Monthly Archives: February 2014
“Are you drunk, sicko get the f*** out of my inbox it’s midnight. You expect me to show up there after you told me I could face discrimination from you flock of subhuman morons? F*** you. You’re lucky you haven’t been served with a human rights notice. F****** Nazi c*** s***** f*****. You know you gotta be pretty f***** naive to believe the filthy b******* you spread. Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. Your f***** family too.
Master of theology master of F****** b*******. Must be proud.
This is the content of an email sent from a trannie to a Catholic priest obvisouly trying to save the trannie’s soul. Father Z has the story.
Let us just say I couldn’t even fill all the asterisks, but then again I am not mother tongue. Must be American, though, because he spells “favour” without the “u”.
No, this is not a very gay person. None of them are. When one sinks in such a pit of perversion, one becomes like this chap* here.
Others have remarked about the naked hatred transpiring from this rather rainbow-colourful message. I will point out, instead, on the “human rights notice” the man is talking – or rather dreaming, for now – about.
Make no mistake, this is the world these perverted bastards want to create: a world in which every challenge to their own disgusting perversion puts one at risk of outright persecution. No, not absurd at all. They have managed to take the moral high ground, and spread the mascara all over it. Unless we wake up, before not too long it will be a “hate crime” to call a pervert a pervert.
This is what we deserve for fifty years of stupid, effeminate “sensitivity”, during which reality was considered by Christian themselves more and more “inappropriate”; until even the use of every word these dang cretins do not like is considered taboo by the very Christians who should consider such perversions a taboo in the first place.
Christianity is marching toward persecution not because of the tiny minority of perverts, but because of the vast majority of Christians who, in their desire to feel oh so good and sensitive, have allowed these freaking faggots, dykes, trannies and assorted minions of Satan to achieve the status of “premium victim”, when they are among the worst offenders not only in the eyes of God – which is the most important thing; if you believe in God, that is – but in that they would do all they can to impose the acceptance of their own perversions to everyone as something to celebrate, and would not hesitate one second in perverting your child, your daughter, your sister, or yourself if they only could.
These people should be buried under a tsunami of ridicule and mockery, instead of being encouraged with the stupid, effeminate, all-understanding sensitivity of our times. If this had been the case, we would now not be confronted with abominations of all sorts, and would not be now more and more threatened with the attack to our very Christian principles, as we are accused of being “homophobic” for being Christians.
Make no mistake: unless there is no reaction to this PC mania and niceness madness, the “human rights notice” for failing to please a disgusting pervert is coming! Stop being a sensitive sissy, and go back to be a robust Christian! We will not send these perverts back in their satanical underworld by being “sensitive”. On the contrary: our weakness will embolden them more and more, until we will be the ones who are called perverted!
We must not accept this. We must rebel to this verbal self-castration. We must call perverts faggots, dykes, trannies. When we say “gay”, it must always be as a mockery. We must show them how disgusting they are.
Mockery wins wars. Ridicule and shaming are most powerful weapons. Social stigma works. It works so well, in fact, that it is the pervert’s first enemy, an enemy they are obviously trying to outlaw. The social control afforded by apposite description of disgusting realities will better protect your loved ones from the snares of the devil, and might even be useful to reform the one or other of the pervs – those who aren’t reprobates, at least -. The accommodation and desire to appease everyone will lead to your children being exposed to tranny propaganda in their very elementary school, and woe to you if you say something against it. But again, if you are one of the sensitive flowers it’s not more than what you deserve.
Do not hide under the PC rubbish of the “god loves the sinner”. God loves souls as souls, not trannies as trannies. A pervert who dies unrepentant goes to hell, whilst repentant perverts are ashamed of their perversion and do not advocate “rights” of sort for it, or for them.
Political correctness is killing us. Has been for fifty years. Political correctness is wrong, stupid, and a danger to Christianity. The tranny who wrote the email above is your future, and the future of your children.
* born with a willie = chap. No matter how perverted. One’s sex is given by God, not the surgeon.
Laudably, Bishop Francis invites us to go to confession; and in an interesting turn of events even seems to insist in calling it “confession” rather than with its V II correct name of “reconciliation”. Still, as Francis is polluted through and through with the evil ideology of V II, he regularly fails to stress and impress upon his readers what once upon a time would have been hammered in the faithful’s head by the most mediocre of priests: that there is an obligation to go to confession.
This is indicative of the entire V II mentality, even in those cases when the steroids of Francis’ South-American Jesuitism are, for the time being, blessedly absent. Whenever I read Francis’ exhortations, I am reminded of those newspaper articles gently encouraging us to eat more carrots, or reminding us of the virtues of Brussels Sprouts: you should do this, because you see, it’s good.
The not-so-small difference is that there is no Sacrament Of Carrots, nor is it necessary to eat Brussels Sprouts to have one’s mortal sins forgiven; and as importantly, that God does not tell me to eat carrots, but He commands me to go to Confession. I am sure Francis is aware of this, but from the way he talks this is not very evident.
“Oh, but he is talking to Catholics – some will say – they know that! They do not need to be reminded!”
Really? Have you noticed any trend in Confession frequency in the last, say, fifty years? And by the way, how come the faithful never have to be reminded about their obligation to attend Mass, go to confession, not contracept, & Co., but must be always reminded about poverty, as if they did not know about their obligations in that respect?
Well, I can tell you how come: because for Francis the things of Heaven are fully secondary to the things of earth. His gaze is fully fixed on the favela, and he constantly gives the impression to him religion is just a way to improve people’s condition here on earth.
As if God were there to serve Man, rather than the other way round.
Go to confession, folks. You’ll feel so good when you get out of the confessional.
This is the video of an old man arriving to the airport in jeans. He is a Prince of the Church, and is now (literally) going to be made a Cardinal.
It had to happen. The stupid pauperism, the vulgarity, the utter irreligiousness of our times required than even a soon to be made Cardinal cannot bear to travel in his clerical clothes. It must be jeans.
The cafeteria Catholics will be impressed. If a Bishop, soon to be Cardinal, does not care a straw (another expression comes to mind) for the rules obliging him to wear his clericals – a basic rule of decency, and small testimony of his being a priest for all those around him – then why would the simple layman feel obliged by the much more onerous rules on contraception, abortion, divorce, fornication, adultery.
No: as the nutcases at NCR say, this is not Cardinal Burke.
This also paves the way for a Pope in jeans. When this happens, idiots worldwide will hail it as a marked improvement compared to the former Popes who insisted in dressing in white.
After that, I suggest Bermudas and Hawaiian shirts.
Cardinal Maradiaga would be delighted.
Ah, the Eye of the Tiber!
They have a brilliant article about your usual condescending V II priest regaling his audience – young in this case, must not be the case – with the usual dumbed down homily.
The “homily” might have come, in fact, from His Humbleness himself.
A fair warning: the “Eye of the Tiber” is like a Catholic “Onion”. The facts are generally invented to make a point.
Though I am not sure about that Superman thingy.
The use of the vernacular prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of fragmentation and an effective help to the corruption of true doctrine.
(hat tip to Father Carota).
Cardinal Maradiaga is, without the shadow of a doubt, having the time of his life. Inebriated with a newfound, worldwide notoriety, the high-fiving Cardinal keeps giving free-wheeling interviews, in which he speaks as if the Church were his toy, to play with as he pleases.
Not happy with throwing around with journalists his idea about a possible Pontifical Council led by “married couples” – which is stupid enough in itself, but should be kept for internal discussions anyway; unless of course the Cardinal wants to force the one or other hand – the man abandons itself to declarations that astonish in their populism; a populism pushed to a degree unknown, to my knowledge, even to Francis.
Firstly, the Cardinal says the laity “are the majority” of the Church, as if the Church were some kind of democratic organisation in which you have rights merely for being “majority”. Secondly, he says “we can't go on like this”, thus passing a very hard sentence on the way the Church “went on” since Jesus' time. Thirdly, he informs us that the “Spirit” is “pushing” in his direction, and one wonders whether his back carries the signs of the “Spirit's” obvious “pushing”.
We have now sunk to pure circus level. We have reached “big brother” lows of superficiality; Church policy has become a media show, the “X-factor” for the tambourine Catholic masses.
Why is this? Because the Commander In Chief is such a one, of course. He is the one who started the circus and keeps it running; it is no surprise at all that others want to have a place on the stage in Circus Bergoglio, just on the side of the Head Clown himself.
The fish stinks from the head down. Always. If you complain about the stink and refuse to see whence it comes, you are being willingly blind.
When I was born, in my Country by most marriages – Canonical and civil at the same time: the so-called matrimonio concordatario – the annulment of a marriage through the Sacra Rota led to the annulment of the civil effects of the marriage. In short, this meant that upon annulment the spouses were rid of any major direct obligation toward each other. This clearly made sense: once the marriage is understood primarily as a sacrament with civil recognition, if the marriage never took place the civil effects between the non-spouses are non-existent, too. It was more complicated than that – for example concerning the children, who were obviously still legitimate children of a now annulled marriage – but you already get the gist: broadly speaking no alimony, and no splitting of assets. Again, this makes sense: the two have never been married. If they have patrimonial arrangements they want to settle between them, they can do it anytime with normal civil contracts that are nothing to do with the sacrament – say: donations, creation of partnerships, endowments, & Co. – but once the marriage has never taken place, it has… never taken place as regards the mutual relationship of the couple.
Both these, alimony and asset splitting, are now in place – by many marriages at least; it is possible to ring-fence one's assets from the spouse, and alimony is rather more limited than in the US – in Italy and, interestingly, in Germany, where it is to be feared a tsunami of “pastoral annulments” might now be on its way.
One wonders how many Germans, or Italians come to that, would be ready to claim that they never wanted to marry, and that their marriage must be declared canonically void, if the annulment were to extend to the civil law part of the marriage and have heavy consequences on the payment they can expect. They would probably say that they were never married when it is convenient to make communion, but actually they were always married when it is convenient to get the money. Having one cake and eating it, I would call it.
Of course, you will say in most Western countries a marriage is a civil law contract fully separated from the sacrament, and which will remain in force irrespective of the destiny of the sacrament. But you see, interestingly enough this was not the case in Italy, because the marriage was seen to such an extent as a sacrament first and foremost, that it was utterly natural to link its civil effects to the validity of… the sacrament! An understanding of life that has now all but disappeared from our secularised societies. And yes, it wasn't easy to obtain an annulment; and yes, the courts of the Church (the Sacra Rota) decided about the validity of Italian civil law transactions.
What a beautiful thinking. What a truly Catholic Weltanschauung.
Just a thought, of course…
As they are discussing, the Gang of Eight should now examine the creation of a Pontifical Council For The Corrections Of Papal Gaffes. Possibly not led by a Jesuit.
The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Arthur Roche, had to intervene on the matter after the latest scandal caused by a Pope unable to say three words in a row without making some damage.
He can’t contradict the Pope, though. He can’t say the Czech bishop has misunderstood, either, because evidently many were there. He can’t defend the Traditional Latin Mass, because he knows Francis doesn’t like it at all.
What he does, is to say some generic word about Latin in the Mass (a completely different matter than the Traditional Latin Mass; which is much, much more than a Mass in Latin), in order to let the message get through: “we can’t say so, but boy, we are so embarrassed”.
He can’t say it. So he says the Pope hasn’t really said anything about the Traditional Latin Mass. Which just doesn’t make sense, because he has.
This being the Vatican, though, we must read between the lines. The Pope will not be openly criticised. The only thing that can be done is to make people understand they are sorry for the broken china.
The “fashion” reblog
Below, some chosen lines out of a Vatican document of the past (feel free to skip at will 😉 ):
The Church […] values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold.
But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.
And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire — and that for so many centuries — it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture…
View original post 754 more words
One of the most evident manifestations of the “Francis effect” is the frequency with which prelates think they must make known to the world their outlandish views. They did it before too, of course, but as there was no “make a mess”-climate they did have to be more prudent. That’s all gone now.
Cardinal Cormack Murphy O’Connor is one of the biggest culprits for the continued decline of Catholic thinking, practice and influence in England. Predictably, this also led to a decrease in confessions. Faced with such a phenomenon, the Cardinal does not ask himself what he can do to let people change their mind and go to confession; no, he wonders how confession can be changed to adapt it to the changed mindset of the people instead.
A “proper reform” is now needed. Can’t you see, he seems to say, that confession is goign out of fashion?
When such is the thinking, hell is truly the limit. Shall we allow Skype confessions? What about an Internet chat room for two? Or should we perhaps put classical music in the confessional? No, wait, some Tango music would be more in touch with the times, and a fitting tribute to the humble Francis ….
Or we might put up ads in the local newspaper, you know… A friendly priest’s face saying: “Who am I to judge?” could be just the ticket…
There there is the problem of the confession being allegedly used by predatory priests to prey on their designated targets. What to do? Evidently, the man is so confused that he does not see that the biggest technical problem of today’s confession is in… the innovations post V II.
Traditionally, a grate separated the priest from the faithful. The priest couldn’t see – though in small communities he would certainly recognise from the voice – who was on the other side. No mother needed to be concerned for her own daughter, her own child, or herself. The physical separation was strong enough, and in most confessionals – like the Italian ones, often open to the faithful’s side rather than locking the faithful in a cubicle – the possibility of being overheard always there. Even the most evil predatory priest would, in such circumstances, decide the setting does not work for his evil intent.
Enter the “closed room” confessionals of the new era, and in the same years the predatory priests produced by the post V II seminars. He will now be in a closed space with his victim, eye to eye, perhaps in physical knee-to-knee contact, in a “relaxed” and “confidential” environment; no one else around him but the child or girl he has set his eyes on…
Then we complain some priests might have abused of the confessional to prey on their victim…
Has the Cardinal ever thought about it? I doubt. Plenty of questionable “confession rooms” in his old diocese, and no sign of the man having ever ordered the return of the grate. But we are now curious to know what the man will propose to bring the faithful back to confession. Introductory video games, perhaps…or collective confession, when the crowd says “we are all oh so sorry” and the priests absolves everyone, as if they were about to go to battle…
If CMOC and those like him would at least shut up and quietly enjoy their remaining years of utterly undeserved prestige and privilege, it would be something already.
But no, they must have the headlines.
After the latest alleged remarks of the Bishop of Rome to his Czech bishops concerning the latest fad of the young people – a Mass that has been in existence pretty much for the entire history of the Church – the observation was made that this remark does not change anything in Summorum Pontificum, and if and when Francis wants to abrogate it he will be able to do so in the open.
Very, very true.
True, in fact, in the same way in which Hitler's incendiary propaganda concerning Danzig did not change anything in the situation on the ground; or in which when you have the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe and even the Kriegsmarine at your disposal you can, without the shadow of a doubt, invade Poland any day you like.
The issue with most of what Francis says is not whether it introduces legal changes; he mostly doesn't. In fact, as far as I know even almost one year after his unprecedented Maundy Thursday Mass liturgical abuse he has not changed the canon law dispositions governing it. The huge issue with Francis is the mentality this endless string of off the cuff comments, liturgical abuses, beach balls on the altar, and general “who am I to judge” senselessness clearly indicate: a Pope managing the feat of being in almost complete disagreement with almost all his predecessors almost all of the times, and showing the understanding of Catholicism of a poorly instructed 15 years old boy in a hormone-induced delirium of omnipotence and world-changing zeal.
Exactly in the same way as the problem with Hitler was, in the first place, Hitler, and was very evident from Hitler's way of thinking and talking, the problem with Francis is, in the first place, Francis, as seen in the countless examples of his thinking and talking.
Furthermore, with both of them (Hitler and Francis) the problem is not whether they can, but whether they should. Hitler's ability to invade Poland says exactly zero about the righteousness of such an event; therefore, to say “Hitler can invade Poland” (or “Francis can abrogate Summorum Pontificum”) is not relevant in this context. Yes, he can. And yes, it would be outright evil if he should do it. May I be worried that Hitler might, one day, invade Poland? He waited six and a half years, by the way, and if you want an equivalent of the Ruhr occupation, I think the occupation of the FFI will do admirably.
My impression is that, should Francis one day… invade Summorum Pontificum – which I do not think he will ever have the guts to do, choosing the Jesuit way instead – there will be many voices simply pointing out that… he can; as if this would change the evaluation about the merit of such a decision one bit.
This is, be the way, the same trick used with stupid voters all the time:” why worry about same sex marriage, it has not been voted yet”; promptly followed by “it is a done thing now and there's nothing to do, so stop clamouring about it”.
Francis is the Bishop of Rome. He can, so to speak, certainly invade Poland. He will, I think, very probably never do it.
But I will not wait for him to do so in order to be scandalised by his incendiary talk.
How was it?
Oh, yes… (emphasis mine):
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.”
Brilliant homily yesterday, as the priest pointed out briefly but sharply that those clergymen asking for “changes” in the way the Church understands marriage and adultery are asking the Bride to betray the Bridegroom, and are committing adultery in their heart as they condone and even justify the adultery of others.
Short and sweet. Very well thought, and very well said.
There are still smart and faithful priests in this now disgraced Kingdom.
I knew feminists are hard cases of resentful, bitter ugliness – I have written about it in the past -, but this article actually drives home the extent of the madness.
It was already evident that by every feminist – feminism is, as an “ism”, unavoidably angry bitches – lesbianism can’t be far away, as it is in the nature of such an hostility toward the other sex to refuse any contact with it; or more probably, the other’s sex utter refusal to touch a feminist with a barge pole slowly pushes the already abnormal angry nutcases from latent dykedom into an outright one.
What is amusingly tragic is the concept that every God-given intercourse of the God-given way – yes, the one used in order to make children; dykes not excluded – would now have to be classified as rape. Which clearly means – if words have a meaning – that it should be outlawed and punished with a jail term.
From here it gets obviously funnier and funnier. How do these dykes imagine the continuation of the species, assuming they do not hate themselves so much as to wish their own (good!) and the human race’s (bad!) extinction? With artificial insemination of an all-lesbian, rape-free couple, one thinks. But how to obtain the necessary ingredient of healthy male sperm, considering no sane man would be interested in giving his semen so that two dykes can pervert a child? By raping the males, perhaps? Or, perchance, by keeping them in slave farms until they get to the appropriate age? And which dyke “couple” would, then, not prefer to abort the baby in the womb upon knowing it’s going to be a boy, instead of giving birth to another exemplar of the hated, violent, penis-armed, raping oppressor?
I am sure the dykes have some theory about that. I would not be surprised.
I am more surprised that they are allowed to vote, and not locked in some psychiatric institution where something useful could, if at all possible, be done for them.
Obama’s vanguard, no doubt.
The Proto-commie Daily Mirror reproaches the so-called church of England for “snubbing” the perverted abominations about to be introduced by the reprobate Government and Parliament of once Christian England.
I do not think they should be worried – ok, they aren't; they just want to feel good with themselves -; it is only a matter of time, and probably a short one at that, before the so-called church of England follows the world in this as in everything else. Heck, the article even says they allow so-called “civil partnerships” of their perverted clergy, if the “partners” promise to be “celibate”. What caricature of Christianity, and what unspeakable hypocrisy.
No, they certainly shouldn't be worried. The church of Fagland will accompany them all the way. They will merely do it remaining a couple of step back all the time.
To this Catholic, it is instructive to see how the Holy Spirit works. In the Only Church, the tempest of “modern” thinking violently shakes the barque for a while; but in one or two generations the crew reacts and starts with the work of leading the barque out of the dangerous waters. This, they do with the sure instinct of the Only Church; they do it because the Holy Ghost helps His own Church, not the imitations. All the others are on their own in the dangerous waters of human frailties and sinful desires.
And so it is that the so-called (Protestant) churches, not having the help of the Holy Ghost, get into the tempest and can’t see the way out anymore; they have…
View original post 790 more words
In every reasonable, commonly accepted and proper sense of the term, the word fashion denotes something impermanent, fickle, mutable.
In Italy, and elsewhere, the word fashion is often opposed to the word elegance.
The two worlds do not really communicate, and everyone must choose if he – or she – wants to follow the one or the other. Traditionally, fashion has been the preserve of women, whose ways of dressing have shown a marked tendency to change, particularly in certain matters like, for example, shoes. A woman can – in some ways, will have to – follow the fashion and still be elegant, but not a man. In brutal contrast to women, the concept of men’s elegance has been as conservative as, so to speak, a SSPX priest. It is nothing less than astonishing that a well-dressed man of today dresses pretty much in the same way as the lower middle-class well-dressed man of one hundred years ago; the man, that is, who could not afford those expensive garments now confined to a kind of ceremonial, highly defined role (the morning coat, say; or the tails; whilst the frock coat has basically disappeared) but had to limit themselves to the kind of suit that has come to us, unchanged in essentials, more than 100 years later. The beautiful Ealing Comedy classic Kind Hearts and Coronets, the product of extremely thorough research and a sartorially lavish production, is a very pleasant way to educate yourself to the elegance of 100 years ago.
You will notice, though, that even in matter of men’s clothing, fashion regularly tries to invade the citadel of men’s decency. From the peacock revolution of the Sixties, to the unspeakably ugly Armani jackets of the Eighties, to the even worse looking “faggot look” of these days – you know what I mean: the jackets that look as if they had shrunk in the washing machine, and leaving the backside in sight; and the ridiculously tapered trousers, again in faggot’s style – some men think they have to dress in a fashionable, rather than in a traditional way. They are fools, and not very manly; because the stylists who create such fashions are largely homosexual, and they will let the men stupid enough to follow them look like homosexuals. Cue the buttocks in sight, the desperate attempt to get a boyish, or even ephebic look, and the general air of “diversity” from the accepted standard of manliness. Fashion for men is – and cannot but be – effeminate; because fashion for men must be – even when the buttocks are not in sight – the contrary of that steady conservatism, that strong and quiet assertiveness of a never-changing strenght, that is the very essence of masculinity.
Elegance is for manly men, and fashion is for men who would like to be women; because fashion is changeable and fickle, and elegance is permanent and steady.
Why this long rant about the faggotry look invading our streets, and worn by idiots who don’t even get how ridiculous they are, and how they are advancing the cause of the perverts? Because the Bishop of Rome has allegedly called the Traditional Latin Mass rather a kind of fashion, and those devoted to it, wait for it, addicted to it.
The confusion – or worse; much worse – reigning in the head of this man could not be exposed more brutally than by its own words. He does not know what he is talking about, or he hopes you don’t notice what nonsense he is talking.
We have here a 2,000 year tradition compared to which even elegance – much less fashion – can be seen as extremely unsteady. A 2,000 year tradition not only tracing his roots to the very beginning of Christianity, but whose untouchable sacredness has been long considered one of the most obvious facts of Church life. A 2,000 year tradition solemnly declared inviolable for all times by Pope St. Pius V. A 2,000 tradition of which Pope Benedict had the following to say:
What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
This foolish man now declared the Traditional Latin Mass… a fashion. His words are reported as follows:
When I search more thoroughly – the Pope said – I find that it is rather a kind of fashion. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion.
Seriously, this is way out of line: extremely confused, or wilfully evil. It might not be anathema – I think; not entirely sure there – but to treat 2,000 years of most sacred Christian liturgical tradition as if it were a fix for fashion junkies is beyond stupid. It is positively obscene. It has an indecency in it that borders the blasphemous. It shows a willigness to twist the most simple words, to make the most outlandish accusations, that is utterly Jesuitical, Pharisaic, evil. It shouts out loud the utterly subversive nature of this pontificate, the mocking disrespect for 2,000 years of Christianity, the unspeakable arrogance of a man who thinks he can liquidate 2,000 years of God-willed liturgy with the insulting name of fashion, and label those who love and respect this Christian tradition as addicted.
What kind of man is this? Who made him Cardinal? Why was he made a Bishop? How was he allowed to become a priest in the first place?
The answer to this is, alas, sobering. He was made Cardinal by John Paul II. Bishop by the same man. And priest by the most benighted of all wannabe Catholics, South American Jesuits; in 1969, in the very midst of a satanic revolution within the Church, that is: smack dab in the middle of Satan’s party.
It beggars belief that the Papacy could sink so low. Who could have thought, one year ago this very day, waiting for a Pope that would continue Benedict’s slow and too prudent, but still reasonable work, that such an individual would be elected.Lord, have mercy.
Still, let us see the positive side of this event.
In his unspeakable way, Francis is saying that he has no intention to make any dramatic move against the Mass of the Ages. He will mock it, obstacle it any way he can. But he will, for the time being, not make any overt move against the Tridentine Mass qua Tridentine Mass.
He will attack it from the periphery, for example crushing the FFI; but he will, if this words make any sense, not dare to abrogate Summorum Pontificum.
“The Church does not create or invents the sacraments, but receives them from our Lord, who instituted them accordign to His will.”
Interesting video from Gloria TV about so-called women’s ordination, that has relevance beyond the issue itself.
Whilst in normal times it would be superfluous to give relevance to such topics, we do not live in normal times and it is therefore apposite to repeat what should be repeated.
I very much fear in October some half cataclism is going to come to us, and I am rather certain whatever happens in October, in Germany and in other countries the clergy will generalise the sacrilegious practice of giving communion to public adulterers, the only thing to be still decided being the excuse they will use to do so. One is reminded of the Dutch schism, and if you reflect even JP II needed several years to finally move the steamroller you can imagine how the decidedly more revolutionary Francis will tacitly allow the worst abuses to happen, under the mantle of a “mercy” that is fake because not rooted in Christ’s laws, and hypocritical because no trace of it can be found in his dealing with the FFI, culpable of the terrible heresy of Catholicism.
But the Church does not create or invents the Sacraments, but receives them from our Lord, who instituted them according to his will. It is, therefore, not for the Church – not in a pretended dostrinal way, and not even under the excuse of mercy or pastoral care – to tamper with them.
Enjoy the video.
I have noticed that all around the Blogosphere the concerns voiced by yours truly have been also felt and expressed: if the Pope thinks he can break the rules, what prevents others from doing the same…
On reflection, it might well be that the breaking of the rules is not an unintended consequence of Pope Francis’ desire to be “pastoral” and “reach out” to the Muslims & Co., but actually the very aim he wants to achieve.
A Pope at ease with the Pinocchio Mass can’t have much interest for the observance of liturgical rules. On the other hand, being the Pope he might want to refrain from a devastating “reform of the repair”, officially undoing what his predecessor has done. Therefore, he might be thinking of simply allowing the periphery to do what it’s not fitting that the…
View original post 195 more words
“At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.”
This phrase of St. John of the Cross is, at times, misused by the usual cafeteria Catholics.
By mentioning it, they state or imply that love saves. I am sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but love doesn’t save.
Every monster is capable of love. Every serial rapist and killer can have people whom he loves. Most of them certainly have. Therefore, love is not the key opening the gates of Heaven.
Nor is that kind of love that translates into “doing good”, but with no faith in God behind it. It has always been Catholic teaching that salvation is the fruit of the works that come from the faith. Faith with no work will yield no salvation; but so will the works without the faith.
If you reject Christ until the end, Christ will reject you in the end. He that believeth not shall be damned. It follows that even being, say, an atheist Mother Theresa will be of no avail for he who believeth not.
Certainly, we can and must hope that Christ will help those who do good to others (which isn’t charity in the proper Catholic sense, but is still doing good deeds) to reach faith in the end. But we cannot say that their ability to love, or the good deeds this ability engenders, will save them. Certainly not if, as this is always the case, this “love” is meant as purely earthly, and the good deeds are made because it’s good to be good. If this were true, then fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind,thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners would all inherit the kingdom of God, provided they love and do good. Which most of them assuredly do.
This “having one’s heart in the right place” nonsense is one of the most dangerous pieces of rubbish spread in modern times.
In the end, everyone has his heart in the same place, and most people love others. Even the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Obama, and Sebelius.
I can’t imagine countless atheists do not love their offspring to distraction. Will this save them from hell unless they repents? Assuredly not. Not if Christianity is truthful, and makes sense.
Beware of pious hogwash.
“[The Modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses,” [St. Pius X] said of his antagonists. “But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.”
“Lambs. Not a fool but a lamb. Lamb. With Christian cunning, but always a lamb. A lamb Because if you are a Lamb, He will defend you. But if you feel as strong as a wolf, He will not defend you, He will leave you alone, and the wolves will eat you alive. Like a lamb.
I wish Francis would dedicate some of the time he does not devote to hugging wheelchairs and talking nonsense “off-the cuff” to the reading of the writings of serious Popes of the past.
If he did, he might at some point stumble on something like this:
But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people.
This is from Pope St. Pius X’s letter to the French Bishops and Archbishops against the movement of the Sillon, “Our Apostolic Mandate”.
What can Francis learn from texts like this one? Let us see:
1. No hot air anywhere. NO “walking here”, and “meeting there”, and “go to the crossroads”, and “smell like a sheep”, and all the other nonsense that does not explain the main thing: whether one will be Catholic once he has come to the crossroads, or will simply say “look at me: how social, inclusive, and smelly I am”. No childish comparisons, either. A stern and crystal clear language.
2. Truth administered without hesitation, and without compromise. Already the statement: “it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues” makes a massacre of 99% of Francis’ utterances since that fateful day almost one year ago.
3. The clear statement that you start from the Truth and use it to judge whether the slogans of men are or are not valid. If, on the other hand, the premises are wrong, then the entire thinking will be wrong. The result?: “A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity”. Francis has his fundamentals wrong. He is full of an earthly (populist, and rather resentful) ideology and tries to adjust Catholicism to it. He makes exactly the mistake Pope St. Pius X is lamenting.
4. Statements written for adults. Longish periods, rich in subordinates. Statements requiring one to think rather than emote. A writing style that makes clear the reader has the responsibility to attentively absorb what the Pope is saying, rather than showing the reader how well the Pope has absorbed the stupidity of the world. Can you imagine the author of the statement above saying “who am I to judge” when confronted with a sodomite as close collaborator?
There are no excuses for a bad Pope. Even a slow-witted, ill-instructed Pope could and should lock himself in his study and absorb from the great Popes of the past and the immense, invaluable patrimony they have left us the proper way to act and express himself like a Pope; asking his speech-writers to elaborate with modern examples on the concept already beautifully expressed by them, and following their lead in their understanding of Church Tradition and the Fathers.
The great Popes of the past have lessons in papacy available to every Pope for free, at the only cost of a touch of… humility.
Francis does not think he needs any lesson. He thinks he can make everything new. He thinks he can build his own papacy on the chimerical construction lamented by his great predecessor. Let us recall Pius X’s words about:
“the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can”
Add heresy to the above mentioned statement, and what you have is pure Francis.
The Goebbels.2 Reblog
In case you have any doubt Kathleen Sebelius is Goebbels.2, you only need to read her shocking (providing anything concerning that woman can still be defined as “shocking”) affirmation about the fact that the more children you abort, the less Obamacare costs.
This is what she said, verbatim:
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,”
I do not even know when to start.
Firstly, I was under the illusion the Obama government had tried to persuade us they actually wanted to avoid abortions. I know it is a lie, but this is the lie they went around saying. But this is not what Goebbels.2 says. She says contraception directly translates in a reduction of the number of births, which is an economic benefit.
For the first time in history, a country thinks it good to have less children, because it reduces its healthcare costs.
View original post 184 more words
I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
Ecclesiastes 3: 17
In the unbelievable days we are living there is nothing impossible anymore. It is as if a fury of self-destruction had taken hold of once Christian Countries, and would now aim at the annihilation of Christian values with the same energy with which once Crusades were waged, and heresy fought.
What the Belgian Parliament has done exceeds even the boundaries of common insanity. It is evil in its purest form. Evil shouted out in a very loud manner, and sugarcoated with Satan’s favourite weapon: a fake good-ism, a parody of mercy unable to mask the atrocious reality of a boundless cynicism, and an ice cold disregard for everything sacred, even the life of a six years old child. Or four, or perhaps three. The law has no minimum age. Belgium perfectly epitomises the ruthless cruelty of men who have forgotten God.
A child of, say, six years old can do very little of his own. He will be told when to eat and when to sleep, when to speak and when to be silent, when to play and when to do his homework. He will seldom even cross the road without an adult being there. He will – very obviously – be unable to drive, or vote.
But he will now be able to decide if he wants to have his life terminated. If he lives in Belgium, that is.
Evil. Pure evil. The culture of death has become a religion.
As always in these cases, revolutionary evil clothes itself with the mantle of good sentiments. In the same way as divorce and abortion and euthanasia, this new measure allows for a child to decide – imagine that! – that he wants to die only when the “extreme cases” which always make for bad laws, are present. The poor child must be terminally ill and suffering. I think they do it with horses, too.
Make no mistake:as with divorce, abortion, and euthanasia, the exceptional cases will become less and less exceptional; the “suffering” more and more widely interpreted, and extended to mental/moral/immoral suffering; the criteria for “moral suffering” will be reduced to the will to die, as already seen by the will to divorce and the will to abort, and as it is happening in this disgraceful Country (Belgium) for euthanasia already. I have read in Belgium one death in twenty is now more or less officially the product of euthanasia. The existing euthanasia law is around a decade old. Satan’s harvest is very rich already.
Henceforward, when the “good” Nazi parents of the poor lamb – unbaptised, very easily, by such people – decide that it is time to push the “reset” button sooner rather than later and go on with their life after the discovery the goods are defective – stopping the hassle and expenses in the process – they will tell the child it is an excellent idea to go to some fantasy land, where the supply of toys is unlimited and he will never be told it’s time to go to bed.
If the child is bigger – say, nine or ten – he will probably be asked to be realistic about the very sad situation. If he is bigger still – say, thirteen or fourteen – he will probably be told about the expenses he is causing, and all the suffering his poor Nazi parents would like to spare him. All of these, mind, still unable to vote, or even to drive. But able to decide it’s time to be got rid of.
Then a Nazi doctor will appear on the scene, who will decide whether junior is sensible enough – for a five years old, that is; or a boy – and will be presented with the interesting question: is this child or boy able to decide that he wants to die? Every sane person would laugh at such an idea, but Belgium is very obviously insane.
So there you are: when Nazi doctor has decided the kitten can be smashed to the tree – oh, sorry, I was distracted: that the child can be terminated, is what I wanted to say – a lethal injection or some other utterly effective method – Zyklon B not unthinkable, of course – will get rid of the problem. Cue the inconsolable parents, whose grief will be beautiful to see, and will be graced by the solidarity and support of their friends and family, “on their side” concerning their “difficult decision”. More harvest, of course.
The Belgian church has, I am told, meowed a bit at the last. But the Belgian church consists, from what we could observe in the last fifty years, almost exclusively of perverts and idiots. They have managed to accompany with the tambourine the transformation of a once very Catholic country in a cesspool of dirt and evil with possibly no rival on earth. If you have not opened your eyes about the fruits of V II, I strongly suggest you start now.
Stupid clergy produces evil people. Evil clergy produces modern Belgium. If the Church in Belgium had been vaguely Catholic in the past decades, we would not be at this point now. But even those who weren’t preying on children and were not homosexual were too cowardly to swim against the tide of secularism.
The result is in front of our eyes. The Church in Belgium has done exactly the same as its inhabitant: she has forgotten God; or rather, she has sold it for the thirty pieces of silver of easy popularity and acquiescence to the world; when it wasn’t much worse than that, of course. My experience in Bruges might be worth the reading. Yes, it is as bad as that. Again, is it a surprise such a clergy produces such a country, which in turn produces such laws? Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. A once very Catholic country has now become Satan’s poster boy. Don’t kid yourself into believing the Belgian Church can call herself innocent of this.
The Lord gave, and Belgium hath taken away. There will be a terrible price to pay for that.
I do not think the Belgians, as a whole, care. The majority in the Belgian Parliament was overwhelming.
In 2014’s Belgium, it is safe for a politician to be a Nazi.
Such are the ways of the “who am I to judge” generation.
“If you do not feel in need of God’s mercy, if you do not feel you are a sinner, then it’s better not go to Mass, because we go to Mass because we are sinners and we want to receive the forgiveness of Jesus, to participate in His redemption, His forgiveness.”
It’s so important to go to Mass every Sunday because that’s where people receive Christ who saves, forgives and unites everyone to his father, church and each other, Pope Francis said.
This man is bewildering, disconcerting, positively disquieting.
The first statement is from yesterday. I have initially read it as a rhetorical matter: “if you weren’t in need of mercy you would not need to go to Mass”; a bit like saying “if you were an angel you would not need to go to confession” – but you are a human, so you do. I have now serious doubts this is how it was meant.
A correction from the usual Lombardi will probably come post-haste. Still, the man has managed to confuse the faithful and send the “right message” to the “wrong people” once again.
Oh well. We have probably all misunderstood him, then; for the 1234th time in this pontificate.
The second statement is saltless in that he does not say that there is something as Mass obligation (in the favela there seems to be no obligations apart from the ones of smelling like the sheep and following one’s conscience), but at least it stresses the importance of mass attendance, and does not invite – or seems to invite; or can easily be read as to invite – to skip mass because one is so good he has no need for it.
I never knew we go to Mass to be “united to each other”, too, as this sounds a bit too “Woodstock” to my ears. The SSPX says it this way:
- the Mass is a true sacrifice, that is offered to God alone;
- this sacrifice is offered for the praise and adoration of God in three Persons as thanksgiving, impetration, and above all as propitiation for our daily sins;
- Christ offers Himself to His heavenly Father under the appearances of bread and wine;
- He, as High Priest of the New Covenant, accomplishes this Sacrifice through human priests and by means of the services of the Church.
I’d say the SSPX hits the bull’s eye, Francis seems to think more in terms of some strange emotional love-in of the community of “each other”. One understands whence the Pinocchio Mass and the Tango Mass come.
Again, at least he stressed the importance of Mass attendance and managed to say the right thing, albeit in the usual V II way .
But that was last week, and this is this week. New week, new world. Pick your flavour.
At times, when I read what this man says, I have the distinct impression that Satan is laughing.
With ugly regularity one reads of pious Catholics all too ready to give to simple facts a meaning that goes beyond the event, and that they take as unmistakable “God's special sign”; generally, these people do not resist the temptation to give voice to their own superstition, as if their strange theories were obvious for the world to see.
Let us take a couple of examples.
The day Pope Benedict resigned, a blizzard fell on St. Peter's dome. Countless Catholics were ready to read in it a sign of the wrath of heaven. They were ready to do it, of course, because they didn't agree with Pope Benedict's decision in the first place. If I don't like the decision, the reasoning goes, it follows that God must be displeased with it. If God is displeased with it, then let us look at something that corroborates my conviction.
If Pope Benedict had excommunicated Hans Kueng on the same day instead of resigning, I wonder whether the very same lightning would have been interpreted as a sign of God's wrath for the decision.
In those days, some went to even worse extremes: every natural phenomenon of some kind – there is always a storm somewhere, and the next earthquake can't be far away, either – was taken as a witness of what they were already persuaded of. It reminded me of Redskin shamans explaining to the uninitiated the wrath of Manitu.
I even read of someone having bad dreams, which left no doubt in her mind something very wrong had just happened. Hey, she had bad dreams. What else do you need to be persuaded.
But then during the 2013 conclave some bird took place on the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, and the shamans were all in a flutter for the contrary reason adduced for the lightning. Ah, a bird stopped to rest over a chimney. What a miracle.
Or think of this: when an extremely strong earthquake and sea quake took the extremely Catholic Messina in, I think, 1908 and killed around 100,000 people, no one deduced from an earthquake and sea quake in a most Catholic city of a most Catholic Country with a most Catholic pope (St. Pius X, no less) that God must be angry at that particular papacy…
This “shaman” mentality extends to very trivial events; like predatory birds attacking the doves just freed by Bishop Francis The Peaceful Killer Of Clueless Birds. Ominous, they said. A sign of the times. Strangely, they never saw a sign of the times on the many occasions in which the doves went away peacefully (to be killed by some other bird shortly thereafter, surely…). Still, if one is prone to such coffee reading he is perfectly free to conclude that God protects the peaceful dove as it flies peacefully away from St. Peter's squares, showing God's support for the humble Pope Of Peace, Francis The Peaceful Protector Of Doves.
Look: birds attack birds. It happens all the time. It's part of the rich fabric of Creation.
The mentality that this implies is a very strange one indeed: God talks to us through events that can be deciphered only by those who already know what God wants to say. Funny world.
The simple truth of the matter is that natural disasters, diseases, and the like all happen because the Garden of Even is no more, and we must live in a world full of imperfections and troubles, and in which the disgraces and diseases are, as a whole, the fruit of our disobedience. Still, cancer will strike the good as well as the bad, earthquakes will destroy the most heathen or the most Catholic of cities, doves will be attacked or not attacked by predatory birds, and the lightning rods of the highest buildings of the surroundings will continue to attract lightnings more than the lightning rods of the surrounding buildings until the end of time.
I invite my readers to have a more reasonable approach to natural events; not only because it is the reasonable thing to do, but equally importantly because if one starts to take random facts as evidence that God is on his side he will rapidly blind itself to the falseness of the most outlandish theories, and will start to believe in whatever he pleases, certain of the reassurance of the next lightning, or earthquake, or comet, or storm, or anything else that may serve the purpose, anywhere on the entire planet.
If my Internet connection is not working, is God telling me I must stop blogging? If I opened my blog and the statistics reader says “666”, am I in the thrall of Satan? Pope Francis has a cold: surely, God is warning him! I got a cold: surely, God wants me to stay home today and blog like there's no tomorrow!
Do not give any heed to Catholic shamans. If you do, belief in daily apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, followed by a fax to the adoring crowds, cannot be far away.
There appear to be a number of bloggers and commenters around wondering “what’s going on” as a prestigious blogger stops blogging with rather difficult to understand arguments, and apparently another one – I will not link to it – has now started to insult the entire Trad culture of Internet blogdom.
Some say it’s blogger fatigue, but I am not persuaded this arguments works.
It is true that Catholic blogging – if properly made – exposes the blog author to both a mountain of daily bad news and the criticism of the V II – or worse – crowd accusing him of being oh so uncharitable. It is true that not every blogger will find in him the energy or, if you allow me the expression, the grit to go on undeterred. Unavoidably, the one or other will simply stop blogging, or blog much less, and recover that serenity that was probably going away. What he will not do, is to suddenly start attacking those values he defended, and those people who still defend them. When this happens, it cannot be fatigue; it will, I think, only be one of three:
1. The blogger in question has discovered he lives in a state of continuous conflictuality, and sees himself becoming bitter in the process. Of course, to stop blogging is at this point clearly an option.
2. The blogger in question was never sincere, and blogged with a desire – more or less admitted – of self-recognition as his first motive. Slowly, he will get to hate those ideas garnering him exactly the contrary of what he wanted, and will start thinking about taking a much softer and “inclusive” stance, imagining this is where applause and blogging glory await. He is probably not evil, rather stupid. He will be disappointed, as criticism in blogdom is only avoidable if no one notices your blog, or your blog avoids taking a clear position, ever.
3. He has simply been wounded by Satan, and starts to think like the enemy. When the implosion comes, it will be spectacular. I think of the “black sheep dog”, and still shudder. Whilst I think Father Corapi has laudably recovered from Satan’s wound, this must not necessarily be the case for everyone else. When a blogger start to write about Catholics being “homophobic”, I start questioning the opportunity of wasting my time reading the devil’s propaganda.
In the end, I would say that whilst Catholic blogging, properly made, is a taxing and stressful activity – mainly because you see amounts of rubbish going on the average joe reader does not even imagine; and for the more sensitive among us, because they are told they are “uncharitable” and “hurtful” – it does not follow this unavoidable stress must lead one to attack the very values in order to defend which he started to blog in the first place.
Blogging is for people who know what they are writing about, and know why they write it; who are under no illusion as to the criticism, insult or mockery this will attract; who are willing to have their day sullied by the squalid miseries of the worst of the world, from sodomy to euthanasia; and who are willing to soldier on nevertheless, knowing that if they are not criticised they are either still at the insignificance stage, or else poor Catholic bloggers.
Before starting to blog, ask yourself why you are doing it, and ask Mary to give you a very robust shield against the miseries of the world, and the attacks of base men.
You will have need for it.