Monthly Archives: May 2014
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Below, some examples of Francis’ “new evangelisation”.
Don’t insult your intelligence, or mine, thinking this is casual.
A child of seven would understand all this, but a Jesuit of 76? Hhmmm, let’s read from Evangelii Gaudium:
Should talk to the atheists instead. No, wait!…
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.
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.
The name Michelle Arnold might not tell much to you; but when I was alerted to this article, it rang a bell with me.
Is this not the same woman who suggested to a wife that she disobeys to her husband and puts a third party “counsellor” between them? Yes, she is…
Now, the same woman who has no qualms in putting other people’ s marriages in jeopardy, and in encouraging wives to disobedience to, actually, blessedly Catholic husbands, finds it oh so bad that certain priests – actually, one certain priest – invites donations on his blog and sells articles through it.
Still, this woman doesn’t have the brass balls of the Tablet journalists, who attack that certain priest without any qualm. Rather, she goes around him in circles like an overweight hyena; not saying, but implying; not making the name of any particular priest, but suggesting him; not writing of him, but rather of others.
This is not the first time this particular priest (defined as “the” celebrity priest, so you know that yes, it is he who is meant) is attacked by the “c”atholic press or bloggers, though in this case the attack is meowed rather than roared. Not gently meowed, mind. Meowed, rather, like a very bitchy, overweight cat would meow when she hasn’t eaten.
In the past, I have defended that certain priest (Father Zimmermann, or Zuckerberg; or perhaps Zeckendorf; I forget …) from attacks against him openly, and would do so again if he were to be openly attacked again. But as the fictional bitchy cat hasn’t even dared to openly show her claws, I will do the same like the good bitchy-cat chasing fictional Catholic Dobermann I am.
The, ahem, non-attack moves on two, ahem, non-fronts.
1. Beware of star priests. Look at Father Corapi!
Yes, some priests have qualities Ms Arnold will never have. Such is life. Yes, this will lead to temptations, and those of them who are vulnerable or particularly heavily attacked by Satan (can’t imagine this will ever be the case with Ms Arnold) will be at risk of falling in Satan’s trap. That’s life, too. I notice here that my last information is that Father Corapi has gone back to his monastery and is undergoing a period of punishment and penance. Very frankly, I do not want to “duckduckgo” him to see if this is still the case, because yes, I liked the man, and I like to think that he is on his way to redemption.
But be it as it may, yes: there are dangers in being very, very good that the very, very mediocre will never experience. Actually, anonymity is a very good way to avoid these problems. But then if you are anonymous, some bitchy cat will accuse you of just being anonymous…
2. Look at the warning signs, which I give you because I am smart.
At least one, actually more, of these “criticisms” (some of them very stupid, like “how open is he to criticism”? Go figure…) are directly aimed at Father Zimmermann, or Zuckerberg, or whatever. The message is clear enough: “The “star priest” that shall not be named is a bad one, but I can’t tell you who he is because I will have a bunch of Dobermann chasing me in no time. Forcing me to skip a meal. Which, you must know, I truly hate”.
Tellingly, not one of the warning signs is the only one that people should pay attention to: does the star priest teach anything contrary to Catholic teaching, tradition and common sense? Because you see: if he does, he will do a lot of good to a lot of people even if he ends up (God forbid!) in hell himself; if he doesn’t, he can be “Father Theresa” in his private life and live in a cave, but he will be a rotten priest anyway.
The only measure of orthodoxy is orthodoxy, and this is also the only measure of the goodness of a priest’s preaching, or of a blogger’s blogging. I never enquire about the private life of a priest, and am content with a blogging priest not being openly sinful. I know privately they all are, as we all are, though hopefully in lesser ways than Ms Arnold or I. But you see: it is not sinful at all to sell articles on the internet, or to ask for donations, or to have legions of fans. These perks are generally deserved. What is really bad is when a blogging priest: a) gives scandal, or b) undermines the faith.I have supported Father Corapi as long as he was orthodox, and have censured him when he started to give scandal and talk like an egomaniac on cocaine. But I have not cancelled one single quote of him from my “quotable Catholic” page, and hope the day he dies the good he did to me and many others will be taken into account.
Talking of giving scandal and undermining the faith, the Bishop of Rome does both. Day in and day out.
I sense Ms Arnold isn’t really upset.
Stellar blog post from Father Ray Blake concerning the way our very image of God – with the obvious consequences in practically every aspect of life – was subtly but substantially subverted by Bugnini and his band of liturgical terrorists.
The blog post appears to have been removed, or I cannot find it anymore. Perhaps it will reappear. The main message of the post was that the careful selection of the readings in the New Missal gave a different image of Christ: not King anymore, but Buddy Boy. The blog post was truly good.
EDIT: It is here, a blog post of 2013!
I would like to add some additional considerations that might be of some use.
We see once again Satan’s gradual approach to war at work. Bugnini expunges the Rex Tremendae Majestatis from the experience of the common pewsitter, and substitutes it with a harmless kindergarten Christ who likes everyone and whom no one needs to fear. Given time, a Pope will invite sects from all over the world to Assisi, to take part to an orgy of blasphemous “feel good-ism” inconceivable in the past, but made possible exactly by the harmless kindergarten Jesus with which one generation has now been raised. Given more time, a much more shameless Pope will publicly – if not solemnly and officially – renounce to any requirement of Christian faith, or even to any faith at all, thus spreading a message of universal salvation that represents a new high in blasphemy.
The devil works in grades, advances in small steps. He knows there will be no lack of stupid people accepting the first step and calling “uncharitable” those who refuse to do it; after a while, exactly the same will happen with the second steps; then with the third, and the fourth. At this point, so-called same-sex marriage can’t be far away; after that, it will be outright persecution of Christians. All the while, there will be plenty of stupid people thinking they are Christians, and those who are persecuted are simply backwards homophobic reactionaries.
It must become clear to us that this corruption filters through every aspect of our life. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. The kindergarten Jesus begets a kindergarten theology, which begets a truly stupid kindergarten mentality. Suddenly, the accent is not on the tabooisation of homosexuality, but on making the homosexual feel comfortable with himself. When people write comment in your box stating that people should go around saying to everyone that they are catholic homosexual like others go around saying that they are recovering alcoholics, you understand the perversion of our times has come so far, has polluted the mind of the people so brutally, that to them the concept of taboo and of sexual perversion is not different from excessive drinking. The new lex orandi has perverted the lex credendi to such an extent, that sexual perversion is now accepted part of the lex vivendi.
The same happens in many other aspects of life, but most clearly nowadays in the matter of adultery. We see here the same kind of mainstream madness that has worked so well for the pervs. If Jesus not only loves, but saves everyone unconditionally, this “greatest buddy evah” created in the mind of the people will be incompatible with any kind of sanctions, and the concept of sin – even of very grave and public scandal – will be washed away to the point that a “cruel” Church is now seen as the Oppressor and the public sinner, poor lamb, as the oppressed victim.
What is happening today – from the outright revolt of homosexualism to the more subtle madness of imagined “third ways”, and from the outright dissent concerning communion for adulterers to the satanical deception of “pastoral approach” that perverts Christ’s very message – is the logical continuation of the subversion of sound Catholicism started with V II.
This is why every attempt to justify V II blaming exclusively its after effects is completely wrong. It is like justifying the first line of cocaine, stating that the real trouble was caused only by the addiction that followed.
V II must not be reformed or revisited, or brought back to a supposed original purity.
It must be simply exterminated.
If you surf around for blogs written by Catholic priests, you will not be able to avoid noticing that the tones are becoming more and more critical. Some priests are more open in their criticism and do not shy away from the “F-word” (Francis, that it). Others are more circumspect, but nevertheless very clear in what they say and who is the addressee of their complaint. Other still criticise left and right of the target, Voris-style, but you sense the darts get nearer to the bull’s eye.
One truly wonders how long this will go on.
We must understand two important elements here:
1. Dissent is acted against extremely slowly, if at all, but in the new “time of mercy” there is no mercy for Catholicism. The LCWR continue their antics undisturbed, but the FFI are brutally persecuted after suspicion of “Proto-Lefebvrianism”.
2. If a professor or a theologian dissent from Church teaching no less than an official enquiry of the CDF will, perhaps, persuade them to at least tone down their tone. In contrast, every orthodox blogging priest can be ordered by his bishop to shut down his blog overnight.
It does not take a genius to recognise that if the present “age of m… arijuana” continues, the danger that many of these blogger priests will be requested to either renounce to criticism of the Destroyer or shut down their blogs is very real.Come October, it seems reasonable to think there will be open resistance and condemnation to any Kasperite measures that were to be adopted, or proposed, or offered to “reflection”. At this point, more an dmore bishop will be tempted to “go Campbell”, and order their priest to shut down their “divisive” blogs, that puts heretics against Catholics when everyone knows Jesus wants us to all play cards together.
Many priests will, I am sure, comply in a spirit of obedience; persuaded that no blog is indispensable; that others will carry on the flag; and that the responsibility for the cessation of the blog will be exclusively on the shoulder of the bishop.
But at some point a priest will simply refuse to comply, believing that the bishop is simply not due obedience when he acts in open complicity with evil; this priest will rather invite persecution and legal confrontation than stop caring for the salvation of souls through his blog.
At this point things will become interesting, because the matter will land in front of ecclesiastical courts, and they will have a rather hard time officially sanctioning the right of a bishop to muzzle perfectly Catholic opinions of their own priests because, being Catholic, they are deemed divisive. Then the bishop himself can be asked to stop being a bishop because either he is catholic, and then he is divisive, or he is not divisive, and then he is not being a bishop.
Let this kind of legal confrontation become very frequent and very public, and what we have is a first-class showdown between perfectly Catholic priests and their perfectly anti-Catholic bishops.
It might be, I often think, good for a priest with the intention to resist the muzzling to simply state it – purely hypothetically of course – in his own blog. Something on the line of: the bishop is a wonderful, wonderful shepherd and all that, but wrong orders will not be obeyed, and if the event were to happen (which it will neva! evah!), well then in this utterly hypothetical case, see you in court.
Not that it will ever happen, of course. No. ‘Course not. Perish the thought.
In this case, I think, there would be a kind of United Catholic Front, of people who simply say “I think blogging is integral part of the way I work as a priest, and I will be a priest through my blog as I am a priest otherwise, unless I am told in court I am wrong”.
Just a thought.
Bishop Campbell has reacted to the media echo of his treatment of the blog “Protect the Pope”.
There are some huge news. And some observations worthy of the one or other comment. I see the bishop’s main points as follows:
1. The Deacon writes that the blog reflects his personal opinions, but he does say that he is a deacon of the diocese, and this could lead the readers to think that the deacon reports the views of the diocese.
Well: if they are stupid, yes. But stupidity has no rights, nor would civilisation exist if everything that can be misconstrued by the stupid would not be written or told. Still, it seems to me the bishop has another point here, that I have made in another post: if one says he is a deacon, he has spent the…
View original post 1,058 more words
You might have wondered why I have not written about the content of the Bishop of Rome’s recent trip to the Holy Land.
Mainly, it was because there was nothing much to write about.
Francis limited himself to the usual fluff, adding some fluff for flavour. “Be good, children” was the message in three words.
This makes more evident what this trip was not: an evangelisation exercise. At no point did I have the impression Francis was interested in converting even only one Jew, or Muslim. In fact, this man seems to always do the contrary, namely: to send messages of implicit reassurance that it is perfectly fine for them to remain Jews, or Muslims. Nor is this my personal interpretation, as this is the very Pope who expresses himself publicly against proselytism.
Let us note a repeated occurrence here. The Pope says something outlandish or outright heretical; the Pollyannas run to explain that this is not exactly what he meant; but then Francis proceed to do exactly that, insistently and repeatedly. Proselytism, salvation for atheists, attitude towards sodomy, and the socialist ideology are all points in case.
Which leads me nicely to a point I insistently make, and of which this man provides continuous evidence: Francis lives in a perfectly Catholicism-free world where the supernatural, the eternal destiny of man and the fundamental choice between God’s commandments and the world’s lures and devil’s lies do not play any role whatsoever. He managed, in fact, to expunge religion from his life to the point of not bowing in front of Tabernacles, though he can do it perfectly well to wash the feet of infidels.
He does mention Christ, true enough. But his is always an earthly Christ, a social worker and fighter of inequality, an absurd apostle of income redistribution and – if possible, even more absurdly – a promoter of religious freedom as human right. This, when his Christ is not an outright liar, of course (scour this blog for more).
In short, this man gives the impression of being one of the two:
A) an atheist who has lost his faith a long time ago, or never had it in the first place, and now uses Christ because of the obvious reasons of convenience that led him to choose the ecclesiastical career in the first place; or
B) a man who in the course of decades of moral and theological lapsation has simply forgotten – or has deliberately ignored until he forgot – what Catholicism is, and has substituted it with a strange new age belief in universal or almost universal salvation which, ipso facto, eliminates the issue of the afterlife and allows him to focus his energy on earthly issues; with, nota bene, the added advantage of not having to be unpopular with almost anyone, apart from the serious Catholics he then proceeds to declare the enemy.
Remember this reading of Bergoglio’s mind everytime he says something outlandish, and you will soon notice how everything falls in the proper place, and the apparent madness of his man reveals itself as the unavoidable product of his rather peculiar, and utterly un-priestly mind.
This is a former night club bouncer who thinks Christ was able and willing to deceive, and to deceive His very Apostles. Truly, Innocence has not inhabited that mind for a very, very long time.
I doubt he is more spiritual now than when he worked for the night club, as he reportedly did, or danced the Tango.
If he is, he disguises it with great skill.
And it came to pass The Destroyer had the gall of, after appointing Kasper as only opening speaker on the matter of adulterers and describing his as “profound and serene theology”, complaining that the press is now rather focused on this impending earthquake. Yours truly has reported.
A very good comment comes from this blog:
If I want to teach my family about morals and I hire Charlie Sheen, one must assume I’ve done my homework and selected the right person to convey the message I wish to have conveyed. I own the outcome.
With all due respect, it is simply not believable to select Kasper, sit back and watch the circus of dissent and confusion he conveys on your behalf, and then claim you did not wish this outcome.
Not owning the outcome feels deceptive and that is impacting credibility and trust.
Very well said.
We see the duplicity, the double-tongued hypocrisy, the lie, and the outright fraud of pushing a revolution and then saying one is surprised the revolution is causing so much stir, and people should focus on the daisies now in full bloom instead.
We see it. Francis, who is a Jesuit, doesn’t. Sir Humphrey should explain to him a couple of things.
Another brilliant reflection:
The Roman Catholic Church ordained and hired dissenters on every level and the situation is catastrophic.
Announcing the fix is in, hiring a man leading a schismatic movement and then claiming he is shocked by the outcome tells us it is the same old show only now at the top.
It gives the appearance the Pope is among those who operate under the old chestnut of passive-aggressive deception. That is bringing a boatload of other problems he didn’t expect upon his papacy.
It seems more and more evident to me that normal, reasonable, mainstream Novus Ordo Catholics (or at least, for now, bloggers) are more and more waking up to the immense scandal of this papacy. Their number will grow as Francis makes his enmity with Christ’s teaching (yes, I mean exactly that: enmity with Christ’s teaching) more and more evident. The Pollyannas will swallow everything unquestioningly like the average Stefan Mustermann during Nazism, thinking that if the Fuehrer has said so, why it must be right. But many, many others will realise the Church has no Fuehrerprinzip, and the Pope must respect Catholicism like everyone else and, actually, before everyone else; because being servus servorum Dei, the first among the servants of God, brings not only a very great power, but also a very special responsibility.
Deo volente, the resistance will grow stronger and Francis will realise the popularity with the wrong crowd is paid with a constant erosion of credibility as Pope; which, in turn, makes him less and less credible as the apostles of a New Age of Mercy; because if even yours laugh at your antics you can be Bishop of Rome, but you won’t carry a great weight after all.
Pope Bozo has abundantly trespassed every boundary of common decency, and it is time Catholic bloggers, journalists and common readers start making it clear without undue obedience for a Fuehrerprinzip the Church was never meant to have.
Unless, that is, they aren’t happy with the sacraments being made a parody of, and Catholic morality being perverted and subverted in the most shameless, if “officially unofficial”, way.
The Same-sex Dave Reblog
Those who thought Cameron a clever boy must be changing their mind very rapidly, as our man insists (for now) in not wanting to ditch the perverted idea of “gay marriage” in the face of a growing opposition within the party.
We have seen the same attitude with the Lords’ reform, and on that occasion our man ended up with a historic humiliation, to which he was forced to avoid a defeat which would have put his permanence as Prime Minister very clearly into question.
Of course, Cameron has his motives. Firstly, he has this stupid idea that he can attract Labour voters without losing his own supporters; a very imprudent reasoning even before the UKIP, and absolute madness now. Secondly, he has this other idea that values don’t count, votes do. Therefore, he goes where he thinks the votes are…
View original post 765 more words
Some of you might have wondered why I have not endorsed the UKIP for last week’s elections.
The reason is that the UKIP is giving up to organised faggotry at alarming speed; therefore, whilst I would see with pleasure the once conservative Party bring harmed by them in a very same-sex way I did not think I could, in conscience, support them through this blog.
Today I got a further confirmation why. It has transpired the party has now suspended one of his just elected Councillors for calling Elton John and his live-in aberrosexual “perverts”, besides referring to perverts in general with fitting terms like “fags” and “dykes”.
Heavens, this is exactly the kind of people the Country needs! People who are not afraid to exercise their right of free speech, and forcefully react against the Gaystapo now trying to invade every aspect of this Nation’s life! But no, a party occupied with becoming as stupid as the Tories decides that facts are too much of an inconvenience, and decides to give itself the usual oh so tolerant face that is, in actual fact, a hammering on Christian values.
This is the first generation since the outset of Christianity in which perversion cannot even be called such without incurring the ire of people who call themselves “Christians”.
A clear sign that this is the first post-Christian generation in the history of Europe.
How fitting that even Popes would have as unofficial slogan “who am I to judge?”.
And it came to pass Father Lombardi had announced only a kind of miracle would make the Bishop of Rome appear to journalists on the aeroplane back from the Holy Land. I think it means that Lombardi had implored Francis to abstain from improvised shows, and Francis had agreed, but Lombardi is by now smarter than to trust whatever the man says.
Punctually, the “miracle” happened, because the Pope who “doesn’t like giving interviews” is more addicted to the limelight than the leader of a boy band.
It appears the Bishop of Rome had the usual attack of logorrhoea, but from the inordinate stream of consciousness two concepts very clearly emerge:
1. Do not reduce the Synod to “communion for divorced and remarried”, and
2. The divorced and remarried are not excommunicated.
Do you hear the sirens? Yes, it’s the “Jesuit alarm” that has just gone off…
Point 1 clearly means the press is kindly invited to stop embarrassing him; they should, pretty please, write about other issues whilst Francis, Kasper & Co. go on demolishing the Faith.
The idea of, say, apologising for the mess he has caused and state most solemnly that no changes will be introduced, neither from the door nor from the window, does not even enter his mind. He is not embarrassed by the scandal and the confusion at all. It’s our fault, you see: why don’t we talk about the “family”, or the weather, whilst he works with the wreaking ball?
Point 2 is almost as ominous. Yes, it can mean “you are not excommunicated, and it is only up to you to be readmitted to communion by creating the conditions for it!” But this being Francis, it more probably means “you are not excommunicated, so you can receive communion in some strange way we will have to explore; we must only work on this to make sure we get away with it”.
The man who loves to talk badly about “casuistry” is doing just that, all the time, twisting a very clear teaching in the most Jesuitical matter by reference to this, or that, circumstance that might allow to (erm, uh, no?) open “new ways” to “mercy”.
Beware of Jesuits.
And it came to pass the current, and very unhappily reigning Pope stopped and prayed at the Wailing Wall, as his two predecessors also did.
We are not told whether Francis wailed. But it is to be supposed he was, at the very least, suitably sad in that humble, very photogenic way of his.
But let us stop one moment here: why was he sad? More to the point: what on earth has a Christian to wail at the Wailing Wall?
I was always led to believe that the destruction of the Temple was at the same time fitting punishment for the Deicide and brutal demonstration that the New Covenant had substituted for the Old, and Judaism had no justified ground for its continued existence. When Our Lord dies on the Cross and the intervening earthquake rends the “Veil” in two, this symbolises the end of one religion and the beginning of another one, or better its continuation under a new form.
At that point, the Temple is doomed already. It will have to go to show the world that Judaism is no more.
How can it be that Francis, and his predecessors, do and did not get that? What has Francis – and what had his two predecessors – to wail for? Is he, and were they, pray, Jews, that they had to feel the need for such an exercise?
The answer lies, I think, in the television.
It just looks good that the Pope would appear at the Wailing Wall. The stupid masses see it, and think it cool, in exactly the same way as they think the nun singing on the Italian TV agitating like she is on cocaine “cool”.
What things mean, or if they mean anything at all, is nowadays perfectly irrelevant.
How they look, and how they make people feel, is all that counts. This was so, in a much milder form, with the other two; and it is most certainly so in the most virulent form with the current man.
Can’t wait for the Pope praying in the direction of the Mecca in the Mosque, or performing the Rain Dance with some Redskin chieftain, or sacrificing to some Hindu deity, as a sign of “dialogue”.
The masses would be delighted.
The news that the Franciscans Sisters of the Immaculate are going to go the same way of their male counterpart is now everywhere. As Pat Archbold rightly points outs, the continued persecution might have the aim of driving some of them into the (perfectly Catholic) arms of the Society. At this point, the great “I told you they were bad” moment of Volpi & Co. would have arrived.
On the other hand, doing nothing leads simply to destruction. The FFI will simply be, at some point, disbanded and his members dispersed among other orders, probably ill or dying, but where they would be a tiny minority to be “re educated” in the failing ways of V II.
Damned if you do, dead if you don’t.
How to get out of the quandary?
One understands the thinking that to accept persecution in the short term is for the greater glory of the Church in the longer term, and if the FFI meekly accepts the persecution their sacrifice will be remembered one day as a luminous example of obedience in times of madness. One understands that one might reason in this way.
Still, I am not persuaded.
If this thinking had been applied by the Great Man, today we would very probably – nay; let’s call it “certainly” – have no Traditional Mass. All those, therefore, who advocate the meek acceptance of the scaffold for the FFI members should, in order to be coherent, consider offering themselves the very same meek submission they think the Great Man should have offered, and radically avoid attendance at TLM masses, be they the SSPX, the old Indult or the new SP ones; it being very clear that without the SSPX there would be no Indult and no SP masses for as long as the V II madness endures.
I am a supporter of the SSPX. I think that they represent not a sign of rebellion, but a sign of obedience. I can, therefore, not see why the obedience to a higher Power than the Pope then showed by the Great Man should not find application in this situation, which is a kind of replay on a much smaller scale of what happened then.
Either this higher loyalty exists, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, Traditionalism in any form whatsoever should not exist – actually, the very word should not exist – in the first place. If it does exist, then it is if not necessarily mandatory, at least always legitimate to decide that, when this higher loyalty cannot be preserved without great detriment to the Truth, disobedience to wrong orders should be the choice. As the smart Italian soldiers used to say, gli ordini sbagliati non si eseguono, “the wrong orders are not carried out”.
Add to this that whilst Volpi & Co. would have a short-term argument to persuade those who do not need persuading anyway, a robust defection of FFI male and female members would be a permanent thorn in the side of NuChurch, and expose the failure of such attempts to purge orthodoxy from the Church and get away with it. On the contrary, a robust defection would show that Modernism will not be allowed to make itself comfortable within the Church without resistance, and every action will cause a reaction.
Again, it is a matter of higher Loyalty. Or is there anyone of you who thinks Athanasius should have been obedient to Liberius, and meekly accept the massacre of Catholicism in the serene confidence God will, at some point, set things right?
God sets things right by motivating brave men and women to set them right, not by sending Angels on earth to clean the mess in the kitchen, whilst the cooks look and do nothing.
At some point, resistance must be legitimate. Common sense and love for the Church say that it must be so.
I hope that, if this scandal does not end, a sizeable minority of FFI friars and sisters will leave the FFI and FSI and will ask to be affiliated to the SSPX.
Let Volpi & Co. scream as much as they like. They will only persuade those who are already sold to their Modernist ideology.
Possibly homosexual priest promotes sodomy his entire life.
Francis receives him.
He concelebrates Mass with him.
He even kisses his hand.
(The priest is the one dressed like a layman, with a cross added)
Homosexual priest has given open scandal in South America for many years.
He is allowed to run three Vatican hotels, where religious of a certain kind can, more or less casually, meet other religious of a certain kind, undisturbed.
Francis lives under his roof.
He also promoted the man to an extremely high position, at the head of the Vatican Bank.
Francis is photographed with him in a very friendly attitude.
Perfectly orthodox priests from a very saintly family co-founds a perfectly orthodox religious order that becomes among the most successful within the Church.
He is slandered and confined at home, whilst Francis goes over his order with the steamroller.
Time to wake up.
You can’t go on any half-decent Catholic blog nowadays without reading criticism of the Bishop of Rome from all sides.
What I often notice is the attempt to save what can be saved, by saying: “I so liked his speech on such and such an occasion, but…”
My two cents on the matter: when a man talks first class rubbish whenever he speaks off-the cuff, you can be sure whenever he makes a sound speech he has not suddenly discovered orthodoxy.
Common sense says that he is, on that occasion, simply following the speech that was written by others, and given to him.
Even a compulsive attention-seeker will, at times, simply think it wiser to follow the script.
King James Bible
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
English Standard Version
But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
American Standard Version
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.
Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.
But he turned and said to Peter, “I do not understand what you are saying. I find it confusing. But you have been hand-picked by the Holy Ghost, so this must make sense in some way I don’t know”.
A chap called Elliot Rodger goes on a rampage, kills six people, wounds other seven, exchanges gunfire with the police, then kills himself.
This would be a usual case of a madman tired of living, but it has an important difference.
The young Mr Rodger uses the social media to justify his acts, and employs all the kind of emotional bollocks so much en vogue nowadays.
He has no friends, to which he obviously feels entitled. He clearly has no sex, to which he also feels entitled. He has no societal approval, which is the gravest sin of the century.
The young man does not have everything that modern society deifies: feel-good feelings, good time and, obviously, sex galore. He feels, therefore, authorised to take a weapons and go frontally against the very society that deifies those very things it negates to him.
For a Christian, all this does not make sense. But think of it coolly: for someone whose gods are fun, sex, and approval, it suddenly does.
Now, of course Rodger was a madman, and his Asperger’s syndrome – no doubt now promptly exploited by the social nurse crowds; I can hear the cries of “poor lamb” and “what could we have done to avoid this horrible tragedy happening” already – is in no way excuse; because if it was, everyone with the same condition should be locked in a madhouse not tomorrow but, actually, today.
Still: this madman would, in other times, have at least continuous reminders that there are other values than fun, sex on the beach isn’t any kind of achievement, and friends are something that – Asperger’s or no Asperger’s – one is simply not entitled to. This would, it is to be hoped and reasonably assumed, have an effect on his brain, making what has happened far less probable. If your eyes are at least vaguely, distractedly, or occasionally towards heaven, it will be more difficult to become obsessed with one’ problems on earth; which, in time, might even help with a social life and, if not sex on the beach – which I am not advocating – at least a reasonably contented existence.
Mr Rodger is simply saying to the world: ” all that you have declared the very purpose of existence, you deny to me. Therefore, I will take revenge on you”.
Think of it again.
In the twisted, godless world of the XXI century, he is making sense: in a world without God there is no place for morality, and in a world declaring self-satisfaction the purpose of existence a life without self-satisfaction is not worthy of existing.
Elliot Rodger, lucid madman, is the mirror of the lucidly mad society of our times.
I have posted a short while ago – after my adrenaline level has stabilised, albeit to a very dangerous level – a blog post about Pope Francis’ endorsement of and encouragement to sodomy.
Reading around on the Internet, you find the various comments: with the professional blind, the closet homosexuals talking of “mercy”, and the “I don’t know how, but this must all make sense in some way” types.
Some commenters, though, seem to make a very dangerous mistake: they choose orthodoxy by half, thinking that this is a kind of “golden mean”, or a way to protect orthodoxy whilst remaining “charitable”. It isn’t orthodox, and it isn’t charitable.
A clear example is in the approval of the so-called “third way” concerning homosexuality. From what I could read around, this “third way” would consist in declaring oneself openly and proudly homosexual, whilst choosing chastity because… Christianity says so.
This is a clear example of senseless bollocks, invented by someone who wanted to bend over backwards to appease the culture of the times, or wanted to promote homosexuality profiting of the culture of the times.
Homosexuality is a perversion. There’s nothing good in homosexuality. Nothing whatever. Homosexuality is not to 98%, or to 99%, but to 100% of the devil. It is, therefore, utterly impossible to be afflicted by such a perversion and be “proud” of it, in the same way as it is impossible to openly declare oneself a pervert without giving scandal.
Thinking logically, the entire concept defies its purpose. To make something public already means to imply a search for approval; an approval that is then forcefully imposed on the community by the very assertion that there should be any “pride” in it.
One truly wonders what the purpose of this “third way” is: to lead homosexuals to accepts chastity, or to lead Christians to accepts homosexuality of something to be openly proclaimed, and to be proud of. Tellingly, no one of the promoters of this strange “way” seem to ask himself why there was never any need of it before. Was Christianity unmerciful these last 2000 years?
Beware of this kind of “moderate” positions. They aren’t Christian, at all.
The same happens with some Catholics who say that they are contrary to so-called same-sex marriage, but are not against so-called civil partnerships. They do not understand that if Christianity has done without civil partnership for 2,000 years it was because of … basic Christianity.
Unfortunately, nowadays the very concept of scandal has disappeared. Accommodating people’s real or perceived need is the real priority, and people therefore start to think, in all seriousness and without seeing any problem, how Christianity can be bent to do it.
The idea that it should be a problem at all that a faggot living with his “partner” would not have his “relationship” with him legally regulated, or would not be able to visit him in the hospital, or would not have any right to his “pension pot” by “divorce” would have caused justified scandal, mixed with amused irony and salacious comments, in every generation before ours. Nowadays, people very seriously think about them, and think them a societal issue. This is how de-Christianised our societies have become.
These are merely two example. There are many others.
Be always vigilant, and reflect whether what you are reading on the internet would have been considered sound by your grand-grandmother.
Truth never changes. It’s as simple as that.
I had missed this, but it was posted yesterday by two readers on my comment box.
Let us stay calm (if we can; I have been trying since yesterday) and let us see what is happening here.
The faggot priest (real, or honorary) gives to the Pope a set of wooden chalice and paten. The use of wooden chalice and paten in the Mass is explicitly forbidden. It is, it can be safely said, a clear sign that the Mass in question may well be invalid, and that the celebrant does not believe in the Transubstantiation. In this case, the wooden chalice and paten are an obvious sign of defiance of Church teaching, as everything the faggot priest (real, or honorary) says and stands for.
The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift.
The faggot priest (real, or honorary) also give Francis a copy of his most recent book. There can be no doubt whatever the book is scandalous in its every part, and promotes sodomy exactly as his author does. Sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance.
The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift, too.
Not happy with thus giving an obvious, public endorsement of sodomy, Francis concelebrates Mass with the faggot priest (real, or honorary). This, he does with the man who is about to give him a wooden chalice and paten.
My adrenaline has been on alarm levels since yesterday, so I will avoid to expand much on this. I have already cancelled several lines of this post. And I don’t think any of them was untrue in any way.
The facts are in front of you. There is nowhere to hide. This is so openly the work of the Devil that I am embarrassed for your mother if you are so thick that you don’t get it.
One would hope that all those who had refused to see anything bad in this disgraceful man appointing his sodomite buddy to head of the Vatican Bank (where he still sits) would open their big blue eyes and start looking at reality as it is: a Pope who is an accomplice of, and encourages sodomy for the sake of his own approval. But they very probably won’t, because if they had had some sense they would have understood then, rather than needing this open, shocking, shameless endorsement of sodomy now.
This Pope, who thinks angels inferior to men, truly causes them to cry to heaven for vengeance. His approval of sodomy is so explicit that it cannot be made more clear. I ask you what is a Pope to do to let even the last idiot understand that he – if he is not homosexual himself – is most certainly an accomplice of sodomites. I can’t imagine any endorsement more open than this one, short of “mercifully” appearing in some “gay porn” movie.
Which, let me state this very clearly, I do not consider beyond him, at all.
Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. A sin. That cries. To heaven. For vengeance.
If Francis had some sense in that stupid, or evil, head of his, he would avoid even thinking of giving such scandal. He would know that his being such an overt accomplice of the sin of the sodomites would attract on him the most terrible punishment, perhaps only short of those reserved to sodomites themselves (and perhaps not, because he is the Pope). If he had, he would. But he hasn’t, so he doesn’t.
I think the reality is a very sobering one: this man does not believe in God. He is, consequently, not afraid of punishment. He berates angels, because he considers them fantasy creations. He does not believe in Transubstantiation, and therefore accepts a wooden chalice and paten as a gift without wincing; actually, with his acceptance he encourages further liturgical abuses, and sends a very open signal of his lack of belief in Transubstantiation.
He is not afraid of any punishment, whether earthly of heavenly. He believes in only one thing: Jorge Bergoglio. The promotion of this agenda, of the “Humble Pope” brand is, to him, the only thing that counts, and to which everything else – from the Transubstantiation to the Blessed Virgin, from Our Lord to the most elementary teachings – must give way.
All this is then conveniently masked as “mercy”, thus clearly indicating God is, with his approval of Christianity of the past 2000 years, unmerciful.
What a disgrace of a Pope.
The bride of Christ is being raped every day, by the same man who should protect Her. The perverts of all sorts and their friends applaud, and rejoice. The tepid masses do not understand, but prefer to look the other way. The professional idiots say if the Pope rapes the Church, then it means for some reason it is right that the Church be raped. There must be things we do not know, you know… Christianity has always been so inscrutable, after all…
I know that the angels in heaven look at all this. I call on them to cry to heaven for God’s righteous vengeance on this man, relentlessly working against God in the most evident, most shameless way, and only bent on the edification of his own cult.
This is a papacy fit for the perverts, the atheists, the satanists, the heathen, and the stupid.
They are all having a party, whilst Francis rapes the Church every day.
Inspired by the latest statement of Pope Francis, I thought that the Pope might, now that it has been decided that Angels are inferior to Man, ask each Catholic to become the Guardian Human of an angel.
As he is there, the Bishop of Rome could ask the angels to recite their daily prayer for their Guardian Human.
Being somewhat conservative, I suggest the following text:
qui custos es mei,
me tibi commissum pietate pontifica,
hodie illúmina, custodi, rege et guberna.
Man of God, my guardian dear,
to whom Pope’s love commits me here,
ever this day be at my side,
to light, to guard, to rule, and guide.
There. This is fixed.
All these preconceptions and superstitions about angels have gone on for too long. Thankfully, we now have Francis to tell us, very humbly, what is what.
The (excellent, from what I can understand) Argentinian blog “Wanderer Revisited” has this interesting picture collage about two Popes.
I am not good at Spanish, in the sense that it is only accessible to me in the way it would be to a casual Italian reader. But one certainly does not need great language skills to understand the message of this:
More and more people are opening their eyes. More will follow as October approaches.
Let us be vigilant, and let us fight against the huge tide of satanic deception coming our way.
“I think I was brought pretty close to tears when Pope Francis said, ‘Who am I to judge?’” said Pike. “It was just a tremendous feeling of being welcomed for the first time — just to even be identified in that context.”
Dyke Pyke was oh so moved when she heard Francis’ words. She isn’t sated yet, but she just had that “tremendous feeling”.
As she is a stereotypical dyke, I thought it right to inflict the picture to you. You may show it to your children as a cautionary tale. If they have the appropriate age, that is.
The soi-disant Catholic, who is an “organizer” in her community, says Francis’ action “stir her heart”. I am glad he did not have to stir her body, for which much more vigorous statement would have been be necessary (“I am a Muslim”, or…
View original post 105 more words
I post here the links to a long letter to Francis from a personal acquaintance of him. Unfortunately, I could only find the German and the Spanish version. If any of my Spanish- or German-speaking readers can direct me to an English translation, I will be thankful.
EDIT: IT IS HERE: Many thanks to readers Marco Pernechele and “Corymbia”!
There are several concepts and ideas in this letter with which I cannot agree. Yes, of course we can criticise the Pope. At times we must, even. Probably the author expresses herself in a rhetorical way, but she unfortunately contributes to the widespread tale that the Pope cannot be criticised. Similarly, I do not agree with the strange idea that the man be an intelligent man, therefore he must have some cunning plan to defend Catholicism without anyone noticing. More gravely, no doubt must ever be insinuated in the mind of the readers that, when Christ and a Pope are in conflict, there might be any doubt as to who is right.
Why, then, do I link to this long letter?
Because, coming from a personal acquaintance from him, it gives some rather telling insights about the habits and ways of Jorge Bergoglio, the Archbishop and Cardinal. And no, it’s not a beautiful sight.
Still, what the writer says about the Cardinal matches so exactly the actions of the Bishop of Rome, that it is very difficult not to find her words completely trustworthy.
This is a woman who knew Bergoglio as Cardinal, and, as we say in Italy, “photographed him”, describing the real way he is in minute details.
Read past the usual compliments, and what emerges is further confirmation of the tragic mistake of the Cardinals in March 2013.
Next time I hear some idiot repeat the other tale of the Holy Ghost hand-picking the Pope I think I will be tempted to slap him in the face, and to demand that he thanks me afterwards.
If you are a German- or Spanish-speaking blogger, you may want to consider reblogging the original letter; albeit, I think, with the caveats I have expressed above.
As a whole, I think it should be required reading for everyone wanting to understand what is going on with Jorge Bergoglio.
It appears that part of the strategy to go against the Sacrament of Communion and Our Lord’s teaching about adultery is to go against the sacrament of marriage, by actually going against all marriages. Fifty percent of the marriages celebrated in the West could be invalid, the Bishop of Rome is said to have said. It is, at any rate, certain that he has mentioned another bishop saying the same, and apparently not in order to deny the theory.
In order to destroy communion by allowing it to adulterers it is necessary that faith in marriage be destroyed in the first place. When that is gone, everything else will crush down from itself.
Are you sure, then, that you are validly married? What about your neighbours? Your colleagues? Your wife’s childhood friends? There can be, apparently, no certainty about anyone, at least not anyone we do not knew very intimately at the moment he married.
The consequence of this is that the difference between married couples and concubines or public adulterers is blurred away. Marriage is not a sacrament anymore, merely a supposition, and one with very uncertain odds; or ask yourself how safe you would feel if the doctor would say to you that you are ill, with a 50% probability of survival.
Yes, the Joneses down the road live together, but they live like husband and wife. How can we know they are less husband and wife than half the Catholic couples of our acquaintance? She even has his name! Isn’t that cute! Yes, the Church says they are adulterers in theory, but in practice the Church says that there is no way to know who is married and who isn’t, is there now?
This, in turn, throws a more than sinister light on the entire edifice of the Church. If the Church founded by Christ cannot give even a modicum of realistic assurance that she, as a rule, imparts sacraments validly, what is the Church worth? If that on which the entire human social construct is founded cannot be guaranteed as being the proper way, and the married couple a properly married couple, what is the Church there for? If marriage is at the very basis of human civilisation, but the Church cannot ensure she makes even that function properly, what kind of Bride is this? At that point, the Bride of Christ would be questioned exactly in the same way as all other brides are questioned.
In order to allow his punters to keep paying, Cardinal Kasper openly attacks not only the sacrament of Communion, and not only Christ’s world on adultery, but the institution of marriage itself. The Bishop of Rome, whether out of great stupidity or evil mind, supports him in any way he can, short of open approval.
In just a few months, you will have to decide to whom to give your allegiance. No Pope has the right to demand that we sacrifice our allegiance to Christ on the altar of “unity”, of “obedience” to earthly authority – and be it the Pope’s – or of a “collegiality” that cannot have any value if it goes against Christ. Much less can it be sacrifice in the name of a supposed “Spirit”, now evidently intentioned to make Christianity obsolete.
Therefore, no Pope is due obedience in matters in which he puts himself squarely against Christ, and no amount of Clericalist fluff can change anything in that.
And so I ask again: is your marriage valid? Your neighbours’? Your relatives’? Is the Church able to validly impart Sacraments? Is Christ to be followed in preference to strange novelties?
I have the impression that the final destination of a great number of souls will be decided from the way they have, in life, answered this question.
The head of the Austrian group “Wir Sind Kirche” (“We Are Church”) was excommunicated, together with her husband, for playing Mass (and, actually, “priestess”) at home. What I think happened is that these people invited a small number of satanic nutcases at home and, after tea and Sachertorte, “concelebrated” a pretend Mass.
I hope the Sachertorte was good, because the thing with the pretend Mass had a kind of a bitter outcome.
This group is, in a way, the Austrian Heresy on steroids or, if you prefer, the openly militant Austrian Heresy. A bit what the SA were to the Nazi ideology. They evidently do not limit themselves to dream of, say, priestesses; they actually play priestess themselves.
Ah, these children! They grow up so fast!
In this case, the children are clearly Satan’s willing tools. They refusal of basic Catholicism puts them squarely in the Presbyterian camp, but at least the Presbyterians have the decency to not imagine themselves Catholics.
By the by, the woman is 67 years old, showing age does not necessarily go together with wisdom, and is apparently using a title of “theologian” without the legal qualifications to do so. Where I come from this is a criminal offence of no small import. I wonder how the Austrian see that. What the matter tells me is that some people would do absolutely everything to attract attention on themselves.
I don’t pity the husband. I pity the neighbours.
Now, it is obviously good that, once in a while, we are informed the rules are enforced. But this here is truly extreme, and to infer from this any kind of “orthodoxy” of Francis would be utterly unrealistic, particularly considering the inquest against the two started in 2011. More probably, Cardinal Müller persuaded Francis that something more robust than a “slap on the wrist” had to take place. We have, anyway, always known this is one madness Francis does not support.
“Wir Sind Kirche” isn’t small fare, as in the German-speaking countries dissent is almost as fashionable now as brown was in the Thirties. They are present in more than twenty Countries, but to my knowledge they are vocal particularly in Germany and Austria. One wonders how the Austrian members will react to the news that their Dear Leader is found guilty of delicta graviora.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because this is one of those events that might open the eyes of the tepid, the ill-informed and the slow. To keep the woman at the head of the Austrian nutcase group would be telling. To oust her would force, perhaps, some soul searching.
When the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, one is forced to inform oneself as to what has happened and, if he is of sound thinking, realise they are excommunicated for refusing to compromise Catholicism. When these two are excommunicated, many will be hopefully led to realise that within this movement Catholicism is not even present in homeopathic doses.
In any way, what is sure is that we can’t infer from the punishment of this really extreme behaviour any return to orthodoxy from Francis.
It would be like praising Stalin because he did not eat children.
The planet is the greatest gift God gave us. No, forget Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross. I mean the planet. Why would Christ be so important? Salvation, you say? Ah, eh, but if we follow our conscience we are all saved, no?
Now, little children, pay attention: God forgives everything, no? Adultery, fornication, apostasy, heathenism, everything! But Creation, Creation will not forgive you! Ha! Think of it, when you pluck a flower, no?
We must be good. Because to be good is better than to be bad, no? And we are all bad at times, eh? But then we meet some profound and serene theologian, and then we can all go to communion, no?
3) Holy Ghost
The Holy Ghost is holy. Very holy. He is holy and He is a ghost, I think, which is why we call Him the Holy Ghost, no? We must listen to the Holy Ghost, little ones! When people tell us: “no, don’t listen to the Holy Ghost! There could be trouble in store!” We must answer: “eh?”. I mean, we must answer: “no, don’t close the door to the Holy Ghost! He would remain out! In the cold!And the rain! Without even an umbrella!
We are superior to angels. They are inferior to us, no? No, really, children: take it from me. You see, an Angel can never be at the “outskirts”, eh? And if he is not at the outskirts, how can he be any good? No? We are the centre of everything, no? Yes, take this from me again! Well, then…
5) Time of Mercy
We live in the time of mercy. Mercy is good, no? Mercy is better than revenge, eh? We are all in need of mercy, at time. Some of us have counted their rosaries, and others live with their concubines, no? This is not good, eh? I mean, the rosary? They have sent me more than 3,000 of them! Counted! Please, don’t laugh!
Mercy also mean we can all have our little slips, no? Like a bit of sodomy, eh? But if you have a good heart and follow the Lord, who am I to judge?* (*© Francis 2013).
6) The Four Last Things
I can never imagine God would do more than slap us on the wrist, no? I mean, come on! Seriously?
7) Social Justice
There are so many poor around! Being poor is good, but not being poor is very, very bad! Being poor is good, but it is bad that there are the poor, no? I mean, make poverty history! ¡Hasta la Victoria siempre! In South America we are very strict on social justice, and look ar how prosperous we are!
8) Doctrinal security.
Doctrinal security is very bad, because it attracts people who count rosaries, no? It also offends people of other faiths, or none, eh? We all offend at times, but we must not do it, hey? People who count rosaries are bad. Doctrinal security is good only if you aren’t too sure, no? If you really must say it, say “I think I am sure”! It’s better when we all get along, no?
We must not judge. We must not do like the Neo-Pelagians, Restorationists, Old Maids, Flight Assistants, Pharisees, Rosary-Counters, Joyless people, people who pray by rote, unsmiling Catholics, Catholics with excessive doctrinal security, and gossipets. All these people have no faith, and we must not be like them, because to be like them is to be judgmental, no?
There are bad things in the Vatican, no? I mean, Leprosy! But if one is gay (yes, I said “gay”) and seeks The Lord, who am I to judge, hey? And they don’t go around with ID cards, no? But it’s bad, bad! My friend the Monsignor described it to me in detail! Boy, it was ugly!
The newspapers report that Antonio Banderas will be the first man to interpret both Che Guevara and the Pope.
He will be the second.
The first is, very obviously, Jorge Bergoglio.
The second incorrect attitude is the temptation to limit ourselves to creatures, as if they can provide the answer to all our expectations. With the gift of knowledge, the Holy Spirit helps us not to give in to all of this…but I would like to return to the first wrong path…Custodians Creation, not Masters of Creation it is a gift that the Lord has given us, to us! We are Custodians of Creation. But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God’s love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: “I don’t like it!. This is not good!” “So what do you like?” “I like myself!” – Here, this is sin! Do you see? Custody of Creation is custody of God’s gift to us and it is also a way of saying thank you to God. I am the master of Creation but to carry it forward I will never destroy your gift. And this should be our attitude towards Creation. Safeguard Creation. Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us! Never forget this!
I frankly do not know how this man can look at himself in the mirror and not be ashamed.
Already the childish, primitive talk (very probably already doctored for the print) shows either half-illiteracy or a patronising, condescending attitude. In the first case he is probably retarded, in the second he more than probably thinks we are.
The content is even worse. Are we Masters of Creation, or not? Is it a sin to like oneself? Is Creation a god-like Pagan creature? Is God’s love to us showed primarily in Creation? I thought God’s love for us is showed in the most astonishingly beautiful act of love of all times?
Is it possible to ignore that whatever this man says is completely man-centred, totally earthly, and consistently aimed at directing people’s gaze away from heaven and down on this earth?
What is happening here is not only that the Emperor has no clothes. Here we have a naked Emperor going around singing obscene sailors’ songs, whilst an army of sycophants praises the extreme wisdom of his poetic expressions.
Please, Lord: in your good time, take this chalice away from us, and from your Holy Church.