Daily Archives: October 13, 2014
Today, the 13 October 2014, nineteen months exact in this disgraceful pontificate, will probably remain in history as one of the darkest days in the history of the Church.
I welcome anyone who could point out to a precedent in which not from a Luther or Arius, but from a Synod very heavily influenced by the Pope such astonishingly satanical expressions have been produced, as the ones below.
Here a little choice. More on this as time allows.
In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).
Translation: in the same way as we have polluted the Church for now 50 years with unspeakable bollocks about all the “good” residing among heretics and infidels qua heretics and infidels, now we can, if we make another little step, make the same with marriage, and proceed to utterly demolish Our Lord’s message on marriage by stating how many good elements of sanctification are present in people who are living in mortal sin. Which is new, and daring. Lumen Gentium already told us that the beheading of Christians is a force impelling toward Catholic unity
In this light, the value and consistency of natural marriage must first be emphasized. Some ask whether the sacramental fullness of marriage does not exclude the possibility of recognizing positive elements even [in] the imperfect forms that may be found outside this nuptial situation, which are in any case ordered in relation to it.
In this light, after we have paid some lip tribute to what the Church has always said, some ask whether two concubines who live together more uxorio, and clearly in mortal sin for all the world to see, should not be seen in the positive elements of their sinful, adulterous union, in their scandal, and in their mortal sin. Let us see: perhaps they have a great sense of humour? Do they love dogs? Are they not sweet, as they hold hands seeing “Notting Hill”, or “About a Boy”? How valuable is that? This is like Mastercard: priceless!
The doctrine of levels of communion, formulated by Vatican Council II, confirms the vision of a structured way of participating in the Mysterium Ecclesiae by baptized persons.
The doctrine of levels of communion, of which no one had ever heard anything before Vatican II, can be applied here too: some people are in communion because they are married; and some other people are in another (lesser! Lesser! Of course!) degree of communion because they are concubines living in mortal sin; a fact in which we, who are far more tolerant than Jesus, see an awful lot of good. Think of it as “cool” and “premium” membership. The members must be inspired to upgrade. But they are already at the “cool” level. Vatican II taught us so.
Realizing the need, therefore, for spiritual discernment with regard to cohabitation, civil marriages and divorced and remarried persons, it is the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries. Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man (cf. Jn 1,9; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.
Therefore, we, who are lurid underworld figures sucking it up to the world like whores on cocaine, manage to see “seeds of the Word” even in what goes frontally again the very words of Our Lord. Because, you see, we are just whores of Satan. What Satan wants, we will call “recognising [those] seeds of the Word”.
The Gospel of the family, while it shines in the witness of many families who live coherently their fidelity to the sacrament, with their mature fruits of authentic daily sanctity must also nurture those seeds that are yet to mature, and must care for those trees that have dried up and wish not to be neglected.
A concubinage, adulterous or not, is not a mortal sin and a scandal. It is a tender plant that we must nurture. The concubines are not at immediate risk of eternal damnation. They are plants in need of watering. We have been, for 2,000 years, such bad gardeners!
In this respect, a new dimension of today’s family pastoral consists of accepting the reality of civil marriage and also cohabitation, taking into account the due differences. Indeed, when a union reaches a notable level of stability through a public bond, is characterized by deep affection, responsibility with regard to offspring, and capacity to withstand tests, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development towards the sacrament of marriage.
In this respect, a modern bishop-whore of the XXI century “accepts” civil marriage and also cohabitation. This is a new dimension of being pastoral, because up to now being pastoral meant being a good shepherd, and leading people to God. Indeed, indeed we do not care a straw for Jesus! For us, if two concubines in mortal sin reach a notable level of stability in their mortal sin, what’s not to like? Do they not raise their children, like every couple of savages would do? Where’s your beef, then? Indeed, indeed we do not care a fig for the Lord! For us, when an adulterer has been very constant in his betrayal of his only spouse, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development toward the sacrament of marriage? Again: an upgrade, so to speak.
Please, former spouse, die soon! Can’t you accept the reality of civil marriage and cohabitation?
This, concerning those who are not perverts.
The perverts, and more general consideration about these little whores of Satan, are for another post.
Now it’s very late, and I am very tired.
Today we have seen satanical material to last for a long time.
From today, one can safely say he who still insists in not seeing the evil of Francis has completely and utterly deserved every punishment that God throws his way. I mean, obviously every punishment of God is always deserved; but in this case is deserved because no one has the right to say he is so stupid he couldn’t see.
This is to such an astonishing extent the exact contrary of what the Church has always held sacred, that to profess allegiance to this rubbish can only mean to profess allegiance to Satan.
And the worst (if possible) must still come. Then only pedophiles and child-rapists are, for now, excluded from this madness.
Very probably, Satan has thought the time is not ripe, yet, for that.
Father Ray Blake has another very thoughtful post about the “wobbly” Church, and the danger “experiments” like Francis’ papacy represent for the Faith.
This part is enlightening:
I really am beginning to think that the Papacy, which Vatican II saw as the unitative, if it becomes innovative becomes self-destructive. The very purpose of the Papacy is to conserve that which was handed on to it. In the first millennium the faith of the City of the Two Apostles stood still whilst the world revolved, its lack of innovation made it the touchstone of orthodoxy during the Arian and Iconoclastic crisis and enabled it to be the memory of the Tradition of the whole Church. If the Church of Rome becomes the source of innovation can it also be the touchstone of unity? If not where can we find that unity, which after all was promised us by Christ? Can it exist outside of unity with Rome? The answer Orthodoxy and ‘ultra-Catholics’ come up with is that it exists within the Tradition itself, are ordinary Catholics going to come up with the same answer?
I allow myself to give my two cents (actually, and thank Goodness, my two pence) on this.
“Church” to me means – when referred to the organisation in its entirety, not to the church building, or the diocese, etc – two separate concepts: the heavenly Jerusalem, and the earthly one.
I look – like all Traditionalist, bar none – at the heavenly one for my instruction, and put all my hope on Her. My understanding – which I try to constantly improve and deepen – of the heavenly Jerusalem will, then, be the thermometer, or the metre, with which I measure, or observe, the state of health of the earthly one; well knowing that whilst the heavenly Jerusalem is beyond any danger of corruption, the earthly one is threatened at all times by the schemes of the devil, and the general weakness of the human nature; and in particular, the stupidity and vanity of men.
I could never – and I would consider it atrocious if anyone did it – do things the other way round, and allow the vagaries and weaknesses of the earthly Jerusalem to influence my perception of the heavenly one.
Up above, in heaven, is the perfect blueprint of what the Church should be on earth. The way the actual earthly building reflects the perfect construction plans given to it by the Divine Architect may vary from age to age, and it varies brutally at times, according to the ability and good will of those in charge of the building site: the maintenance work, the piping, the draining, the heating, the cabling, the gardens, the roof, and the windows. But when you look at the proficiency of the builder or the restoration company you look first at the plans, and from there you see how good or bad the builder’s work was.
There is no other way. There could never be another one. To do any differently would be to say, or to entertain a doubt, that the builder may have a say in how the planning is done. It isn’t, and he hasn’t.
The Architect has made the plan. The builders must stick to the plan. If they don’t, they are a disgrace. That’s all there is to know.
We are now in the hand of drunken, blaspheming, careless building contractors who have been put in charge of the maintenance, but really do not care a straw for the edifice. They go around breaking windows, because they have noticed that the mob likes the sound of splintered glass. They also do not care whether the Architect of the immense building exists or not, and probably think the building “just got there out of nothing”. It is perfectly irrelevant to them whether the edifice will still be in any half-decent state of repair in one generation or two. But when they break another window, the mob applauds, and gives them money to eat, drink, and be merry. That’s another window going, then…
This is all very sad; and, for the avoidance of doubt, yours truly would, if he had his way, have all those who have contributed to the dereliction and devastation of the building flayed to the blood, with the only exception of those of whom the Architect has stated that they shall not be touched.
The workers on the building site are drunken, and arrogant, and stupid. But not for one moment we think they should have any say in how the building should look like. This is, simply, not for them to say.
This is why the building contractors can become as drunk as you please, and break as many windows in their juvenile, demented stupidity as they want.
We know, and we will always know, how the building plans looks like, how the building is supposed to look, and what is necessary to proceed to its proper maintenance and restoration.
Francis is a stupid, drunken, arrogant, socialist, and very probably atheist disaster of a contractor firm director. One day, the Great Chairman In The Sky will punish him as he deserves.
But our faith in the plan remains granitic, untouched by drunken vagaries, and ready to battle against the drunken builders.
There is no other way to see the matter. Everything else would not be Catholic, but Anglican. It would be to allow the swine to define the function and value of the pearls. It would be just stupid.
This must, I think, be said very clearly to the average, distracted, lukewarm, and very naive “oh how nice the Pope is” crowds out there.
The only reality is God. What we call “reality” is merely His product. The idea that we can change the reality of things – the reality of the Church, of the Sacraments, of Our Lord’s commands – is as stupid as to think that a drunken builder can evaluate the planning permission of a building, and decide about the changes he likes.
The lukewarm, average Catholics must be said a thing or two about reality. When they get it, they will very naturally stop fighting against it.