Daily Archives: June 4, 2014
Stellar blog post from “Catholic Defense” explaining, inter alia, the difference between an heretical Pope and an Antipope.
I suggest that my readers follow the link and take the time to digest its content, because it is of great help in navigating these horrible times both keeping one’s sanity and avoiding abstruse and clearly untenable theories about why a Pope we don’t like can’t actually be the Pope.
Perhaps because of my long habit of loving a Country notwithstanding the quality of both the people governing it and those who send them into power, I never found any difficulty in separating the Institution from the people living in it and/or representing it.
One loves the Fatherland irrespective of who is in power, in the same way as one loves his football team irrespective of his esteem for the manager and the owners. The allegiance goes to the Institution, not to individuals.
The more so this should apply to the Church, an Institution founded by Christ and infinitely more sacred than, say, the Fatherland.
We have a horrible Pope. Bad news, I agree. But certainly not an excuse to escape from reality and declare that, therefore, the Pope must not be Pope.
But can the Pope be a heretic? Of course he can, and the linked article makes the obvious examples of Honorius and John XXIII, both of them often mentioned on this blog. I can’t find the sources anymore, but I am sure there have been several others.
What if you have an heretical Pope? You refuse him obedience in his heretical error, but even then he is still the Pope. One day, he will be disposed of. It happens to everyone.
Our duty as faithful Catholics is, I think, not to undermine the Papacy withbthesecfantasy tales, but to defend the Papacy by exposing those who abuse of their office in order to spread heresy and error.
You live with a horrible Pope in the same way as you live with an excellent one: upholding the Truth, doing your best to live after it, and doing every effort to die in a state of grace whoever is the Pope of the day. A bad Pope may make it necessary to blog, or to have heated discussions with your friends, or he may make persecution more probable. But we were never promised that we would have an excellent Pope, or no persecution.
I direct your attention on point IV of the argument. This truly excellent explanation also shows that we aren’t the first to be confronted with obscenely bad Popes. Plus ça change…
I also do not see any possibility of a credible Antipope, unless Francis were to become mad enough that, say, a couple of dozen Cardinals declare the see vacant and elect a new one. In this case you would have at least a claim to papacy from someone elected by Cardinals, though men of common sense would immediately see the difficulty of this, at least until Francis does not become so stupid that he tries to proclaim an heretical dogma and the Sea can therefore be seen, and is in fact seen, as vacant by righteous Catholics.
An Antipope isn’t really in the card in this day and age. A materially heretical Pope is obviously in charge. I doubt he will ever have the effrontery of a John XXII, and start very officially – though not infallibly – to proclaim an alleged new doctrine.
Francis is an old man badly lived, who has spent his life not caring what he was saying or doing, provided it served his purposes. He wants to be popular, and want to tell people what they want to hear.
This is not like Dr Moriarty had been made Pope.
Mr Bean, more like.
A new Gallup poll informs us the majority of Americans now agree with institutionalised sexual perversion.
It is not surprising that many more or less militant, but obdurate atheists would espouse the cause of the perverts. What would be surprising in a sane world is that, no doubt, an awful lot of people who call themselves Catholics do pretty much the same, either openly dissenting or finding tortuous ways to to allow back in from the window what they state it should, actually, in theory, and if we are really strict, stay out of the door.
We see this attitude everywhere. Many pewsitter liquidated the argument of sodomy with the reflection that hey, so sodomy is a sin, but aren’t we all sinners? Others seem to think God makes some people homosexual and, unaware of the blasphemy, proceed to condone homosexuality as such in their mind. Other still profess to believe what the Church believe, but then fill their minds and their mouths with the dirty thinking and the perverted vocabulary of the aberrosexual: “gay”, “homophobe”, and “same sex attraction” will be among their favourite words, and in everything they will let you know how allegedly Catholic, but also how aligned with the world they are.
This Pickaxing of the Faith is nowadays so diffuse that it does not cause any surprise. Which is natural, as the good-ism now reigning excludes the idea of being ever against any sin. A priest whose only message consists in “God loves you” will implicitly deny any obligation to follow His commandments.
Most of the clergy are not different. Our satanical Cardinal Nichols goes on record saying he is fine with “civil partnerships”, provided one does not call it marriage. Evidently, for this man is not the behaviour that counts; merely how you call it.
Nor are Cardinals who are supposed to be on our side much better: Cardinal Bagnasco proceeding to give communion to a most disgusting Trannie and banner of the Italian homosexualist movement – a man dressed in rags as he received, just in case some Pollyanna would think he was, oh, perhaps, just oh, gone to oh, confession and oh, repentant! …. – not only insults Jesus and His Church’s Sacraments, but gives to the perverts an aura of normality, implying – or perhaps, God forbid, even believing! – that a scandalous Trannie working for Satan every minute of his life may not be in mortal sin, and may therefore be allowed to receive.
The culprit numero uno is, though, with all certainty the Destroyer himself. A Pope who goes around with “who am I to judge?” slogans and is perfectly happy to be identified with them is Satan’s most useful tool in the perversion of the very mind of your average Christian, and even of your average Pewsitter.
Perversion is becoming mainstream. The Pope himself and very many Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests all happily work on this, hiding perversion behind the fig leave of “mercy”, or whining with the pervs whenever they complain about “bullying” and “homophobia” against anyone who dares not to espouse their disgusting ideology and lifestyle.
The single man who is giving the biggest contribution to this normalisation of sexual perversion is, without the shadow of a doubt, Pope Francis. May the Angels, whom he considers inferior to man, observe his actions and give witness of them in Heaven.
Francis was very probably never a Sodomite, but he clearly is their most efficient weapon and, volens nolens, their best ally by far. He certainly is the most important single driver of the Gallup poll mentioned above.
I do not know whether Angels cry to heaven for vengeance also for people who publicly promote and normalise sodomy, rather than only whenever an actual sin of sodomy is committed. That would be an interesting thing to know, because if there has even been a Pope making the Angels cry to heaven for vengeance, it may well be this one.