Monthly Archives: February 2015
Like everyone else, I will send you to the Rorate page for the source of the news. Now that I can write with a bit more time in my hands I would like to mention some quotes from the page, with my personal observations.
First of all let me note this: several days have passed from these declarations, and I have read nowhere that the translations were inaccurate, or the declarations have been retracted. I have not found the entire text, though, so we will have to work with the uncorrected, non retracted quotations.
Reinhard Cardinal Marx underlined in view of the family synod in autumn the bishops’ attempt to “go down new paths” and to “help that doors be opened”.
Emotional fluff. Gay language. It suggests the Church has closed doors for two thousand years that these two, in their superior and post-Christian wisdom, think it is time to open. It panders to the effete whinos who can’t face Truth, whose money the two want to see in their pockets. Disgraceful.
A Christian is not allowed to speak in this way. We believe in a perfect, immutable God. A perfect, immutable God does not forget to open doors, nor does He allow the Church to go down the wrong path since inception; until Cardinal Marx, who knows better, appears on the scene.
Doctrinally, one would remain within the community of the [Universal]Church, but in detailed questions of pastoral care “the synod cannot prescribe in detail what we must do in Germany”.
This is very right and very wrong. A synod cannot absolutely prescribe what to do. If a Synod prescribes or even allows heresy, no one is bound by it. The point, though, is a different one: it is heresy and betrayal of Doctrine to even think that there is a “German way” which allows to separate the two. Pastoral care rests on its doctrinal fundaments. It can’t make white black. This is not called “pastoral care”. It’s called heresy in the error it teaches, and schism in the disobedience it must contain.
“We are no subsidiaries of Rome”.
Well, “subsidiary” is more of a business term. But if you want to use such business terms I would say it’s very easy to answer.
Yes. You are.
You are that, or you are in schism.
Of course, by “Rome” I mean Rome as it, through Peter, legitimately exercises its office. If the Petrine Office is put somewhere in the stratosphere and here on earth we do something different from what Peter says, we are in schism. Again, I talk here of Petrine Office legitimately exercised, in accordance with Catholic tradition. If the Pope were to teach strange novelties, these novelties would not bind anyone.
Each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its culture, and must, as its most proper task, preach the Gospel on our own.
Weasel words. Pure hypocrisy. Of course the bishops are responsible. Of course cultural differences may play a role. But these differences must never lead to any contrast with what they are supposed to teach. The bishops must find the most appropriate ways to teach what is right, they must not claim their role to justify practising what is wrong! If they do, they are in open – if not openly declared – disobedience. This is a silent schism.
“We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here”.
More hypocrisy. If Marx and Bode had a realistic hope that the Synod will reach a decision agreeable to them, they would preach patience and obedience like it’s Padre Pio Day. They would also insist on the Church in Germany being, ahem, a “subsidiary” of Rome, bound to follow what the Holy Ghost yada yada yada.
According to the German bishops’ position, the reality of life constitutes an important factor for the doctrine of the Church. “We also learn from life in doctrine,” underlined Cardinal Marx.
This is a 100% Christianity-free statement. The Church is the enemy of the world. She has always been in opposition to it. The Church is there to mold life according to Truth. These two say that the contrary is the case: life must mold Truth, at least in the way it is lived (the beautiful, but abstract doctrinal tome can be kept safe somewhere in the stratosphere). The concept of “learning” is also intrinsically heretical, because it does not mean “learning the truth” (as they should) but changing it (as they want). This is not only heresy, but a contradiction in terms. Truth does not change. There is nothing new to learn for you, that your forefathers did not have to learn; and everything they rejected you must reject, too.
According to [Bishop Bode’s] view the participants do not only debate questions of marriage and family, but the possibility of a paradigm shift.
Heresy again. “Paradigm shift” is actually merely another way of saying “heresy”. We live in times in which every Bishop Tom and Cardinal Jack thinks he can support and propagate heresy by simply calling it in a different way.
The basic question was, are only Scripture or Tradition sources for theological understanding, or are [such sources] also “the reality of men and of the world.” [Bode,] The chairman of the pastoral commission of the bishops’ conference reminded his audience of the “dialogical structure” of reality, which had already been mentioned in the pastoral constitution “Gaudium et Spes” of Vatican II, and quotes this conciliar document: “there is nothing truly human, that has no resonance in their hearts.”
This here is shameless riding of V II texts; texts which, horribly formulated as they are, ultimately cannot but be read in a way that reflects truth; these texts, as everything else, are not binding or even a worthy suggestion in everything that does not reflect what the Church has always believed. Selective quotes are, therefore, a non sequitur from the start. The “dialogical” structure of reality as presented is also 1A, 100% certified, truth-free heresy. A retarded monkey understands that Truth cannot be changed by the world; nor can, actually, Scripture; nor can, actually, Tradition, or it would not be Tradition, but Modification.
Bode stated that it was important for him that the Sacrament [of the Eucharist] was not only a sign of unity, but also a means to unity, and could contribute to healing.
What is important for Bishop Bode is equine excrement. What counts is what the Church teaches.
If Bishop Bode wants to remake Communion according to his own moods and wishes, he should join the Lutherans who have a long tradition in the matter.
Cardinal Marx announced a bishops’ statement on the synod that should be published within the upcoming weeks.
We aren’t told what this statement will contain. It may only contain some impious wish that the Synod may produce heretical statements. It seems from the quote that Cardinal Marx stopped short of saying “we are going to announce our own conclusion, and we are going to live by them”. But we shall see.
Two reflections to conclude:
1. It is rather apparent to me that the German Bishops have lost hope that the Synod in October will go their way. I have already written about this. This is the good news in the bad news.
2. The undoubtedly bad news is that if there ever was a time for the Germans to start something on the lines of the “Dutch Schism”, this one is it. They know in Francis they have a powerful ally. They know they will not be punished. They know they will look very good among those who don’t care for Truth, but pay the Kirchensteuer and want to hear some lies in return.
Still, this is a dangerous game, because I doubt Marx & Co. will present a compact front. I rather think it will be a mess, with many bishops clearly and solemnly distancing themselves from the heretics, and the entire planet calling it as it is. It will be an Ardennes campaign instead of a World War, but I think it will be a huge mess anyway.
We shall see hos this develops. We keep praying for sanity, and fighting for Truth.
In the end it will go as it always does: unicuique suum.
It is strange that I have to write this, but unfortunately I do. A consequence, perhaps, of the circle of readers this little effort has slowly accumulated.
A blog is a kind of dialogue between the blog writer and his readers. Even when the readers cannot comment, they are linked to the blogger in the evolving of the story he is narrating (in this case, largely the Catholic events in the time of Bergoglism).
The way I see it, a blog post is not a BBC article. It does not necessarily tell you the entire story. Rather, many times it will develop a story through several blog posts. This presupposes that the reader is actually following not only the article, but the blog. It’s like taking part in, or listening to, an ongoing conversation.
Most of my readers, I am sure, understand blogging in this way and therefore follow me without difficulties. Others seem not to get the format.
When you read the BBC article, a chap there has worked all day. A text editor has reviewed it, perhaps several times. A separate professional has made the title. Other people might have been involved in research. The end product is a story, from beginning to end. Often with several links to other stories that help to better understand, or amplify the issue.
A blog is a series of short, personal reflections written who knows where, when there is time, perhaps with such a bad internet connection that it takes forever even to post a link. It does not give to the reader the pre-digested food, so that he does not have to make the effort to chew it. It does, however, presuppose that the readers knows what the blog author is talking about, because the reader is supposed to follow the ongoing conversation.
I often write several blog posts on a certain topic. If I refer to, say, “Rabbitgate”, I expect my readers to know what I am talking about. This is not a TV series where every blog post starts with “previously on Mundabor….”. If you, my dear reader, want to have all the story in the same blog post you are better served elsewhere, because I will not bore my readers with endless repetitions or spend time to explain my blog to those who, frankly, do not follow it.
Then there are those who complain about the missing link to a story. In the age of internet, three or four words about what the Pope is said to have said on the occasion in question will lead the reader to not one, but several links; at times it is literally everywhere. But no, there seems to be people who are lost and feel neglected as non-paying customers if, when the entire world is talking about the latest papal gaffe, you don’t give them one of them.
Look, at times it takes very long to make a link work; and this, for reasons you will have to take from me, and I don’t have to explain to you. I prefer to spend this time writing my thoughts for people who are interested in reading them, and already know the story or can found it instantly. I won’t do the work for you. I write a blog to comment on a story. If I can link to the fact, fine. Otherwise, I will write about the story. The facts are out there anyway.
Even professional semi-blogs work in this way. The “American Thinker” does not explain to the European reader what the topic is about. Very often you will have to inform yourself about the topic first, and then you will understand the context of their post. And you see, over there, a succession of posts which all imply that you already know. If you don’t, seek and you shall find. I never complained. And they are a professional site.
It seems to me that the fact that more and more blogs look damn good let people forget what is behind: a mother struggling to pacify her children; a father writing tired at the end of a long day; and many such like situations.
The content is the comment. The facts are easy to find, and even if it costs you to read back a half dozen of posts. I will link to Catholic blogs who deserve mention, or little known blogs, or little known stories. I will not link to what is on the mainstream media. Life’s too short for quarreling with a bad connection.
I wish I had less readers, but readers of my blog.
This is not a press agency.
Father Ray Blake has a very good and stealthily funny post about all that has happened in the Vatican in the last week or two.
The gist (not that you should not read the rest) is eloquently given in the last paragraph:
Many of the Cardinal electors had hoped that the election of the ‘new Pope’ might be about clearing Rome of its cliques and anonymous accusations, its denunciation by innuendo and its bitter feuds and corruption it is simply not happening – on the contrary it is happening with renewed vigour.
How is that “new transparency” working for you, then? What has become of this oh so new and modern papacy, getting rid of all those conspirators and corridor rats, and bringing “hope and change” to the Vatican?
The new ones are so bad, they let the old ones appear amateurs. You remember Benedict’s butler? When did he steal almost 200 books from his own bishops? Mind, the man has house detention. Will Cardinal Baldisseri have to suffer the same destiny? Don’t bet your pint.
Unfortunately, there are always those who – either because they are naive, or because they are disingenuous – manage to bat for the wrong team.
The very first comment of the post is from a certain “Denis”, who commits to cyber eternity the following words:
This article is trading in the kind of tittle tattle it appears to be condemning. Perhaps during Lent we should all be seeking to build up rather than knock down.
This is the kind of comment which, if I did not write a rather candid blog, would motivate me to start one post-haste.
Good Lord! A mess without precedent in at least seven, and probably twenty centuries is devastating the Church, and those who rightly criticise the utter moral decay of the Vatican personnel should be accused of “knocking down”? We have come to the point of common theft on a grand scale, and we should shut up because it’s Lent? We point out to the shameless bullying of a poor family father in his Fifties, and we should be held for people trading in “tittle tattle”? Who is this man, Grima Wormtongue?
This passive-aggressive, or rather aggressive-passive attitude of some people is truly disturbing. It advocates silence in front of evil in the name of… what again? What in Hades does “build up” means, if it is detached from that solid Catholic thinking that must condemn this kind of corruption and scandals? When was Lent the time you don’t talk, of all people, of the moneylenders in the Temple?
It truly is sad. Very sad.
Learn to recognise your Grimas.
They tend to appear so peaceful at first.
Cardinal Pell’s post is so pithy, that you will read it in perhaps a minute. But he punches hard, for sure.
I keep being unable to see how Francis can even think of trying to see his revolutionary agenda sanctioned at the next Synod. He might as well fall on the sword. It is very obvious there will be a huge counterreaction if he tries another stunt like he did in October.
I will leave it to another post to comment on the open threat of Schism that Cardinal Marx has formulated, and that was everywhere yesterday evening. The words used by the Cardinal are so provocative, so unbelievably stupid that they deserve a detailed “copy and paste” I cannot do now.
What I notice here, though, is that the unworthy, schismatic Cardinal would not even think of formulating such threats if he had some founded, realistic hope that the Synod will, less than eight months from now, substantially accommodate the heretical requests of Prostitution & Simony Inc, aka the Church in Germany.
If, therefore, the heretical line has no chance to pass, a schism will have to be threatened and, possibly, put in place. Not officially, of course, but unofficially: exactly as the Dutch did with the notorious “Dutch Schism”, which ravaged the Dutch Church from the mid-Sixties to the beginning of the Eighties and delivered to Catholicism in the Netherlands a blow from which it never recovered. On that occasion, the Dutch started doing everything the “Liberal Presbyterian” way, but stopped short of saying “we are officially in Schism”. No doubt, Marx & Co. are planning to do exactly the same. This will not be an easy task (I am sure there are plenty of Catholics left in Germany), but it is feasible seen the very strong tendency of the German people to follow the Obrigkeit without questioning, and even to the point of self-destruction. I have already written that this man should be defrocked. It is clear I was right.
Still, the main point here is another one: it appears that Cardinal Marx is throwing the towel on the Synod.
This makes sense. The idea of an open clash of worldwide proportions is not viable for anyone but the maddest of pothead Popes. Francis knows that such an atomic mushroom would atomise his Pontificate. His lío does not extend to self-destruction.
We have seen last October, in the clearest possible way, that If Francis sees that the revolution cannot be accomplished without grave harm to himself – make no mistake: he does not care a straw for Christ or Truth – there will be no revolution. In the months since October he has tried to push his heretical, unChristian, sacrilegious agenda, but he has clearly met with strong resistance both and public and – it can be safely assumed – private. The signs are multiplying that he is about to give up on the project, fearful of months of negative barrage before the Synod.
Mind: we do not know what goes on in the head of a man who thinks it a capital feat to steal a crucifix from the hands of a dead man, admitted to smoking marijuana and had once found a stash of it on his luggage when he was Archbishop, has a notorious heretic as a spokesman for the English speaking Countries, lives under the roof of a homosexual, finds it normal to consort with Trannies, and the like. We do not know. The man is just a walking disgrace.
But that he is so detached from reality that he does not understand in what troubles he will put himself if he keeps running head on towards a very hard wall: that, perhaps, he has understood.
A source told me that Baldisseri was “furious” the book had been mailed to the participants and ordered staff at the Vatican post office to ensure they did not reach the Paul VI Hall. Reports of the book’s interception have also appeared on German news sites in recent days.
Those responsible for mailing the books meticulously tried to avoid interception, ensuring the copies were sent through the proper channels within the Italian and Vatican postal systems. The synod secretariat nevertheless claims they were mailed “irregularly,” without going through the Vatican post office, and so had a right to intercept them.
The book’s mailers strongly refute this, saying they were legitimately mailed. Some copies were successfully delivered.
The words above are nothing but a confirmation of the heist, thinly veiled with “procedural” reasons.
What does it mean that a book is mailed “irregularly”? That it did not say “Buongiorno” like a good book is supposed to do? And as the books were mailed through the Italian post, where else would they be mailed but in the place provided for it in the working relationship between the Italian and the Vatican Post?
And why were they seized? Did Baldisseri fear that the packets contained bombs? If so, why was the police not called?
How can Baldisseri, or anyone else, maintain that they did not know that these were books? How seizes a book because it has not – he says – delivered through the “proper” channels? And even admitting – absurdly – that there were reasons for holding the books, why were the addressees not informed that they have received a packet that could not be delivered for (absurd) procedural reasons, like the Italian custom office does when you receive CDs from the USA for which custom duties must be paid?
Thieves, and liars too.
I hope some bishop (or several of them) presses a formal charge of theft to the proper Vatican authorities, informs the press, and demands the start of a serious investigation. Not in order to force Francis and his to become Catholic, but to expose the filth in the Vatican at every level.
Oportet ut scandala eveniant.
This is a serious scandal.
And as yours truly had already noticed, the cannonade against heresy is going on unabated. The Pollyannas can happily keep dreaming. All the others know the object of this brutal verbal attack is… the one by whom the buck stops, the one who made the mess possible, and the one who was most certainly behind the Synod.
This time, it is Bishop Athanasius Schneider who takes it on himself to fire from all the cannons at his disposal. We are accustomed to clear words from him; but this time, his words are of unheard-of brutality. Clearly, this one is not a Jesuit.
Bishop Schneider attacks the mentality of the entire midterm Relatio in terms I have never heard before in a prelate criticising a church document, even if a provisional one. To call a Vatican document representative of a
radical Neo-pagan ideology
is very probably the worst conceivable offence any…
View original post 636 more words
This is probably not the first time it happens, but it is indicative of the intention of some Cardinals not to allow Kasper and Francis to have their way.
The Eponymous Flower published yesterday a blog post about an interview to Cardinal Scola, in which the latter stated, very diplomatically, that he did not think Pope Francis would plunge the Church in a huge chaos, whilst unmistakable stating why it would be so.
Yesterday evening the same Eponymous Flower published a new a blog post about an interview to Cardinal Müller, who clearly states that… the separation of doctrine and praxis would be heresy.
Francis’ and Kasper’s ears must be whistling, because there can be no doubt about the target of Cardinal Müller’s statement.
Cardinal Müller is here very publicly drawing a line in the sand, and forbidding Cardinal Kasper…
View original post 107 more words
It is a fine morning in the Eternal City, and the Bishop of Rome has just finished his very merciful rest. Soon the air will be filled with the fragrance of Spring; but alas, we are not there yet.
The Bishop of Rome dresses himself, and then meets the homosexual priest that runs the establishment where he occupies an entire floor. Some words occur between the two. One has a strong South American accent, the other a somewhat high pitch. A homosexual, this one. Several scandals already. Francis is not at all disturbed. He likes the company of perverts.
Francis says his morning prayers, obviously without counting Hail Marys, because he doesn’t like it at all. He uses a small crucifix that has been with him many years now. He has stolen it from the cold hands of a dead priest. He holds the crucifix in his hands every day, and the thought does not disturb him at all. What a smart move that was.
Today, Francis has a guest. An Argentinian Rabbi. The man is often a guest these days. They chat a lot. The man refuses Christ every day, and seems intentioned to die in his refusal. Is Pope Francis fazed by this? Not in the least. He pays attention that the man eats kosher, a subject matter in which he is rather fit. He leaves the discussions about the “details” to the theologians. Hey, the man believes “in God”! OK, this does not include the Son or the Holy Ghost, and can therefore, strictly speaking, not even include the Father. But who cares? These are “details” about which theologians quarrel, not him.
He moves along and starts to walk toward the Papal Apartments, where he has his office and a second (unoccupied; because of his humility, see…) apartment. He throws a glance out of a magnificent window, at a distant building where some of the calligraphers worked. There were many of them, sending beautifully written papal blessings to newlywed couples, and the like. A nice business, too, and a very pious one. What a joy for a newlywed bride to see on the wall, beautifully framed, the papal blessing for what will now be the care and vocation – and the tears, and the sorrow perhaps – of her entire life. But Francis didn’t like it. “Have I got rid all those people?” He thinks. “I sure remember they were supposed to be unemployed come January? Better ask the secretary, I think”. Yes, Holy Father. Think. Where can a calligrapher find another job as a calligrapher in a place like Rome? Hundreds, all or pretty much all of them, you wanted to make redundant. In a city where this means a tragedy for the entire family. Did you do that in the end? Was that so evil a profession? Sorry, I am talking at the clouds. Yes, Francis did want to make all of them redundant. he was not at all disturbed.
Francis arrives at the office, and meets a Cardinal very near to him. This Cardinal is accused – publicly, for all the world to see – of having stolen almost 200 copies of a book he did not want as many bishops to receive. A heist, and a criminal energy, for which in Italy he would realistically expect a conviction, and very possibly home jail time straight away. Francis knows of the accusation, because it’s everywhere in Catholic circles. The Thieving Cardinal, people say. Francis smiles at the thought of the Cardinal making so many copies of that horribly sanctimonious book disappear. Ah, the derring-do! The chutzpah! He likes that! “Hmmmm, I will ask him if he has ordered the heist. If he says no, that’s it. If he says yes and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
He is now about to open his diary (in Italian: agenda) and is reminded that he has said marriage for priests is, actually, there. “I’ll have to discuss this soon”, he thinks. “If a would-be priest wants pussy, who am I to judge?”
He sees the programme for the next days, and is angered that there is nothing very fit for the media all week. “I will have to do something”, he thinks. “Let us see whom I can receive. Hhmmmm… Hmmm… Pro-homo priest? No, done that. Concubines with fruit of sin who want to be married? Hhmmm, no, used that already, too. Phone call with adulterer who wants communion? Ouch, that too! Then an interview with Scalfari perhaps? We could make another book of it! Salvation for atheists, conscience as substitute for Christianity! I like that! Or, I could meet a Trannie? No, wait…Ah, I got it! Anti-fracking, proto-comunistas activists! Oh no! Got that too!!
Then comes the meeting with Father Rosica. The man has threatened to sue a poor Catholic blogger and family father. The blogosphere is aflame. But hey, why would this bother him… “
¿Como estas, Tom?” No, better not touch the issue. People will forget. All this mess for a Canadian chap. A churchgoer. Blah! Whatever. Who cares.
The meeting with Rosica ends, and Francis remains alone. He throws a glance at St Peter’s Square, below. The masses have long disappeared. Fewer and fewer people want to see him. He has tried everything, even the showers for the homeless. But nothing. He can’t keep embracing wheelchairs anymore; even at Patheos they have had enough.
Oh, come on. Something will be found. It’s just a momentary dip. Perverts love him. Communists love him. Abortionists love him. Environmentalists love him. Why should he be bothered with these sanctimonious people smelling of holy water? Cazzo!
Oops! He did it again! He must pay attention. Once already it slipped, and he got the benefit of the doubt. A second time would be a mess. These damn hypocrites, always out to find fault! Ca… aargh!
So thinks our man, Francis, the Humble Bishop, and goes back to his splendid desk.
We leave him there, in a fine Roman morning.
A day in the age of Mercy.
Firstly a short premise: I do not approve of Sedevacantism. Sedevacantist comments are not allowed. If I see that your comments aim at pushing – overtly or covertly – a Sedevacantist agenda, you will be banned. Some have already tested me in that and you do not read their comments anymore, so there. In these things, one must be a Fascist. Yours Truly does Fascism well.
Having said that, some Sedes have quality sites, to which I link as little as I can, but at times I think are worth linking to.
One of these is Novus Ordo Watch; who, it must be said, make an admirable work (if from the wrong premise) of collection and exposure of Bergoglio’s madness. I am sure many of their readers are not Sedevacantists, and visit the site because of the quality of the content itself.
This time they have some very interesting content from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro. Gnocchi writes a comment in response to a reader, and this comment developed to a kind of article in itself.
Your humble correspondent identifies almost completely in what Gnocchi says, with only two small observations:
1. It can be misleading to say that “we cannot say” whether Bergoglio is Pope or not. Bergoglio is the Pope, period. What I think Gnocchi wanted to say is that we are nobody to start questioning the legitimacy of the one whom the Church considers the Pope.
2. I do know why we are being punished with Bergoglio, and Gnocchi says as much implicitly when he says in Bergoglio the (earthly) Church has the Pope she deserves. We are being punished for our sins of arrogance and rebellion to Truth. As I have already stated, it is as if the Lord would ram down our throat a big quantity of the very excrements we thought would be wholesome in smaller doses. If you liked V II, why, you must love Bergoglio!
Please click the site, enjoy the article, and do not be influenced by the Sedevacantist argument.
V II stated, in a way, the principle that Catholic drugs are fine, thinking that this would be limited to the marijuana as everything else was unthinkable. Then a Pope comes who has lived his entire life in this marijuana-filled atmosphere and reasons that hey, we must take this seriously here: if drugs are fine, then… drugs are fine. What follows is injections of heroin like it’s Catholic Junkie Day.
Bergoglio is recognisable as a Catholic only when he reads statements written by Catholics. He himself is as much Catholic as my cat. Can a Pope be as bad as that? Of course he can! Many have certainly become Pope who were atheists in every cell. The Holy Ghost does not assure that the Pope will have fear of the Lord, or believe in Him.
Gnocchi is also right in the disastrous Ratzinger attitude, and in saying that another Ratzinger would, at this point, not stop the decline and decomposition at all.
The day Benedict dies, I do not think he will have to fear for having resigned. But he must live with the fear of being punished for the way he has wasted eight years of Pontificate thinking that a varnish of orthodoxy and Summorum Pontificum would be enough, whilst he proceeded to the most atrocious appointments to please the Modernist crowd around him.
The Gnocchi Reblog
“Will God accept being put to the side like a useless toy for much longer?”
These are the last, ominous words of a beautiful article appeared in Riscossa Cristiana, and beautifully translated courtesy of Francesca Romana at Rorate Caeli.
I invite you to follow the link and to read there the entire article.
You will find, there, several other ominous statements. The most beautiful is from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro:
“We will find ourselves more and more faced with someone who professes to speak to us in the name of God by telling us that we have no need of Him.”
Gnocchi is right. But I do not want to spoil the fun. Enjoy Marco Bongi’s explanation of why this is the case.
Our clergymen have forgotten God. They worship the world and, ultimately, themselves.
It will all end up…
View original post 4 more words
In the wake of the October Synod, around 200 copies of the well-known “Remaining in the Truth of Christ” are sent to as many bishop using the Italian postal service. Only two or three reach their addressees, all the others simply disappear.
Whatever you want to say of the Italian postal service: no, it isn’t as bad as that, at all.
Now a journalist, Manfred Ferrari, has information, and makes names: the books have obviously arrived to the Vatican post office, and have been stolen from there to prevent them from being handed to the Bishops.
The journalist makes the name of the person allegedly behind it: Cardinal Baldisseri.
This, my dear reader, is theft, and who has organised this is a thief. Let us see what Cardinal Baldisseri has to say about this, if he deigns to say a word after such a grave episode, and such grave accusations of what must be, even in Argentina (but perhaps not in Bergoglioland?), a very grave offence.
What kind of people these apostles of mercy are! Bullying hypocrites like Father Rosica; vulgar thugs like his Basilian confrere, Father Scott; and now apparently even thieves, not ashamed of stealing en masse from their own bishops!
But then again what do you expect when the Merciful In Chief is a man who brags of stealing a crucifix from the hands of a dead man, and considers such feat absolutely brilliant and worthy of a wink-wink of admiration.
What a walking canalisation these people are. And the brashness, the sheer arrogance of how they go on about their business, safe in the knowledge of the protection of their own disgraceful superiors, is what angers the most.
Whoever did this did not do it to help the line of the five Cardinals (read: Catholicism). Whoever did this must have been high enough to be able to order something like that and enforce obedience. Whoever did this either did it with Francis’ explicit approval, or he did it in the knowledge that upon knowing the facts Francis would have smiled on his “entrepreneurial spirit”.
A bunch of bullies, boors, and thieves. Starting from the very top. This is the Vatican as we write the year of the Lord 2015.
I have found on the Internet this very useful reflection on defamation lawsuits. Mind, the language is very explicit.
This article is written by a U.S. Criminal defence attorney, and it is aimed at outlets based in the US. It is, I think, useful for every reader, but it should be of particular interest for bloggers of US based blogs.
By delving into the subject matter you will find interesting consideration about what is “libel”, and for example learn that the “a” word (“you are an a-word”) is, in general, opinion and not actionable. A second interesting takeaway is that a blogger generally does not answer for libellous comments on his combox. A third one is that the libel is seen in the contest of the article, say: the use of the expression “Father Rosica must be on cocaine” is allowed if the context makes clear this is an hyperbole or a way to express surprise, without the intention of letting his readers believe that Father Rosica, in actual fact, sniffs.
Similarly, rhetorical figures like (to make an example): “Father Rosica has already shown his tongue has an uncanny ability to reach the strangest places of people who can can help him to honours and favours” only express in a hyperbolic way the writer’s opinion that Father Rosica is an ecclesiastical ladder climber, ready and willing to host and praise excommunicated priests if he thinks they have friends in high places who can be useful to him.
Please click the link, get over the language, and educate yourself a bit over a matter about to become more frequently discussed in the months leading to the Synod.
There are further links there, that I will follow when time allows.
A prayer for this potty-mouthed but rather useful attorney is, I think, fully in order.
A Basilian, father Timothy Scott, the spokesman of the order for Canada, tweets “STFU” to a Cardinal. He retracts, but still…
Another Basilian, Father Rosica, threatens to sue a poor Catholic blogger for being Catholic.
This justifies a question for Father Rosica: should Cardinal Burke, then, sue Father Scott?
The question should be posed to him without accepting any deflection: “he did a horrible thing, for which he apologised”, doesn’t wash, because it’s not the answer. By the by, Rosica said he reserves the right to sue even if get apologies from Mr Domet for having reminded him of the Catholic religion, so that doesn’t wash twice.
Let us see the question again:
what does Father Rosica think: would it be right if Cardinal Burke sued Father Scott?
I hope at the next press conference hosted by Father Rosica someone will ask this and several other questions related to the man.
Enough with moneylenders in the temple.
Fr Scott, the man who tweeted the STFU to Cardinal Burke and retracted after abundant protest from Twitter readers, has resigned (or… was resigned) as spokesman of the Basilian Order in Canada.
I do not know how many Basilians there are in Canada, but certainly there are two too many: this one here and, of course, Father Rosica.
We had a positive development in this matter. Let us see what happens in the other one.
Who knows: Father Rosica might decide to come out as a Presbyterian after all.
Ex Magno Silentio has the bomb, and the Catholic News Service has the evidence: less than 10,000 people wanted to know what Francis has to say, or at least see the former celebrity. And that, on Ash Wednesday. Sad.
The key of what is happening is in the title itself of CNS’s article:
“Pope: Liberty, equality can turn selfish, unfair without brotherly love”.
Here you have all the issues in one phrase: secular waffle, stupid slogans, vague appeal to feelings, and no mention of Catholicism.
Not surprising at all. The rubbish you can hear from this man day in and day out can be read from every leftist newspaper all over Europe, and from every liberal outlet the other side of the pond. And after receiving and abetting fags and trannies, he can now only get some headlines with dog-screwers.
This man will soon be an embarrassment even to Fr Rosica. People will deny having ever liked him. “Francis? No! I was saying from the start that there was something wrong with him!”
The hype has gone. The “Francis effect” is in front of our eyes, though it is not what was hoped.
Francis is officially out of fashion.
It is a well known fact that those preaching “inclusion” are the first ones to exclude those they don’t like. They are pretty numerous nowadays. There is the Canadian Basilian (like Father Rosica: they must learn thuggery in the seminary…) who offends Cardinal Burke most brutally for… being an orthodox Catholic; then we have the already mentioned Father Rosica, whose “mercy” apparently includes attacking poor family fathers for pointing out he has insulted the Holy Father and blasphemed Christ; let us not forget Cardinal Wuerl suddenly putting orthodox Catholics in the same boat as dissenters, and obviously Francis constantly reminding us how very bad unnamed good Catholics can be. All this, in the last couple of weeks or so.
It seems, therefore, to me that “inclusion” is now a favourite buzzword of people who want to kick Catholics out of the church, pretty much as it happened in Arian times. Starting, of course, from the Bishop of Rome himself, to whom stinking of perversion is apparently better than having an ordered life obviously committed to Catholic values.
But let see this word again: inclusion. Is inclusion really a value?
Does a flag include all the others? When you stand up and sing your national anthem, are you “including” everyone else? Does your rooting for a certain team “include” the rooting for their rivals? What about associations, circles, clubs of all kind: why do they exist in the first place?
The truth of the matter is that it is simply not possible to define us as something without automatically excluding all those who are something else. Those who tell you they “love everyone” do not really love anyone, but themselves. Those who say they are “world citizen” do not love their flag, do not love any flag.
To be Catholic is to have a certain set of beliefs. Automatically, this excludes those who do not share these beliefs or actively betray them. There can be no escape from this reality. There can be no “inclusiveness” of this sort, ever. Neither do New York Yankees fans “include” Red Sox fans in their rooting, or Lazio fans include Rom fans, or Chelsea fans Arsenal fans. You are either here or there. You can’t be and not be something. You must make a choice.
This express will of “overcoming differences” (seen very often in Francis, albeit in him it might be evil intent rather than simple stupidity) pretends to forget that pretty much everything is defined exactly by its differences with everything else. You can’t be Christian and Muslim. You can’t be Catholic and Protestant. You can’t be right and wrong.
The Church must never aim at including. The Church must aim at converting. You are different from me, and this is not ok at all! You are different from me, and I want you to renounce to the differences and become like me! You are wrong, and I want you to be right!
None of this can be “inclusive”. The club accepts those who are fit to become members and share the club’s values. It cannot be any differently.
Even the apostles of “inclusion” never dream of “including” Traditionalist in their (hopefully not lewd) embrace. They know very well that there are differences. They practice themselves what they condemn in us. They aren’t more “inclusive” than Chelsea or Yankee fans are of Manchester City and Red Sox fans. They write Tweets to you with “STFU”, not “we welcome and include your inspired and candid approach”. They want to shut you up all right. They might even sue you to keep you out!
No. Inclusion is a fable made to fool the gullible. It is always here or there.
We are here. Francis and his likes are there. There can be no inclusion.
I am against inclusion. I am one of the least inclusive chaps you’ll ever meet.
I want conversion, not inclusion.
We live now in an age in which a huge number of Catholics slowly begin to approach their grave. Many of them, who grew up in the Sixties, will go to their grave without ever knowing the old school Catholicism, the era not only of sanity, but of splendour that went to an end in 1958.
There is no doubt that hell is threatening many of these souls, letting Satan anticipate a harvest without precedents in the West in twenty centuries. It is, in fact, another sign of the madness of the times that many of those so endangered think that they will be fine, because they are such nice neighbours and do some “charitable” work without knowing what charity even is. Many others seem to think that people who have never been properly instructed can keep going against the teaching of the Church unpunished because hey, they did not have good priests; which lets one think that if this is true, the best thing to do is to have horrible ones.
No. Either this generation runs the concrete risk of being punished very hard, or all the preceding ones were wrong in caring about salvation – and about orthodoxy, and proper instruction – the way they did.
Some might say that these scattered sheep must now be gathered with gentle, soothing words; with a softly-softly approach that does not cause them to reject the Church altogether; with a gentle reminder that says look, one should think whether our forefathers were perhaps right, and whether the modern thinking has brought the expected results after all.
In my eyes, the softly-softly approach is what has scattered the sheep in the first place, and it is therefore not smart at all to think that more of this will have any other result than to scatter them further. Conversion must be primed. It must be primed by a sort of fuse, a switch, an internal turmoil that suddenly stops the wrong thinking in its path and encourages, or forces, a person to think in a radically different way.
One thinks abortion is unpleasant, but hey, at times you gotta do what you gotta do. He supports abortion laws, and finds opposition to it unrealistic, unenforceable, or “dangerous for the women forced to abort illegally” (I seldom hear the argument of the “poor heroin addicts forced to drug themselves illegally”, by the way). Another thinks the condemnation of fornication is the residue of another time; a third thinks the Church is wrong on “the gays” and should “celebrate diversity” instead. I could go on and on.
Do you think such people, already dulled by years of wrong thinking, are going to be impressed – much less converted – by those inviting them to a kind of “slightly different approach”? No. What they need is a far more brutal experience. Something like, so to speak, the Mundabor experience.
The chap above sees photos of aborted foetuses; Or he hears abortion called murder; or he is told very clearly: you are a fool if you think you are not in grave danger of hell. He reads the brutal facts about Sodoms. He is confronted with serious warnings. Truth looks at him straight in the face.
Most importantly, he realises that all that he reads is nothing new; that it is, in fact, very old; that it is what his forefathers have always believed, what the West is largely founded upon. This new approach cannot be merely suggested. Suggestions rarely lead to 180 degrees change of direction. The new approach – which is the very old one – must be smashed on the face of the reader; with charity and compassion, yes; but smashed on his nose entirely anyway.
This is, I think, what has the best probability of starting, in time, a thinking process. Being knocked out of what is today called the “comfort zone” is, very often, a necessary condition for a real change of thinking. Let people be angry at first. Immediate conversions are extremely rare. But push down his throat a seed that will never be forgotten; that will stay there for years, abiding its time; and will perhaps start to germinate when, perhaps many years later, a traumatic event occurs: a bereavement, or loss of health, or of financial security. Something which leads one to look for a new basis of his existence. When the time comes, the seed will be there.
The preachers of old, who thundered about hell like there is no tomorrow, knew that people would – in most cases – not go home and start a new life. What they knew is that the shock would be remembered, and kept in storage until, with God’s grace, the time when it would be allowed to bear fruit.
This is why the Church has continued to lose Western churchgoers under Benedict. Benedict was no earthquake. He wasn’t the “old religion”. He did not move anyone to assist to Traditional Latin Papal Mass in awe – which he never celebrated – and he therefore did not move people to suddenly, brutally come in contact with a completely different reality: with the old, and therefore completely new to them, ball game.
Those who succeed are those who go all out. Padre Pio slapped people. Joan of Arc inflamed them. Savonarola – with all his excesses – still made them wish to be more like Christ. You can’t set people’s hearts in flames without a flamethrower. They will not experience a deep change in their outlook merely because of you politely suggesting they do so.
I will never forget my relief – confused non-practicing Catholic as I then was; with so much rubbish in my head I want to cry if I only think about it – at knowing, from Internet sites first clicked in the now distant 2005, that “the old religion” still existed! That there were, in fact, people around – laymen, people like you and I – talking like my Grandmas did, and like I had never heard one priest, not one, in my entire life talking!
I had been encouraged for so many years to downplay the Truth, from the very people who should have taught it to me, that it was like discovering an old food you told out of market has never being discontinued. It was people like you and me, going on the Internet and saying “stop being bamboozled by half words and half wishes! This.Is.The.Truth! And yes, I cannot deny that it was also my fault that I was lapsed. But I was never encouraged not to lapse, in a time when priests did not even care to tell you you must go to Mass.
I do not say to you that my change was immediate. The discovery set up a process that led to that pleasant thought – there is still, out there, that old religion! – being thought more and more often, and become in time a desire to know more of it; and, in time, a need to be nourished by it; and with, it the need to be again near it, in church, as it used to be as a child. It was some time before I even found the courage to go to General Confession, and many a time I attended Mass without Communion before that. I was also lucky, that the church was the Brompton Oratory. What a treasure a properly Catholic church is!
But you see: many times even a gradual process starts with some big discovery: that Catholicism, as it used to be, is still alive and kicking among the common people.
There is no way to sweeten this pill, unless it be by saying that membership is open to anyone who takes the club seriously. Truth must said whole, and the truth said whole will make you go “ouch!” before it sets you free.
This is why this blog is so blunt, and why I wish there were many more blunt blogs, particularly in the English speaking world. To awaken people from their one-world torpor, weak slogans and ambiguous words are not enough.
They will likely need a Mundabor experience.
Via Call me Jorge, I republish this wonderful work from Miles Christi,
This beautiful work is not a collection of comments or articles, but it has countless quotes from the man himself, all with references and Internet links. The document goes on for twelve pages. How much work went into it I do not even want to think. It is updated to 2 December 2014; which means, in two words, pre-Rabbitgate time.
In order to properly understand TMAHICH and his mentality I quote another pearl from this man, also mentioned by Call me Jorge:
– Francis in 7 December 2014 interview –
This video is another example of all the wrong things going on in Francis’ mind.
Can you imagine a Pope of the past severing the hands of a child joint in prayer! It is disturbing to even think of a father doing this to his son, and no child with some sense of religion would do the same to another child. To Francis, this is worth doing before the cameras.
Look at the video attentively. The child has his hands joint in prayer. Francis talks to him and seems to ask him whether his hands are incollate, which means “glued together”. The child insists on keeping his hands joint. At this point Francis proceeds to severe by applying a certain amount of gentle but unmistakable force. It seems clear to me the child still does not want to disjoint his hands, and it is only the force…
View original post 592 more words
You will ask why no nonsense from Francis was published today.
The answer is that it appears the man has gone in mini-retreat in Ariccia, a nice place outside Rome (note here: not Castengandolfo; that’s too much “Renaissance Prince”), with some of his bravi.
This one being a Jesuit, it is sold as a “penitential retreat”. Which, seen that we aren’t stupid, means that it is a strategic retreat to discuss in peace and without unwanted ears with his fedelissimi about what to do in the months to come.
I am often a tad too optimist, but I smell the pungent atmosphere of the film “The Downfall” here. Please consider that for one Cardinal Sarah who shoots with the cannon in all openness, there will be many who let their more discreet, but no less clear message come to the ear of the Unholy Father: you are playing with fire, and you won’t get away with it.
What to do, then? Continue with the “offensive of mercy” and hope both the bishops and the laity decide it’s the convenient thing to do, therefore they will support Francis? Or elaborate an elegant exit plan, by which the social issues and bla bla are slowly allowed to completely take the place of the Communion For Adulterers row?
We shall see.
Ariccia is very famous for two things: the porchetta and the bridge. The first is a traditional pork roast, of which the place is the undisputed capital. The second is a very tall, actually beautiful bridge, once notorious (and still known) for the suicides, and aptly called by the people “ponte dei suicidi”.
I do not doubt Francis will sample with gusto from the first. As to the second, no, I do not wish that to anyone. Not even to Father Rosica, who might well be present at the retreat to explain to the Holy father how his lawsuit against poor Mr Domet will be a wonderful example of fight against “careerism, arrogance, hypocrisy, corruption and being too judgmental instead of merciful”.
The only thing I know, is that none of the present will get out of it one ounce more Catholic.
Click to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 2,496 other followers
This appears on my blog as I write this. It truly suggests the idea that 2496 people are following my WordPress blog.
Some time ago, the number of those who “follow” me multiplied from around 180 to around 1600, or the like, can’t remember the figures now. I thought it was a mistake or a technical glitch. It made me feel bad, because it sounded like bragging of a following that is just not there.
The new “statistics” page of WordPress allowed to shed light on the matter. It is clear that WordPress lumps together one’s followers on Twitter, Facebook, email and blog itself, if one uses the “publicize” app that allows automatic posting of one’s blog posts on other platforms. At the moment I have 213 readers who follow the blog directly, and 207 who receive email notifications. To this, WordPress happily adds 1707 Twitter and 370 Facebook followers. Now at least the figures make sense.
It’s a fine line between factual numbers and inflated ones. If I tweet fifty times a day with jokes about the Irish and also post my blog post, what are my followers on Twitter really following? My blog? I don’t think so. They merely find the blog posts on my twitter feed, and they can’t (as far as I know) shut them out if they want to read the jokes.
In practice, my tweets and Facebook postings are actually almost exclusively blog posts; therefore, in this case one can say the one who follows me on Twitter or Facebook does it exactly because he wants to read my blog posts; albeit there would be duplications and triplications here which WordPress might simply be ignoring.
Well, I had posted about this before, so I wanted to close this matter. It still seems a tad fishy to me. If “the Catholic religion has 1.1 billion followers” is counted in the same way, we are in deep trouble.
But hey: who am I to judge?
The latest Pollyanna running around seems to be Andrea Gagliarducci, writing for a publication called Monday Vatican
This man Gagliarducci is admirable in that he has the face of trying, against evidence as big as Mount Everest, to persuade us that Francis is not a heterodox Pope, merely “naive”.
Example? The latest scandal of the homo group allowed to the Papal audience, called “New Way Ministry” or such like nonsense, with a clearly privileged position to boot. The man wants to persuade us that he is unable to see that Francis invited the perverts well knowing that they are perverts, and gave them places showing he would give scandal as much as he can, without too many risks for him; well knowing, too, that they would scream to … hell about their VIP tickets (which they are; near the Vatican authorities and the high prelates), followed by the Pollyanna running to tranquillise the scandalised masses, and persuading them that hey, the group is not called “Fags United”, so how can the Pope know? And they were not admitted to the baciamano, so they are, ahem, officially IPs, but not quite VIPs.
It goes always thus: Francis willingly gives scandal, and the Pollyannas persuade you he never ever wanted to do so; but you see, at times the man can be a bit… naive.
Naive? A Jesuit with 45 years of experience in corridor politics? Seriously, how stupid this Gagliarducci thinks we are?
I am, however, most angry at those who swallow this rubbish as if it was ambrosia, though. It truly is time to open one's eyes.
Enough with the Pollyanning. Let's start with the condemning. The promotion of the homosexual agenda tirelessly executed by Pope Francis cannot be met with stupid excuses. It must be met with explicit, vocal condemnation.
Watch here a video I found on my newly re-found Facebook page. I had seen footage of the latest march in Washington, but some parts of this throw, I think, an entirely different light on the entire matter.
Please also note the banners with the Blessed Virgin.
Imagine the embarrassment of the mainstream media at this footage. Huge crowds, Blessed Virgin banners, lots of families with young children. Tell the world of such a massive event? No! No! No!
Every damn “gay” parade would obviously get coverage, but not this, not this!
Heck, this is an embarrassment for the Bishop of Rome himself! All these people obsessed with abortion! Why did they not adopt an illegal immigrant instead?
Still: this is very, very encouraging. The more so, because it happens notwithstanding the neglect of the media and against the current “climate” in the Vatican, where even perverts are welcome.
And those banners of the Blessed Virgin, in Washington, in the middle of a very big march, they truly made my day.