Daily Archives: October 24, 2014
I have already published a post about this wonderful video.
I invite everyone who has not done it to view it first.
There are several points in this video, of which one is the main one and others are added considerations. First the added considerations.
1. Bill Donohue was very wrong (actually: factually very wrong) in downplaying as “leak” something that was officially announced and the official “preparatory” document of the 2014 synod. This downplays the gravity of the entire matter, and lulls Catholics into thinking reality is what our wishes make of it. I have dealt with the matter here.
2. Pat Buchanan (a Catholic, I think) had a wonderful column about the fact that this Pope is leaning so far out of the window, that a vacant sea is not inconceivable anymore. I enjoyed the column a lot (web search engines may help you to find it) but did not find the time to write about it.
3. Astonishingly, there seem to be Catholic broadcasters (here is, clearly, meant Michael Voris) who feel ashamed even of reporting opposition to the Pope. Burke’s criticism of the Pope’s stance is, if not personal, very strong, and deservedly so.
4. There have been “wayward” Popes in history. Heck, there have been heretical Popes in history! The names should be circulated more: Honorius, Liberius and John XXII are three safe candidates; Formosus ( I add) is a probable fourth one. I wish I could find again the sources about other Popes, but these four here seem to be the biggest. Before Francis, that is. We must spread the word and say this out loud, because in the modern clericalist atmosphere filled with ignorance and feel-goodism, most would fear their religion will crumble if they ever admit the Pope is wrong, or a heretic.
5. There have been paragraphs in the definitive Relatio Synodi, which are very bad. Are we desensitising ourselves to them, particularly to sexual perversion?
Personally, I think not. I found many paragraphs bad, but merely “V II-bad”, not “Francis-bad”. The new paragraph about perverts merely says that homosexuals (homosexuals, not sodomites; we are talking here of the perversion, not the sodomy or even the active militancy!) must not be discriminated against. This is not only the same tone of the JP II catechism (actually, it is indicative that the paragraph has apparently been rejected by the bishops; it tells you what many of them would do with JP II’s catechism if they had a choice), but can only be approved of if it is read with the mind of the actual sound catholic, rather than of the rabid liberal.
Not even I (and you know what kind of “welcoming” chap I am) would refuse to sell to an homosexual the means to stay alive ( I do not say a “wedding cake”, which is an obvious statement; but bread, milk, tomato, mozzarella, and the like…); nor would I, if I were an employer at, say, the Land Registry, refuse employment to a poor chap because I suspect he has a perversion. Homosexuals must eat too, and provided they do not give scandal and behave in the proper way I think they have the right not to be starved. I do not think this is anything new, and it is not known to me that homosexuals in the Papal States were refused bread, or wine, or a tenancy, if they did not give scandal. This would have been considered, even then, unjust discrimination.
The reasons why the bishops have refused to approve it was, I think, to give an additional slap to Francis, saying to him “you wanted to ram heresy down our throat, now you get slapped in the face even for things we could otherwise approve without problems”; and also – an issue I, in my innocence, had not examined – to avoid that even these words may be mis-construed as something different: then the very same words may be made to mean, in the Age of Mercy, something completely different than in the old Age of Catholicism.
All this, though, is accessory. The main issue is another, that is:
1. that the Pope read and approved the text of the relatio post disceptationem on the Saturday before the publication;
2. that, therefore, all the heresies therein contained can be traced back to him;
3. that the Pope has acted like an Oriental Satrap in disrespecting his bishops at every step: putting in charge a cabal of ultra-liberal, silencing the bishops so that the world does not see orthodoxy at work, publishing a text the bishops had not approved, (imposing the Six Little Pigs to draft the final version, I add); imposing the publication of the preliminary report (which is on the internet anyway), and finally imposing the publication of the final text (the Relatio Synodi) including those paragraphs explicitly not approved by the required majority.
4. that Burke, Chaput, Mueller & Co. are saying, with thinly veiled words, that the Pope was behind all this, and the Pope was the one who wanted to weak the discipline of the Church in matters of sexual morality. That Cardinal Pell meant, when he said that the Synod was being manipulated, exactly that the Pope was manipulating it, and this behaviour had to stop.
Summa Summarum, the Pope did all exactly as he wished without listening to the bishops every time he could (preliminary relatio, appointment of the “little pigs”, decision to keep paragraphs that had been excised), and promptly looking for cover every time he could not (the second relatio in most paragraphs, and the posturing as the “wise mediator between truth and heresy” in the final speech).
There is a fifth issue, on which I must offer a most optimistic outlook than the two excellent men in the video.
Yes, there will now be “discussions” about sodomy, & Co. But I can’t see how this discussion can be silenced if the Pope not only does not silence it (which Burke invited him to do, unheeded; I think we will hear more about this), but rams it down the throat of the Church.
And if discussion (scandalous! obscene!) must be had, then better from a position of clear defeat for the Modernist position, and clear approval of the Catholic position; a Catholic position which the bishops will take care to have well explained to their own sheep, lest they themselves, the bishops, get grilled next year at the Synod 2015, and then stoned in public by the homosexual minions of Francis. A man who, as we have already seen in the case of the FFI, “does” persecution and revenge with reckless abandon.
Yes, the dissenters will dissent. But this they would have done anyway. It is much better that they open their mouth as dissenters, and are seen to be so. All the others (which means by the way: the overwhelming majority in Africa and Asia) will discuss, get very angry at the Modernists, and go to the 2015 synod better prepared, and with well-sharpened swords.
And what will Francis do? Leave African or Asian bishops out? All hell would break loose. What then? Impose silence and censorship again? Don’t make me laugh. He caved in once to avoid a public and unprecedented humiliation, he would do it thirty more times.
This here is a Jesuit. His motto could be “In defeat, cowardice. In victory, revenge!”.
Do you want to know what I think? Francis had his moment, and he lost bad. He made a surprise bid for Russia, and was stopped at the outskirts of Moscow. The surprise attack has failed, and he now has in front of him an army so overwhelming – if they only want to fight – that there is no way he can reverse the destiny of the battle, unless it is for the incompetence and cowardice of his opponent.
If you ask me (warning! Born optimist!) this battle is not for Francis to win. It is only for the the Bishops (and Catholicism) to lose. But Francis is now a lame duck. The world has seen it already, and it is coming to terms with it. The Newsweek article I have already linked to is an example of a new reality slowly starting to “sink in”.
A year of battle is before us.
But the events of last week showed that ours is, by far, the better army.
If we (and the Bishops and Cardinals) do not lose faith and go on pounding – and several of them have done it already, and new ones are coming in, like the very late Cardinal Piacenza – Francis and his little troop of heretics will be exposed as a bunch of heretic morons.
At that point Francis will leave the battle, and let others have the blame.
My dear readers,
if you ask me, and if you have any trust in your humble correspondent, the video below (hat tip to reader scarygoat61) is required viewing.
So much so, that I will post this without further comment, and will make my considerations (for anyone who will want to do it; but you don’t have to, as the video is good enough) in another post, that will assume this video has been seen.
There are moments when I think that we can behold victory not (hopefully) only on the day we die, but in our lifetime. This is one of these moments. The war will be hard, but if I look at the first major battle I start to think it is Axis against Allies here. Which, patriotic as your truly is, could only have only one outcome since 7 December 1941.
Enjoy the video.
From the new, very tasty* Newsweek article about Francis:
But the family was not a place of total concord. His mother was angry when she found that he was not studying medicine, as she had been told, but theology.
“I didn’t lie to you,” the future Jesuit responded with the casuistry for which his order has been notorious. “I’m studying medicine – but medicine of the soul.”
What hypocrisy after the lie!
TMAHICH was an entire lifetime in the making. He could not have achieved his current level of hypocrisy in any other way.
This is, by the way, the man who complains about casuistry.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History.
* there is another predictable bomb about Mass attendance; already picked up by the Press.
Not-so-strangely, we are informed that another conservative bishop, Oliveri from Albenga-Imperia, is now being targeted by the Unholy Father. The Bishop is known for the following:
1. Friendliness to the FFI.
2. Successful seminary, with 10% of the faithful in Liguria but more than 50% of Seminarians, attracting them from outer dioceses because of the quality of the formation.
3. First Pontifical Mass celebrated by a Bishop in communion with Rome in the Traditional Rite after Summorum Pontificum.
A rather successful Bishop, then, as V II bishops go; but one with two unforgivable traits in the mind of Francis: Catholic, and friend of Catholic Friars.
As already seen in Paraguay with bishop Lovieres Plano, the accusation that seems to be floated is of a certain leniency in welcoming priests with a past of (accusation of) misconduct. Accusations which in both cases are, mind, not personal accusations and are, therefore, no accusations at all, but merely excuses.
Yours truly is frankly getting tired with this. I reflect that:
1. The Church who is oh so welcoming of every freakin' pervert should be also welcoming of every priest seen as fit to do his job. If a priest is seen as not fit to do his job, he should be defrocked in Rome, instead of being used later for Papal purges. As Francis would say: do they go around with the “misconduct” ID card? A bishop will look at the circumstances and make a decision. If he is a good bishop – conservative bishops generally are – he will make honest decisions to the best of his ability. To throw the cross on them afterwards is disingenuous and hypocritical, because on average the favela-friendly bishop must score much worse.
Besides, if this is the standard John Paul II should have been posthumously condemned already, much less beatified and canonised.
2. Last time I looked, 95% of the priests accused of misconduct against children were historically found innocent. I do not know how things stand for other accusations; still, I can't avoid to suspect that it is exactly this 95% that will be now used – perhaps not here, as Oliveri has been bishop a quarter of a century already, which is a lot of apples among which Francis can pick the bad ones, but elsewhere – to throw around accusations against bishops.
3. Once again, a Bishop with a very successful, Catholic Seminary is being targeted. This also starts to become extremely transparent.
4. Once again, Francis goes Jack “Shining” Nicholson on the friends of the FFI, whom he clearly sees as his enemies.
Please do not say “oh, but the bishop has made mistakes!” Pretty much everyone makes mistakes, and those of Bergoglio, Kasper, Nichols, Marx, & Co. would have been, when Christianity was taken seriously, amply sufficient to burn them. Nor has Cardinal Danneels, one of the most scandalous examples of “bishop covering up for pedophile priests”, suffered so very much during this Pontificate. The tale of Francis The Enemy Of Perverted Priests just does not work: look under whose roofs he lives!
Francis is here, very probably, merely being his usual self: a petty, vindictive old man who hates Catholics and Catholicism. He is now angry at the disobedience of his own bishops – who have chosen, in brutal contrast to Michael Voris, to obey Christ instead – and wants to take his little revenge on one of the bishops on his certainly well-nourished black list.
Bad luck to him. But I want to see how he can get rid of many of his enemies in this way without causing an uproar that will let the Synod look like a kindergarten squabble; and he needs to get rid of thousands of them, with every bishop he targets increasing the level of resentment from his bishop.
At some point – preferably, very preferably, now – the bishops will have to stand up again and publicly denounce the persecution of sound Catholic bishops and the intimidation of all the others. This Pope can only be stopped by a very public uproar, led by prestigious Cardinals or Archbishops, openly warning from this man's not only methods, but mentality. If he is left unchecked he will start deposing Catholic bishops right and left, and appoint the likes of Cupich in their stead, until he has changed the very perception of the Catholic Church all over the planet. And whilst he will never be able to change any point of doctrine – nor, I think, very willing to try again after the recent experiences, at least ias long as the Bishops stay strong – he will certainly be able to change a lot in the perception. He is doing it already, albeit for the moment with the extremely questionable and certainly unwanted result of being seen as far on the liberal/left/dissenting side of his own bishops.
At one bishop a week he will go nowhere. But even at this pace, it won't be long before another huge outcries rises from the very roots of Catholicism. Does he realise this? Did he only want to punish another bishop with two Bergoglian mortal sins (the FFI, and the Catholic seminary), or what he has in mind is a slow but constant persecution of all strong bishops pour encourager les autres?
We shall see.
I suggest to the Bishop that they prepare for battle. Possibly starting from now.
In another amusing development, the Beatification of Paul VI has been almost ignored in the uproar caused by last week's events.
Think of it: it is clear that Pope Paul's Beatification was planned as the final apotheosis of the Great Push Towards Hell. On the day Francis gloriously proclaims a New Religion for our time, his Glorious Predecessor, the man who saw the beginning of this Glorious Push brought to completion in the Council, is also remembered. Look, world, how the Spirit is Guiding them both!
No doubt, Stage I of the Revolution had to be celebrated in the same day as Stage II made its formal, triumphal appearance in the world. The Synod Fathers would have been praised as the new and more daring generation of Council Fathers, building what they once started to new, breathtaking heights. Francis, the Humble Innovator, would have stood there in front of the entire planet, hailed by atheist, perverts, dissenters, and assorted enemies of the Church as he says to those he has just betrayed that he is merely continuing on the path of the V II “tradition”. By beatifying Paul in death, he would have beatified himself in life.
It wasn't to be. A burning defeat is what TMAHICH got instead. The final address to the Bishops had to be hastely rewritten, trying to mask Francis' complicity with the heretics – actually: Francis' steering of the heresy – and attempting to paint him as the good old uncle, saying “tut-tut” to both Traditionalists and Heretics in that oh so gentle, amiable way of his when he is not massacring some beautiful Catholic order.
In all this mess, Pope Paul was as irrelevant in death as he was in life. A fitting destiny for the man who refused to stop the already clear drive towards betrayal, and allowed all this madness to start in earnest.
Two words on this beatification (Paul does not deserve better) to close. I do not know if the man is in hell, and it is to be hoped he saved his sorry Modernist head in the end. He certainly got the grace of a slow death with the sacraments and abundant time to repent, so one can only hope he made the most of it. Still, Beatifications are not binding for Catholics. Therefore, Yours Truly will hold this beatification to be the same as everything Francis does:
I am already sick and tired of the new buzzword chosen by Satan to attack the Church and Her Sacraments: the concept of “welcome”.
You welcome someone in your house because you think it safe and sensible to do so. You wouldn’t say “welcome” to any violent drunkard, rapist or pedophile; or robber, thief, fraudster.
“Who is it?”
“Good morning, ma’am. I am a rapist. I ask to be welcomed in your hospitable home, because I feel very much excluded. Your doormat says ‘all welcome’; so will you open, please….”
What do you think: will the woman open? Me neither… She will, actually, rather call the Police.
Exactly the same – though on a much graver scale – happens with the Church whenever there is a call to “welcome” people who bring with them not conversion, but the pride of their vices, and the arrogant demand not only to continue the scandal, but also to be allowed to “be welcomed” in the House of the Lord.
I say “much worse” because – as every sound Catholic will realise after three seconds of reflection – the things of God are infinitely more important than the mortal bodies of men, and the sullying of His house with heretical and satanic praxis and widespread sacrilege is infinitely worse than any number of rapes and murders one may care to imagine; a concept, this, once well planted in every Catholic mind, but now obviously disappeared from the consciousness of many of them; of people whose religion is, to all intents and purposes, made entirely so satisfy man, and uncaring of insulting God.
No, the woman will not allow the rapist to get in. Her “welcome” is meant for those, and only for those, fit to enter her home.
But the House of the Lord, the Holy Church, should be sullied with every kind of scandal and blasphemy, with those who want to rape her to satisfy their desires, so that everyone feels “welcoming”. Cue the obese female blogger, and the saltless priest – homosexual, it is purported; I report the rumour just because the readers have the right to know, considering what he goes around saying – rolling a huge doormat to every scandalous adulterer, concubine and pervert on the planet.
Only doormats welcome all. Literally and figuratively.
Be a sissified doormat and don’t be surprised if, one day, you will stand in line near some blogger with Compulsive Gluttoning Disorder, about to enter the gates of hell, and going over a huge doormat carrying the following words: