How To Read A Blog. Particularly this one.

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.

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Francification”, Grima Wormtongue, And The False Builders

You can’t say that, Gandalf! It’s Lent!

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.

M

Cardinal Pell Sounds The Catholic Trumpet Again

You can almost hear the Cavalry charging....

Cardinal Pell has given another example of a Cardinal who has no qualms in saying very publicly what is wrong with Modernism. He does not say “with Francis”, but considering that Francis was now confirmed to be behind the disgraceful Relatio post disceptationem it is clear who is the principal addressee of his intervention.

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.

M

 

 

Cardinal Marx’s Schism Threat Reeks Of Desperation

Coldly looking down on Catholicism: Cardinal Marx.

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.

M

 

 

 

Bookgate: Vatican Admits Heist

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.

M

 

 

Athanasius Contra Franciscum, Or: The Prospects Of Nuclear War

Mundabor's Blog

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

Cardinal Müller Throws In The “H” Word

Mundabor's Blog

Yes, Frankie: I am talking to you…

 

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