine. But this was only because ++Müller was informed, to his dismay, that the thing was still around in the Vatican cyberspace, and as a result stated in public he would take care of it, and delivered. This is not Francis’ initiative, though if he is half smart he must be relieved the interview is not there anymore without he being the one who took the initiative to have it removed. Slick Willie wouldn’t have his photos with Monica on his Internet site, either.
Besides, Francis has not recanted one word. Not one. Vatican officials may think the interview was bad, but he has not said it was wrong. Not one word has been corrected. The draft was approved by him. Enough of excuses.
2. Francis wrote to Agostino Marchetto, saying that the hermeneutic of continuity is the right way of interpreting the Council.
Every Modernist would say the same every morning, noon and evening without batting an eyelid. Francis always cared to “save appearances”. He visited the tomb of Pius X just days into his pontificate. Modernists aren’t as stupid as juvenile revolutionaries. They will always insist they are being harmoniously following 2,000 years of Christianity, they will only point out that some things just belong to the past. Look, Francis does exactly the same, criticising the rosary-counting “Pelagians”! The letter to Marchetto means exactly nothing, unless it be that Francis isn’t as stupid as to openly support the School of Bologna.
3. He called Mario Palmaro, the man who with Alessandro Gnocchi expressed himself – as every good Catholic should – critically about Francis on the Italian newspaper Il Foglio and was fired from the V II Catholic Radio Maria as a result. Fine, but Palmaro is, I am afraid, dying – so much can sadly be inferred by his words as reported – so that there is a merciful aspect here that is nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Besides, I am sure one phone call of Francis would have had both Gnocchi and Palmaro – leaving aside health considerations – immediately reintegrated at Radio Maria. Funnily enough, this phone call does not seem to have taken place.
4. The Pope said it is “important” for him to receive criticism, using one of those typically fluffy politician’s statements that mean perfectly nothing and perfectly avoid the issue at hand. I personally think it is infinitely more important that a Pope does not put himself in the position where he must be criticised by faithful Catholics, something no good Catholic would want to do, rather than spreading heretical statements all over the planet and then saying to his critics “yeah, I’m not angry at you. I totally get what you are trying to say. Totally!”. Alas, I must say it once again, because repetita iuvant: not one word has been recanted. Not one from the first letter to Scalfari, not one from the interview with him, not one from the 12,000 words interview with “Civilta’ Cattolica”.
Facta, non verba. If Francis really want to be orthodox, he must openly and explicitly recant all his questionable or openly heretical statements. Nothing else will spare his papacy from ignominy and condemnation for all centuries to come.
Pope Honorius has been declared a heretic because of the content of one letter he wrote. You can imagine in what pit of heresy a Pope has fallen, who allows his statement to be published worldwide without a word, – without a word! – of public correction.
And please let us not hide behind the finger of the interview having been removed from the Vatican site. When the interview appeared no one expected it to land on the Vatican site; nor did anyone wait for this to happen before considering the interview authentic, historical, or trustworthy. Everyone knew then the interview was authentic, and everyone knows it now. Again: not one word has Francis recanted. Not one. Not one. Not one.
“Oh – says the Pollyanna choir – but he has let it know, from what it appears to have transpired, that he has “regretted” the publication!”.
Regret is a feeling, not a rational position, much less a theological one. The drunken driver regrets his misfortune when the police stop him, but this does not mean he condemns his drinking. The Modernist regrets his interview had unintended consequences, but this does not mean he has changed his mind. On the contrary, this is nothing more than emotional bird food for the pigeons.
This Pope has made irruption into the china bull and has made a lot of damage, and then has started sending out rumours he regrets so much china was in his way, and phones one of the owners of the shop to say that to him (Francis) criticism is important. The china is in tatters, and there is no sign he offers to make restitution for the smallest broken piece.
Ah, but the article about the devastation has been removed from the Vatican site. All is fine now. Not a bull, then.
It must have been all a misunderstanding.
Read on the Eponymous Flower about the interview to Palmaro and Gnocchi, the two Italians who wrote a candidly critical article on the Bishop of Rome on the socially conservative Italian newspaper “Il Foglio” and had their collaboration with the effeminate Radio Maria terminated around two hours after the newspaper got into circulation.
I would like to point out to some elements that I think are important.
1. The two good men point out to the drama everyone of us is living: one does not want to criticise the Pope, but there comes a point where silence is not possible. I personally think what would make me worse off if I were to die on the same day the Pope does something very stupid again: to die after writing, or to die after having remained silent. This blog answers the question, I hope, eloquently.
2. The two men…
View original post 243 more words
As I have already mentioned, Cardinal Marx is one of the “Gang of Eight” and therefore, at least in theory, one of the most powerful prelates in existence.
He is also – and I have mentioned this too – not recognisable as a Catholic, as his very recent and very public spat with Archbishop Müller shows.
Marx has not lost another occasion to show what a circus tool he is. He has blessed what might well be the most un-catholic altar – bar ironing boards and, perhaps, picnic tables – ever installed in a Catholic church.
The “thing” looks like this:
As you can see (or not, as the case may be) the thing is barely visible. It truly tries to disappear. More so, in fact, that an ironing board would.
But it must be an altar. It has, too. It is no security cage for a race car, because there is no car around it. It might be a cage for the transport of cats, but it seems it doesn't even have a base, so the cat would have some trouble being transported around. You could renounce to move it and put birds in it, I suppose, but I think around the thing is what happens to be a church, and I doubt birds would be allowed there.
No. It must be an altar.
Now, what moves one like Marx to consecrate a thing like that? The hate for altars, of course, and all they represent. The destruction and desacralisation of everything hallowed by the ages. The desire to strip the liturgy of any remnant of sacrality in every detail.
I wonder where the (as far as I know, obligatory) relic was put. It must be somewhere in the strange, thin board at the top. But as generally an altar has his relic walled inside to make profanation and theft very difficult, in this case they both appear very easy.
God is allowing us to see to what extent Satan has infiltrated the Church, using evil men who have long lost both faith and decency to inflict as much damage as they can.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.
Let us not be blind. This is happening under our eyes.
We ignore it at our peril.
Another man who has been pretty much everywhere in the news since March is Mister Skorka, the pro-homo Rabbi who is the best buddy of our own Bishop of Rome.
Skorka clearly enjoys his popularity, because he can’t stay away from journalists. His friend shines, and he will have some of the limelight for himself. That’s another “modest” and “unassuming” man, then. Dio li fa e poi li accoppia, says the Italian (“God makes them, and then He puts them together”).
Every time Skorka talks to journalists, he stresses how un-Catholic Francis is. Thinking, poor deluded man, that in so doing he makes him a service, but in reality giving a disquieting portrait of the Bishop of Rome; the more so because coming from his infidel Best Male Friend – after the death of the adulterous concubine of a Bishop, the female role must probably go the Chaouqui woman -; this must be very alarming for every sound thinking Catholic.
The last interview I came across is here. It contains several pearls of stupidity, which let us think the man will soon be asked by his buddy Jorge to have the kindness to shut up, at least when journalists are around.
Let us see some of them:
When Francis was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, he and Skorka co-wrote a book of dialogues on Judaism and Roman Catholicism titled, “On Heaven and Earth,” had a similarly themed TV show called “Bible, A Dialogue for Today,” and offered prayers from each other’s pulpits.
Fantastic. Not only the two wrote a book together meant to confuse Catholics, but even made a TV show for those with no intention of reading the book. To make it more confusing, they had the rabbi preaching from the pulpit, and the Archbishop from the Synagogue. This is pure Indifferentism. If this is evangelisation, I am a Rabbi. The real Rabbi is very proud. He can’t see the problem.
“There is overall a very deep respect for the other,” Skorka said. “His commitment with the Jewish people is total.”
I agree. His commitment with the Jewish people is total. His commitment to Jesus and to the conversion of Jews is, on the other hand, exactly zero. One can imagine Francis in Jesus’ time, “fully committed” to the Pharisees and expecting to be made an apostle (fat chance: there was Jesus around, not V II). I am sure he does not see the contradiction. Hey, he is “building bridges”. That man on the cross is so narrow-minded, with his message of universal conversion. He should not be so “obsessed” with conversion, eh? no? “Go ye therefore, and confuse all nations, making a TV show in the name of the Rabbi, the Archbishop and the Dialogue”.
More of this stuff:
Skorka said the pope is so comfortable with Jewish culture that as he vetted meals at the Vatican hotel to make sure the rabbi was given only kosher food, Francis joked he was the rabbi’s personal “mashgiach,” the Hebrew word for a supervisor in a restaurant or other business who oversees compliance with Jewish dietary laws.
Someone should tell Francis that Jewish dietary rules are not meant to keep the cholesterol level low, but are religious ones. If he helps Jews to follow them, he helps them to remain Jewish, and reinforces in them the opinion that this is right so.
I am OK. You are OK. Never mind Jesus.
The reference to the “mashgiach” is truly alarming: Skorka is saying that Francis is a real expert in kosher food. Not bad for one who doesn’t even know that atheists who die in their unbelief go to hell, and thinks individual conscience is the metre of right and wrong. If Francis should ever resign as Pope, “mashgiac” might be a good next step.
“When he speaks about evangelization, the idea is to evangelize Christians or Catholics,” to reach “higher dimensions of faith” and a deepened commitment to social justice, Skorka said. “This is the idea of evangelization that Bergoglio is stressing – not to evangelize Jews. This he told me, on several opportunities.”
More obscenities. Bergoglio makes clear to his circumcised friend that he has no intention whatever to convert him or any of his. Remember “Rehab”? Let’s refresh Francis’ words:
“Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest”.
Jesus can do everything, but Francis certainly doesn’t help him when a Rabbi (and, by extension, every non-Catholic) is encouraged not to convert by the very Pope. Actually, it is fair to say Francis positively and actively works against Jesus. At least if the word “evangelisation” is to have any sense; as in “lead people to believe in the One True Faith” rather than, as Francis clearly believes, “meet other people and let Jesus do the rest”.
Some people say with Francis more people are going to church. If it turned out to be true, methinks they do so safe in the certainty that no one will ask them to become Catholic.
Now let me see: how does the Catholic Encyclopedia describes religious indifferentism?
One has the impression the line was written just after reading the latest interview of Rabbi Skorka, or the “no, no, no!” exploit of the present Bishop of Rome.
It goes on.
A book has arrived. It is from… Hans Kueng!
One of the books had been sent and inscribed by the dissident theologian Hans Kung. “Both of us stood one very close to the other trying to read the German dedication,” Skorka said. “Something like, ‘You already did a lot, but the world expects from you to continue doing very important things.'”
You can picture the two, excited like two children on the morning of Christmas’ day (or should I say Hanukkah?) whilst unwrapping the gifts. “A book! Hans Kueng has sent us a book! What does the dedication say, Jorge? Eh? Eh?”. “He says I must continue to do very important things! Oh joyous day!”.
I’d have given them both a Baltimore catechism. But that one is the Pope, I’d have given it to both of them on the head first.
The rabbi said the pope is aware that some religious conservatives, inside and outside the church, are unsettled by his approach. Francis has said Catholic leaders have been driving people away by talking too much about divisive social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. The pope has dropped some of the more regal trappings of the papacy. He uses a Ford Focus instead of fancier cars in the Vatican fleet and wears only the most basic clothes.
Well if even he is aware, it means the noise is rather strong. Good. Note how the man considers the defence of life “divisive”, but finds so good that one uses a Ford Focus. A genius he ain’t, this one.
“He is receiving very, very harsh criticism from people who don’t like a pope without red shoes, and a pope who speaks to people in a very simple and direct language, and a pope who will transmit to people that he is close to them, that he in some way hugs them through jokes and through simple words and through simple expressions,” Skorka said. “The criticism he is suffering from is not new for him. He already had this kind of pressures and other kind of pressures during his serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires, so he knows exactly how to handle these pressures. He’s a very strong man and he will go ahead.”
Well, I must correct myself. Rabbi Skorka is a nincompoop. There is no other adjective for one that after seven months of heresies and assorted scandal, some of them just repeated by himself, thinks that “religious conservatives” have targeted Francis with “very harsh criticism” because of his lack of red shoes, or the like. This Skorka man may be a Jew, but if he opens his mouth he must know what he is talking about, or should keep it shut. He obviously doesn’t do either. To him, the fact that the Pope does not want to convert him is a good thing and makes of him a good Pope.
I think Skorka might be slightly confused. Perhaps what he wants to say is that Francis would be a good Rabbi.
Very fit on Jewish dietary rules. No intention of letting anyone defect to the followers of that narrow-minded Christ. Total commitment to the Jewish people.
Enjoy Francis, the Jesuit Pope.
I receive from a reader, servodeprata (welcome, by the way!) a link from the “Catholic News Service” (the source is, therefore, above suspicion).
The link contains the following pearl of wisdom from our Bishop of Rome:
“Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest”.
For the first time in the history of Catholicism, evangelisation is made without evangelisation. Actually, there could be no need for evangelisation at all.
In pure Francis style, this confused but so well-sounding piece of nonsense could mean one of two:
1. You don’t need to evangelise: Jesus will evangelise for you, when he sees that your meet-o-meter and help-o-meter has reached a high enough level, and he will then care for the conversion of the poor…
View original post 219 more words
The last controversy about Obama choosing to keep God out of his rendition of the Gettysburg Address is another very telling indicator of how the mind (or what takes that name) of this man works.
Who would, believing in the Holy Trinity, do everything possible and impossible to expunge God from every public statement? Nobody, is the easy answer. Lame excuses of wanting to “respect” those who do not believe in God are as stupid as wanting to follow the rules of Ramadan so that the colleague near you is not offended at seeing you having lunch, but then again one like that would obviously leave God in the Gettysburg address so that the Christians are not offended, too.
It is evident to everyone with a brain that for a Christian to want to expunge God from the public sphere is tantamount to be ashamed of his faith; which no Christian could ever, in conscience, be, so that of this man we could only say that he has lost his faith.
We will, therefore, have to conclude that such a man is an enemy of Christianity, bent on sabotaging it from the comfortable spot of his convenient Christian facade.
Obama, the son of an early example of liberal college slut, certainly did not get any religious education from his mother, or from his anyway absent father. He grew up in a Muslim environment, and attended schools – I am informed – reserved to Muslims, which means he either was considered such, or was such, or certainly did not have anything speaking for his being a Christian. When millions in the West were listening to the bells of the local church, he heard – and stated he is still very fond of – the call of the Muezzin. When he went back to the US – after being abandoned by his mother, too; such are liberal parents – he was raised by his grandparents, and particularly his grandmother, whose liberal ideas are well known and, by the way, clearly shown in the daughter they raised.
But did young Barry improve when he went back to the “country under God”, the United States? Not really.
His Christian facade was the one of a rabidly racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, a man from whom even Obama at some point had to distance himself, and only after repeated controversy. Is this a good Christian credential? Not likely.
Does he attend church now that he has – finally – canned Wright? Very rarely; apparently a couple of times a year, on those TV occasions. Does he defend Christian values? Never. He would have his daughters abort if they were “punished with a baby” (my words, not his: punished. with. a. baby), and what he calls Christian values are without exceptions the flags of the atheists and liberal culture, from de facto socialism to de iure sodomy.
Not a Christian, then, for sure. Certainly not a Muslim. A clearly thoroughly secular man, very probably as atheist as Stalin, with a cultural predilection for the religion in which he grew up (Islam, of course), and just that ridiculously thin varnish of Christianity that is necessary to become President in the USA.
A whitened sepulchre like few others on this planet, Obama incarnates the hypocrisy of the liberal classes, feigning some lip tribute to Christianity in abstract whilst trying to eradicate it from the planet in concrete.
Stalin was, at least, more honest.