The Rape Of The Church: Pope Francis Celebrates And Encourages Sodomy

Faggot is who faggot does.

Faggot is who faggot does.

 

I had missed this, but it was posted yesterday by two readers on my comment box.

Words fail.

Let us stay calm (if we can; I have been trying since yesterday) and let us see what is happening here.

1.

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.

2.

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. 

3.

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.

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on May 25, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 40 Comments.

  1. Francis is ‘cosying up’ to this heretic and others like him while, at the same time, overseeing the attacks on the FFI? The signals (which are clearly intentional) could hardly be any clearer now and yet STILL some orthodox Catholics still won’t accept the fact that we are ‘in big trouble’. What does it take?

  2. Well, I wonder how the Catholic Answer boys, Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and Voris the Vortex are going to explain away this ‘queer’ thing? The mental and spiritual gymnastics required to explain this one away will give them sprains and hernia’s beyond compare, if they refuse to admit the truth. Lies and falsehoods need to be trapped and exposed, but Voris will just suck!

    • Shea & Co. will say Francis is just being merciful, and a bunch of Fascists just doesn’t get it.

      Voris will just ignore it and make the next video about the parish priest who said something inappropriate.

      All the others will say they don’t really understand, but it must make sense, surely?

      M

  3. quiavideruntoculi

    Do you believe it is possible to have serious reservations about the validity Francis’ pontificate, while also maintaining that he is legally the Pope?

    Clearly, the Church recognises him as Pope at the present. But could he not be declared an Antipope post-mortem (e.g. because some impediment to his election came to light, concerning which we had be thitherto ignorant)?

    • To my knowledge, no Pope could be declared an anti-Pope post mortem.
      A Pope is validly Pope, or he isn’t. He can’t be de-popised after death.

      Obviously, a Pope could be declared a heretic post mortem. See – again, to my knowledge – Honorius, and various others. But this is nothing to do with his being validly Pope, but with his being a good one.

      It is an *extremely dangerous path* to start to theorise that Francis might, one day, be declared illegitimately elected. Because from there to deciding ourselves that it is so the step is very, very short, an dmany are dying of desire to make it.

      Francis is the Pope. One of the most disgraceful of history, and probably not even the most disgraceful (though possibly yes, the most disgraceful).

      But he is the Pope.

      The Lord will take him down in His own good time, and let us pray that he repents and converts in the meantime.

      We must, in the meantime, humbly accept the punishment God sends us with this papacy, and never stop denouncing it.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      Do you believe that the vicar of Christ can lose the faith? You have said “He doesn’t believe in God”; I agree with you, he certainly doesn’t seem to believe in God. There’s an outside chance I suppose. But if that is true, what happened to Christ’s promise?

      Wasn’t John XXIII (the antipope) declared an antipope after his death?

      No one doubts that Popes can fall into material heresy, and even teach it. That’s happened on several occasions.

    • Did Christ ever promise a Pope would believe in God? Not to my knowledge. There were many very secular Popes during the Renaissance and before, and the appointment of Pope was, for a long time, a very political affair. What a Pope thinks in his mind is not, again to my knowledge, something of which we can be given any guarantee.

      The same, by the way, goes for every priest, or bishop, or Cardinal. When you go to Mass, you cannot know whether he is in mortal sin, or whether he has lost his faith completely. You trust that, as long as he does what the Church says he must do, the consecration takes place irrespective of the priest’s faith in it.

      I am, obviously, ready to stand corrected on this, but there can be no doubt this man would piss his pants at the thought of what he does, if he believes in God.

      In his case, one might think that he has so far strayed that he thinks he believes in the God of the Christians, but he actually doesn’t, and rather ha sfashioned a comfortable, fluffy God for himself, who doesn’t punish anyone and lets you get away with everything: atheists, heathen, adulterers, everyone but Catholics, who are obviously in danger of damnation and must be crushed.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      What this SSPX priest said to me was that where a cleric is a formal heretic, he ceases there and then to be able to exercise his office in his own right, but that this doesn’t matter because the Church supplies jurisdiction for his juridical actions until such time as he is formally deposed. Obviously, if he is a true priest he can still validly confect the sacraments, but e.g. a formal heretic bishop would lose ordinary jursidiction. So his juridical acts would have the same legal force as true episcopal acts, but they wouldn’t be – strictly speaking – episcopal acts.

      Does that ring any bells with what you have read?

    • Yes, but we are talking here of formal heresy. I can’t see any of the sort in Francis’ words or actions. IN fact, a Modernist will never, merely in virtue of being a Modernist, become a formal heretic.

      Francis, like all Modernists, is a material heretic. Luther standing up and saying: “Here I stand, I can do no other” is a formal heretic. He knows his is a heresy, he recognises it, and stands to it.

      Francis is an old nincompoop who has never learnt his Catechism, and goes around spreading confusion because he is too stupid to do things properly, and too arrogant to admit he must learn the basics. If there is evil in his mind – which ther emight be; I mean, the evil of deliberately wanting to undermine Catholicism -, this does not express himself in formal declarations of heretical content, merely in wrong statements and actions fruit of erroneous thinking that he thinks, or wants to sell, as in line with church teaching.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      Interesting point re modernism.

      I suppose it seems more apt to describe the modernist as an apostate rather than an heretic; if you consciously throw out objective truth, period, you’re going further than the heretics.

    • I disagree.

      An apostate states that he is not a Christian; he officially abandons Christianity.

      A formal heretic rejects a truth of the Church that he has correctly understood. He says: “I know that the Church has always taught this; but I tell you it is wrong”.

      A material heretic accepts the truth of the church, but through ignorance or malevolence gives to it a different meaning even as he does not negate its truth.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      Is there such a thing as a “private” apostasy, I wonder? Certainly you are right in terms of the ordinary sense of the word; it means publicly renouncing the Faith.

    • I am sure there is, though I think it is still technically called heresy because the abandonment of the faith is not formal.

      Point in case: the Christian convert from Judaism who converted to obtain political advantages, but in his heart renounces or reject Christianity and continues to believe in his old Jewish faith is probably, by the common parlance, an apostate, but I would say that he is technically a heretic. I think the Inquisition put them on the stake as heretics, not apostates. I might be wrong.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      I have been speaking about this to a non-sedevacantist SSPX priest over several weeks.

      He indicated to me that if say, someone was elected Pope but it subsequently emerged that he was never validly ordained, or had never been validly baptised, or whatever, the Church would convalidate all of those juridical “papal” acts retrospectively, to avoid all manner of doubts around the continuance of the apostolic succession and the status of the college of cardinals.

    • These are very extreme cases, that certainly do not apply here, as there can be no reasonable doubt Bergoglio is baptised and ordained.

      But this example makes clear how strong the “continuance of apostolic succession” is. Another brick on the nose of Sedevacantism.

      Francis is Pope. Let’s get over it.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      How can the proximate rule of Faith lose the faith? How does it make sense to say that in Rome the faith has never failed, if an atheist is truly the Pope of Rome?

      That’s what I have difficulty understanding and explaining. Do you think we have to leave it hanging as a mystery, or do you have an explanation for it?

    • What is the problem?

      If the Pope were a child-raping, atheist, alcoholic closet homosexual, what would this change in the promise of Indefectibility of the Church?

      To the best of my knowledge, the only promise we have is that the Gates of Hell will not prevail, and a Poep will not proclaim a dogma contrary to the teaching of the Church (if he does, then he is not a Pope). That’s it.

      There is no promise that the Pope will believe in God, or be a kind man, or even be saved.

      We must accustom ourselves to think that there are, with all probability, many Popes in hell. This would cure us of many misconceptions.

      The office is divinely created; but those who occupy the office are humans, elected by humans. The entire palette of human behaviour (from very good to very bad) must perforce be in the cards. It is so for everyone, for priests and for every other bishop, or for Cardinals, too.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      None of those undesirable attributes would seem to make a difference, except perhaps the atheism.

      I suppose on a practical level, doesn’t the personal faith of the pontiff determine whether or not we look to him for spiritual direction tout court? And isn’t that the point of the pope, to be the universal pastor? (Personal failings aside).

      An atheist can’t teach the faith. A very bad Catholic can still teach the faith.

    • Very true.

      If a Pope can’t teach the faith, you can’t look at his to have the faith taught. But he is still the Pope, only a very bad one.

      If your math teacher doesn’t know math, he is still your math teacher; but he is one who should never have been allowed to teach.

      It is only in recent times that the words of a Pope have gone around the world. In former times the Pope could have been a perfect idiot, and Catholic all over the world would have lived and died without having any clue. The only ones who would have noticed would have been a very restricted group of religious, theologians and wealthy laymen with a knack for religion. At the time of the John XXII crisis, I doubt 1% of Christianity ever got notice of the problem.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      ha ha ha.

      So let me get this straight; is it your view that if a Pope were to fall – privately – into formal heresy, that makes no difference whatsoever? (Assuming he’s already shown himself to be the sort of clown that, for all intents and purposes, Catholics disregard for teaching on the faith in any case). He’s still the Pope, fully and without qualification?

    • I would ask a good priest about that.

      The problem is not relevant, as it is not known to me that Francis has privately fallen into formal heresy. Actually, seeing the type of person I would say if he were to do it in private, he would do it also in public without fail.

      But yes, my pint would go on the opinion that the See would not become vacant even in that case. Let us think of Pope John XXII again: a man who renounced to proclaim a dogma contrary to the faith, but **openly and publicly** (not only privately) supported a position contrary to the Faith, well knowing that he was going against it. Still, he was and remained the Pope, and was considered such by everyone.

      The contrary opinion would, in short, mean that there is never security whether you have a Pope, particularly in corrupted times. You would never know at breakfast time if you still have a Pope come lunch.

      M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      “Actually, seeing the type of person I would say if he were to do it in private, he would do it also in public without fail.”

      Yes, I’ll buy that.

    • The Pope is a custodian of the faith. He cannot change and cannot add. Where it seems that he is “adding”, he is merely stating something that is already there, and has always been there.

      Popes don’t “do” doctrine in any way, shape, or form. They do not create anything new. Not even if they should proclaim a new dogma; in which case, by the way, we are sure that the Holy Ghost, if they are Popes, will assist them.

      M

  4. MOTHER’S SON

    Deformed
    Love
    Is applauded

    Misguided
    Sentiment
    The rage.

    Child-like
    Innocence
    Marauded

    Mother’s rape
    Has weakened
    Her gauge.

    But somewhere
    There are
    Fields of clover,

    Hearth fires
    Glow…glassed
    In red

    And cliffs
    Where souls
    Climb over and over

    Still reach
    The hill
    Where Mother’s Son bled.

    Merci Marcel!!!

  5. I’m praying and hoping he will follow Pope Benedict’s example and retire soon or better yet, have a deep conversion to traditional Catholicism. Unfortunately, I doubt either will happen.

  6. Where will Francis stop with these homosexual connivers? Homosexual marriage is spreading like wildfire throughout the States. If the Supreme Court says it must be recognized everywhere, many faithful Catholics will suffer (and this is secondary to all the children who must suffer the deprivation of their rightful mother or father with sodomite marriage). Soon, they will be clambering for the right to be married within the Catholic Church. When this is not granted, that is when the real persecutions will begin. What will Francis say about all that? This Supreme Pontiff is leading the sheep to the wolves–already their fangs are out and they smell blood. Their stomachs are growling and their saliva is flowing. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.

  7. First I am not here to defend the actions of this scandalous Pope, so please do not think I am doing so. Nevertheless, I believe there are several things missing in your screed regarding this particular incident. Three things are necessary here for this to be a deliberate and overt act in support of Sodomy:
    1. Did Francis know who this priest was before he met him at this meeting? I mean do we have any evidence that Francis knows this man “Michele de Paolis” and has had other encounters with him?
    2. The book given to the Pope in Italian, “Dear Don Michele, Questions to an inconvenient priest”, does not have a scandalous title and the weird wooden chalice and paten are simply strange gifts which are given to the Pope every day. Unless there were two sodomites kissing on the front or something that outrageous, which I do not believe would be the case then I doubt the Pope really knew what the book contained or was all about. So my question is: Does the Pope really know who this Don de Paolis really is?
    3. What is the reputation of the Emmaus Community with Pope Francis and the greater Italian understanding? Is the Emmaus Community seen as a type of Missionary of Charity work (Mother Teresa founded a home for those dying with AIDS in San Francisco) or as a community of Sodomite priests and nuns promoting homosexuality like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in San Francisco? If the former is the case then the Pope’s reaction to kissing the hand of de Paolis when asked if representatives of the Emmaus Community could come for an audience is somewhat understandable.

    Here is my point and I may be wrong in all of this but I believe I am closer to the truth. When someone is invited to a private audience with the Pope (I have had several) and participation in a Mass in his private chapel the Pope in 99.9% of the cases does not know who is participating in or concelebrating with the Pope in his private Mass nor does he know these people when he approaches them at the audience following the Mass. He is given their name as an introduction at the moment of meeting. They will use the photos of the occasion to promote themselves as having met with and being “endorsed” by the Pope but in 99% of the cases this is just self promotion. I have many pictures with me and Pope JP2 but trust me, he only knew me as someone who was a Seminarian in Rome and who had given him a Calligraphy of a Credo I had made for him. He did read the Credo and his Secretary reported back to me that he liked it but I doubt he would have ever been able to there after put the face to the Creed. That having been said I believe it was some sodomite in the Vatican who placed de Paolis in that Mass and Audience and that Francis had no idea of who that man is. But as usual he will not correct the perceived scandal which sadly is a scandal in and of itself.
    Anthony John West

    • Anthony, you are Pollyanning with the best of them. Please do not insult your intelligence.

      The priest is well-known in Italy. There is no chance in hell Francis was not informed of everything.

      As to being introduced, this is not a meet and greet with the photo. He concelebrated with him.

      In short, you are wrong in all this. It suprises me adult people can make this kind of contortionism to justify the unjustifiable. When has Pius XII ever received such a one, much less concelebrated with him?

      M

  8. I read the linked article, and about 1/4 of the comments, and had to stop. I have been a ‘trad’ for more years than I want to admit, but I would not have Hilary White’s job for any payment! She must have nerves of steel to face that kind of research and then the ‘commentary’ following it. I imagine you get the same treatment, Mundabor. It certainly puts on display the catechesis (or lack thereof) that has been received by so many Catholics. I’m sorry for their blatant and prideful ignorance, but I certainly don’t want to know much about them…

    Our culture has been so desensitized to it all. Your post, and the linked post, make it clear what is happening, and what we must do penance and pray about—besides our personal sins… I’m getting a better idea regarding the magnitude of the problem, and if it makes me pray more, that will be a good thing. God bless you! You are remembered in my prayers.

    • It is, in fact, almost physically painful.

      You wake up with the dread of what you will read during the day.

      Tragically, my fears now are not directed mainly at what the enemies outside the church will do, but at what the enemies inside the church will.

      The Pope is the enemy number one, let us be clear on that. No one damages Christianity as he does.

      M

  9. ubipetrusest

    Mundabor, you may have missed the Lifesite article, but first the Eponymous Flower posted the photo of Francis that opens this post on May 9; see http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/05/pope-francis-kisses-hand-of.html. It seems the Pope is trying to tell us something by his acts. First we have him with Msgr Ricci, who is touching Francis’s cheek while Francis holds Ricci’s hand (photo copyright by Polaris eyevine) in July 2013. Then we have Francis’s stroll up the steps and down the aisle of the church while he holds hands with Fr. Ciotti (Associated Press photos). And then, to make things perfectly and horribly clear, the photo posted above, from May 6, 2014. These photos give a new interpretation to Francis’s remarks on homosexuals.

    • Yes, I had missed the “Eponymous Flower” thing. I was informed of the even when I received the link to the article in my comment box some days ago.

      I hear what you are saying.

      I do not think we have enough elements to say that Jorge Bergoglio is an homosexual. Against this speaks the appointment of the Chaouqui woman, which can only be explained with the salivation of an old man.

      Still, whether Bergoglio is so in the hands of Satan that he was even infected with such a perversion or not, his being an accomplice of the sodomites does not change his position much. I mean by this that it is so grave for a Pope to condone and indirectly encourage sodomy, that in comparison to this offence whether he is a pervert or not seems to disappear in the distance, in the same way as when we think of Hitler we do not waste much time in thinking whether he was, say, a pervert in his private life.

      M

  10. ubipetrusest

    In my comment above, I erroneously spoke of Msgr “Ricci”; his name is “Ricca.” Sorry for the error.

  11. Many Catholics just don´t believe that any one of the popes who have reigned since Vatican II could have done anything wrong. To these catholics all of those scandalous news about what these popes have said, done or allowed are just plain lies published by a Church-hating media; and all those negative comments are nothing but the ill feelings of discontent and disloyal priests. So they they keep attending the Novus Ordo Mass and are suspicious of those who attend the Tridentine Mass, who teach the traditional doctrine and who reject Vatican II’s contradictory innovations . They think we traditionalists have lost the faith because we don’t believe in Christ’s promise of not letting the forces oh hell to prevail over His Church, and what is worse, they never pray for the conversion or replacement of the Pope.

  12. Bergoglio and his offensive and suspicious closeness with sodomites is disgusting and makes one consider that maybe he’s not so alien to the core of the omnipresent gaystapo, I’ve talked with dutch friends who lived in Argentina and they told me that Bergoglio and his friend Skorka were very close to the myriad of “gay” organizations of that country.

  13. You’ve got to be pretty pathological to see this as anything but an endorsement of this priest and his campaign.

  14. PF will fulfill the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi: “for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” Really, we are now at End Times. Soon PF will have alliance of the AC because he is the false prophet described in the Revelation.

    CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
    *675
    * Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh

    • I am always surprised when I hear people talking with such security.

      Has God sent you a telegram? Or even a text message?

      M

%d bloggers like this: