Monthly Archives: April 2015
Whenever I read about the next absurd statement from the Unholy Father I think “is there no limit to the stupidity of this man?” But then I reflect that in the end no one can be so stupid, and that behind the stupidity is clealry a plan. The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History can not also be The Most Stupid Jerk In Humanity.
Francis now invites the faithful to kneel in veneration in front of the poor. This is the umpteenth sign of where Francis wants to lead the Church: away from God, and in the nether regions of earthly cares and social issues; which, in his case, clearly means socialism.
There is no way even an idiot could so relentlessly push a godless agenda. The idiot in question would ask around what is to do, and would rely on people he knows as orthodox. There is no way anyone could push his agenda with such evil consistency without wanting it. There is nothing like one thousand coincidences.
Francis wants you to forget God, and to substitute Him with a purely earthly religion of social justice – with the thinnest varnish of spirituality for added effect – for the sake of being adored by the stupid masses as he avoids the duty of being, actually, a Pope.
The attack to the Catholic religion happens along three main lines: the environment, the social justice issues, and the “mercy” drive.
With the first he wants you to believe that men could, in fact, destroy the earth (a blasphemy, and typical of atheists) unless you put yourself in the hands of Big Government (a Socialist mainstay). With the second, he pushes the hatred of the poor against the rich (not his rich friends; the others) and again directs you to forget God and focus on Socialist ideals. With the third, he encourages you to think that the Church, and actually the entire Catholic religion, is wrong and in need of being remade according to… Castro.
Do not be fooled by the tale of the naive Pope. You have had no excuses for a long time now.
And you know what scares me most in all this? It is the chilling realisation of how angry God must be with us, to inflict such an evil scoundrel on us as the Pope.
Serves us right, in the end. For too long we have thought that Catholicism was in need of repair. Now we got the sledgehammer served, in order to make us understand that there was nothing wrong with the Church as it was, and we can't do better than God. We (Catholicism at large) wanted V II, and we will now have to have Francis rammed down our throat. If we didn't like God's work, let's see how we enjoy the wreck we have creted. We must now live with this evil clown, and can only hope many will get to see the light before tey die. Because if they don't, I truly wouldn't want to be them when their day comes.
In this more and more heathenish Country one hears with increasing frequency about “Memorial Services”. I understand this as something that can, but does not have to, have anything to do with God. It may simply be people who meet in the favourite park of the deceased and therein “offer” something heathensh, like a song; thus, of course, putting themselves centre stage.
Now let us think one minute. If these are religious services of sort – heavens, even made by Anglicans – then it still means that, in some corner of their mind, the participants know that this life is and happens in the shade of the next one. It is bad they do not want us to know (otherwise they would call it “Mass”), but at least they know.
If, however, the “service” is a kind of godless “tribute”, then it is fully absurd. If there is no God and no afterlife everything is utterly, perfectly nonsensical. We are born, struggle to stay alive, strive to reproduce, and at some point end, and nothing in this has any sense or purpose beyond mere animal survival. Not even our DNA code is the real winner, because it most certainly does not know it is.
If there is no God, the only acceptable kind of remembrance is: “the poor brute was born, lived, then died into nothingness, like everyone else; no one knows how, no one knows why, and no one can make any sense of it”. Playing a guitar song in his favourite spot is just as absurd as the rest, an emotional, childish desire to please not the deceased, but oneself.
At these services, the “goodness” of the deceased will most ceretainly be praised. Which is absurd again.
If at the end of life is nothing, there's nothing saying that Stalin was worse than St Francis. Good and bad are, then, purely subjective, and goodness is only a possible survival strategy for the weak. If there is no God, there is simply no goodness, only survival and self-satisfaction. Stalin, then, was really, really good at the most elementary need of the animal called human. I wonder how many of the emotional participants to heathenish “memorial services” get this. But then again I do not think they get an awful lot anyway.
Modern Brits make a lot of things that have lost their meaning. They go to Church because it's Christmas, but they don't believe in the Christian God. They have a Queen whose only function is to kiss children, open kindergartens, and generate tourism revenue, but they do not see the absurdity of the entire exercise. They wear crosses that are merely decorative. They say 'o my God' and do not believe in Him. They kill unborn children, and are mad at the idea of the fox hunt. They obsess about their health system, and their souls have cancer. They must “celebrate” everything, even deaths, to avoid thinking of it.
And they have “memorial services” instead of, well, a proper Mass.
And it came to pass Yours Truly was at Mass, and happened to be seated near a couple with a beautiful Cocker Spaniel.
The dog was extremely well, and I mean by that extremely well trained. Almost motionless, and absolutely quiet, he seemed to show a reverence for the Mass that you would look in vain in many of your gray-haired, tambourine-loving Mass attending humans.
Similarly, you noticed one obvious fact: the owner of the dog had taken responsibility for the behaviour of the one entrusted to their care, and it was very clear they had allowed to dog to Mass only when sure the dog knows how to behave. Let me stop here.
Long live the orthodox doggie. Congratulations to his owners. We live in times in which dogs surpass humans in reverence.
That worthy man of God, the Traditional Catholic Priest, has a very interesting post outlining the long path to the priesthood used for many, many centuries before the usual “reforms” of V II. Father points out that the system is still in place, intact, not only by the SSPX, but also by traditionalist orders in what the Vatican calls “full communion with Rome”.
We see here at work something that is one of the very marks of V II: the dumbing down of pretty much everything.
The Church founded by Our Lord on Peter obviously developed Her own customs, procedures and ordnances in time, no doubt with the assistance of the Holy Ghost. This development was not a betrayal of the original “simplicity”, but rather the unavoidable consequence of the growing ability to better reflect in exterior acts, procedures, clothes & Co. the reality of the Church, and make Her work more efficient and more easily recognisable.
The “second Christians” (I call in this way, and forgive the joke, those who came after the extremely famed “first Christians”) weren't less Christian, or more interested in ceremony than their predecessors; nor were they lovers of useless pomp, procedural complications, or expensive vestments. They were, very simply, aware that things could be done better, and this is what they set up to do.
The entire process ended up in an edifice that made the Church not only better suited to pursue Her mission, but highly recognisable in all Her dealings.
Enter V II, and the desire – naive, or evil – to simplify everything. The dismantling of all those “complicated” parts of Church life – from the ecclesiastical career, to the Liturgy, to the dress code, to the devotional life to mention only some – have now been put in pace and “tested” for several decades. Result?
1. A massive crisis of vocation. If the priest is one of us, there's no reason why anyone among us should become a priest.
2. A tragic decline in mass attendance due, in part, to a dumbed-down, second-class liturgy.
3. Priests (or nuns!) who are often not even recognisable as such on the street, which again goes hand in hand with many of them barely recognising themselves as priests as opposed to, say, social workers. Again, this results in decline of attendance.
4. Massive loss of faith as the obvious result of people not even being taught to pray because hey, it's so arid and structured.
What do we learn from all this? Dumb down the way you do things, and you'll become dumb yourself. Priests who lose sight of their role become dumb priests. A liturgy that tries to be “easy” and “accessible” becomes a dumb liturgy. The “simplification” of the way the personnel looks leads to them becoming both invisible and ashamed of being seen for what they are. The encouragement to “spontaneous” prayer becomes the loss of the habit of praying.
V II has dumbed down not only the priesthood, but everything else. As a result not only the priestly vocations, but everything else suffered.
In time, more and more within the Church will discover this simple facts of life. Not, however, before the impious generation who brought us this mess, and possibly the one after, are six feet under. It is necessary that the punishment for our stupidity be paid according to the Lord's will before sanity goes back again.
We, dutiful sons of the Church, see and denounce the dumbing down. We are a minority now, but we are the spearhead. In time, our descendants will put a remedy to this.
A report – translated by Rorate here – about the way German priests (and deacons) see themselves and live their faith makes for shocking reading. Yours truly finds that this merits a little rant.
I thought every priest was supposed to recite the prayers of the Breviary every day, in all their parts. Turns out many of these unworthy men cannot even manage to pray every day; a feat of which children of only one or two generations ago would have been ashamed at the age of six; no, make it five.
Almost as shocking – but then, necessarily flowing from the above – is that many go to confession once a year or less; and I wonder how they can have have zeal for their work as confessors, if they themselves think it too much to do more than the bare minimum themselves. This, apart from the fact that I thought the factual expectations on a priest were more like once a month, or more often. My bad, of course.
I am tempted now to go to confession next time I am in Germany, and ask the priest when it was the last time he went to confession himself. Should be fun.
It goes on. Priests who do not believe in priest celibacy (about half!), or suffer “loneliness” (perhaps they thought a mistress would be found?), or have various problems of “immaturity” with their sexuality; which, whatever that means, isn't good in a priest, at all.
This is a huge scandal, as it shows to what extent a big part of the German clergy – at the roots, not only at Kasper level – has become the world. Not only these people have lost any pretence that they are the enemy of the world; they actually complain that they cannot be enough like it.
I pity and despise them, because a priest who has chosen the habit and finds himself whining about his “loneliness” whilst he does not even have the time or the guts to be with Christ in the confessional, and in prayer, and in the life of sacrifice he is supposed to live is one who has betrayed the flag a long, long time ago, and is now unable to even remember how it looked like.
May the Lord have mercy of these poor bastards, living a huge lie as they enjoy their financial comfort and can afford the luxury of whining about their “loneliness” (a luxury I have never found in good priests). They have made their bed.
I have never seen a good priest that looked lonely in the least. Their vocations and their love of the Lord fills their life; they are surrounded by the esteem and love of many parishioners of all ages; they have a busy life because they don't skimp their duty concerning prayer or sacramental life; and their spiritual dimension fills and completes their earthly life to the point that they must, in most cases, find the idea of “loneliness” not only absurd, but a luxury for priests with too much time, and too little faith.
I pity and despise these German caricatures of priests. A man is supposed to make his choices like a man, and live with them as a man should. They have chosen to be priests. No one promised them a harem.
Wimps. Cowards. Sissy boys. Complaining – probably with grey hair – about their “loneliness” instead of being ashamed of a life of betrayal and scrounging at the cost of the Church, a life of betrayal of some of the most fundamental duties of a priest, to the point of not praying! Is it a surprise these people do not care for the Sacraments?
How do these people find the face to appear in front of their parishioners? I tell you how: by becoming their allies in the desire to make the Church wordly and sold to the world, so that their betrayal may not be noticed as they march toward a comfortable retirement. A retirement in which, no doubt, they will whine about their – comfortable – loneliness.
A priest made his choice, and made this choice in a definitive way. He chose to die to the world, to be Christ's soldier, to live and die in His shadow. That he now should not even find the time to pray, complain about his own – comfortable – life, and not even find the time to go to confession is despicable beyond words.
And they ruin others as they ruin themselves.
They ruin others as they ruin themselves.
The “day of infamy” reblog
It is Sunday morning and as far as I know Francis is still alive and kicking. Every man of faith knows the Holy Ghost can take him down in an instant.
The Church has traditionally thought canonisations are infallible, and I remain – until a valid argument to the contrary – of the opinion that where 2000 years of Christian convictions lead, Mundabor should bloody well follow. I have still not found any argument explaining to me why God would have allowed the formation of such a strong and diffused belief concerning things that cannot be verified, unless it be to teach us to trust God’s work in those things that cannot be verified.
This does not mean that these canonisations are not a disgrace. Of course they are.A canonisation often has a political element in it. It was always so. Kings were made saints, and…
View original post 645 more words
The waterboarding reblog
Sarah Palin has said some words to the extent that if she were in charge she would put some “fear of the Lord” into terrorists and show them that waterboarding is how we baptise them. Shock and horror ensued. I think they are both vastly exaggerated.
The use of the word “baptism” outside of the sacramental context is very old, and certainly perfectly well liked even in times more Christian than ours. The Italian expression battesimo del fuoco (“baptism of fire”) indicates the first time a soldier faces a combat situation, and I have never heard of anyone, Catholic or Protestant, Christian or Heathen, ever complaining for its use. The word “battesimo” is also used, without any evil meaning, by “first time” situations, often unpleasant ones. A fall from the bicycle, say, would have people say to you “oh well, you have been baptised”, meaning…
View original post 673 more words
As the Synod approaches, the signals multiply that the dreamed-of pacific acceptance of the Heresy of Kasper is a fantasy for pot-smoking liberal prelates.
The last ones are a string of influential religious and Catholic thinkers, clearly drawing a line in the sand. The link is here. In short, they are four: Father Brian Harrison, O.S.; Joseph Matt of The Wanderer, ( I think this is the cousin of the excellent Michael Matt of the “Remnant”, already well-known to the readers of this effort); Professor Robert Spaemann, a German theologian; and Father José Granados, another theologian who is, interestingly, also well-connected with the Vatican machine.
I invite you to read the article and follow the four in detail. I notice here that I never noticed the “Wanderer” as a publication fighting for orthodoxy in the muscular way I would love to see around (the “Remnant” is, if you ask me, of a different caliber altogether). Still, the Wanderer not only reminds the Pope of the teaching of the Church, but it – in the message, if not in the words – defy him to come out with a robust defence of the teaching of the Church come October. The letter is here.
All of them make very important considerations, but the most brutally frank is, if you ask me, Father Harrison. He goes so far as to state the following words:
I feel I should conclude this talk by going on record as stating that I myself, with the help of God, will never profane the Sacrament of Penance and violate my own conscience by giving a sacrilegious absolution to someone in that situation, no matter what higher authority in the Church might tell me to do so. May God, through the mighty protection and intercession of Saint Joseph, Head of the Holy Family, preserve his Church from endorsing Cardinal Kasper’s iniquitous revisionist proposal.
This, my friends, is a gauntlet all right, and I can hear the “thump” as it falls on the ground.
Let us see who within the Church – be he a priest, a bishop, a cardinal, or a shameless Pope prostituting his office for the sake of popularity – has the nerve to pick it up. They must know, however, that before any eternal punishment – in which they obviously do not believe – they will be confronted with a savage battle on this earth, as they are refused obedience to their heresy and impiousness.
Francis, Kasper & Co. are drunken fools if they think that they can explode a nuclear device in October and see the waters calm down after a week or two of mumblings of dissatisfaction.
He who starts a nuclear war must deal with the nuclear fallout. At the end of which not him, but the Church, will emerge victorious.
We need more of these gauntlets. The more they are, the more improbable the nuclear conflict becomes.
October is going to be our Cuban Missile Crisis.
We must not let the Commies win.
Diego Maradona has met the Pope. Again.
Maradona is known to football (soccer) fans as one of the most arrogant, stupid, and entitled football players ever to squander his (enormous) football talent with endless ways to make an ass of himself.
He played in Italy for several years. Pretty much no one liked him besides those who rooted for the team he played for, Napoli. He managed a string of controversies without precedents in Italian football, from the illegitimate child to the tax evasion trial to the unjustified (and never really punished) absences from the team, to the gaudiest, most tasteless marriage ever organised by a “son of the peripheries”. His ability to lie with the journalists in the most obvious way was a shock for Italy, a Country where lies are at least expected to be believable.
Maradona never had this attitude. He lied because he was able to. He either didn’t care, or was too stupid to notice, that everyone saw through his lies. His arrogance was possibly surpassed only by his stupidity, and both dwarfed his huge talent. He even got in the habit of speaking of himself in the third person with journalists. Ah, he was also on cocaine.
When Argentina won the Football World Championship in 1986, through a hand goal of him in the semi-final, only a Maradona could have had the arrogance of calling his cheating feat “the hand of God”. It truly tells you all you need to know about the man. It reminds me of that Pope who implied that Jesus deceived His Apostles, and found it good.
There was the joke in Italy that God had started making Maradona from the feet; and once He saw what feet he had given him he had compensated when making the rest of him.
Let us, then, compare the Unholy Father with his “greatest fan”, Diego Maradona.
Drug use? Check
Full of himself? Check
Full of sh!t? Double check.
Like Maradona, who in those years shocked Italians so much with the brazenness of his entire persona, Francis lies simply because he can. The same arrogance, the same boorishness, the same utter disregard for decency or reality we saw once in Maradona we see now replicated in another son of his country.
I remember Maradona, and observe Bergoglio. Not for the first time, I seem to notice that these two are two peas in a pod; not only because they share elementary character traits, but also because they seem to come from a country where such brazenness is certainly not condemned or ridiculed as it would be elsewhere, and it is probably even – more or less secretly – appreciated as a sign of self-confidence, or derring-do. But it isn’t. To behave like Maradona or Bergoglio you don’t need to be brave, merely lacking in integrity and shame.
I see these two, and I know that they are two peas in a pod.
Pope Francis The-Pot-Smoker, The Hand of Satan.
How deep have we fallen.
I have not written anything about the new Cardinals, because little has come to my screen, up to now, concerning them.
But if this chap is indicative of the general quality, we are in for a very rough ride.
The new Cardinal-designate Dew is such a Kasperite he should get the t-shirt. Nothing in what he says would let you think he is a Catholic. He sounds like a Presbyterian wannabe-bishop, bitching and whining around as he reflects on what shade of pink would make him look better.
We do not know about the sexual orientation of this walking disgrace. But the emotional “argument” of the man is so effeminate that one truly wonders.Are there no men left among the leftists?
Firstly, note the expression, apparently used already as early as 2005:
“the scandal of hunger for eucharistic food”.
This is a purely emotional appeal letting the Church appear an…
View original post 554 more words
Read on Rorate Caeli the news of Cardinal Sarah openly warning Francis & Co. about the heresy of detaching the Magisterium from pastoral practice.
His words are brutally clear, and I quote them here again. The emphasis is, I think, Rorate’s.
“The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice — which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions — is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology. I affirm solemnly that the Church of Africa will firmly oppose every rebellion against the teaching of Christ and the Magisterium.”
To call the “theology on his knees” “heresy” and “dangerous, schizophrenic pathology” is, I think, as clear as any word ever pronounced by Cardinal Burke himself. The clear mention that the Church in Africa will “firmly oppose every rebellion” drives another concept home: we will…
View original post 50 more words
The beautiful video from Christopher Ferrara (that I have from Veneremus Cernui) points out to another willfully confusing statement of Francis: that we should pray for the Synod.
This is another of those slimy statement from our slimy man. One who thinks that God evolves can only want to mean that we should pray that the Synod helps us to recognise that He (allegedly) does. Which is heresy and, I would add, blasphemy. Mr Ferrara doesn’t say it so openly, but one gets the message anyway.
But Francis does not criticise only that. He criticises the “gossip”. Which means “I want want we hold as the truth to change, but if you say you are afraid of just that you are gossiping”.
Francis clearly would want us to say nothing before the nuclear explosion, and welcome it as the beginning of a new age afterwards. Fat chance, Frankie.
These methods remind me of those tactics always in use in big office before restructurings. Before it happens, the usual people say “let us not worry about it, we do not know what will happen”. After it has happened, they say “well, it’s too late for complaints now”.
Make no mistake: this restructuring will not work in the end.
There is an excellent blog post from Louie Verrecchio imagining what Francis would say if he were… a Catholic interested in Catholicism instead of a faithless, wordly old man interested in his own self-aggrandisement. I suggest you click here and read the post in its entirety.
I would like here to develop a bit on the point and wonder whether this disgrace of a Pope could not see in environmental issues a way to achieve popularity the easy way.
We all know Francis has already put a huge bomb under the chair of the Church, but the reaction of sincere Catholics who actually believe in heaven and hell defused the bomb before the explosion. The following months showed even to the most stupid (and Francis is not so stupid) that a huge conflict awaits him if he pulls a stunt in Kasper style next October. The events in October also indicate that this here is not a brave man; and we already know that he is a real Jesuit, intended here in the usual meaning of “sly, oily, slippery, accommodating little piece of work”.
What is, then, such a man to do? Could it not be that faced with the choice of being remembered as the Pope of Destruction or the Pope of the Environment, he would choose the second role and a quiet life?
Francis might be content with becoming the Apostle Of Mother Earth. The White Mandela for the stupid masses looking for the World Uncle. The Friend Of The Squirrels. You get the point.
This is easy to do, and not fraught with the potential for self-destruction a Kasperite Campaign starting in October would have not for the Church (which is Indefectible) but for his own very backside.
The issue of the environment would allow him to reach both these objectives: self-promotion among the unthinking masses, and avoidance of a nuclear conflict that could well destroy him in the reputation, if not in the office.
A Pope lives of his being seen as the spiritual guide of Catholics. As the spiritual guide of hippies amidst the ferocious condemnation of Catholics no Papacy has ever been, is, or will ever be worth a dime. And yes, the world at large would still recognise who are the Catholics; even – actually, first of all – those who insult them all the time.
I do not know what the man thinks. I think he is cunning, but I do not think he is intelligent. Actually, he seems to me clearly less endowed than average in that department. He might well feel safe in October, and perhaps use his own environ-mental popularity overdose to think he can pull the Kasper-stunt without danger. But this is rather far-fetched, and contrasts with the obvious CV of a man who was, all his life, not prone to vocal conflict, particularly when dangerous to him. Francis always went for the easy way: the populist rhetoric, the Pinocchio masses, the rides on the bus, the ecu-maniacal stunts, all that pleases the crowds, without ever risking being transferred to the Tierra Del Fuego.
Enviro-Idiot. That would be one possible role for Francis, particularly if it helps him to spare us a nuclear conflict of communion for adulterers. He might well warm to the job. I even hope he will, so that his mind is occupied – and his ego satisfied – elsewhere. Until we get freed from his presence, and pray and hope that a better successor will be given to tend to us.
How we have fallen. Reduced to hope that a Pope might be inducing by wordly popularity to forgive Christ a tad less, or not spit to his face like a mad Roman soldier…
One day all this will be gone. Let’s hope that day comes soon.
The second sodomy reblog
Elton John, the pathetic freak show, has just stated that Francis is “his hero”; seasoning his stupid utterances with the usual bollocks about his own perverted concept of “love”. It is clear here that the pathetic freak show is referring to Francis’ failed attempt to pervert Catholicism toward sexual perversion.
This will make headlines worldwide.
I wonder how many Pollyannas will start to open their big blue eyes after this. A man who is everything the Church considers scandalous and abominable praises a Pope for trying to bring the Church on his side. If this does not open Pollyanna’s big eyes, what ever will?
Open your big blue eyes, Pollyanna. This is a papacy fit for atheists and perverts. By continuing in your increasingly more stubborn blindness, you are endangering your soul.
The recent news about Bishop Finn (and less recent news about Bishop Barros of Chile) allow us to make a very short reflection about Francis:
If you are a decent Bishop, the Pope will let you cook with the slow burner until you are forced out, because it seems you have not always been perfect in the past.
If you are one of his friends, or friends of the friends, you can be an obvious protector of pedophile priests, and he will make you bishop ignoring the massive, massive popular protest.
Francis is like a drunken, inept, stupid king of the past.
One is reminded of William II, the unfortunate son of the more famous William the Conqueror:
arrogant, inept, impious, and possibly a sodomite.
P.s. I read here the open accusation that Bishop Barros would be a homo himself. It would explain the “friends of the friends” connection wonderfully.
Truly, Francis is one of the devil.
Father Z has an interesting mail from a reader whose old priest encouraged the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel after Mass, whilst the new man dismisses the thing as “part of some ultra-conservative agenda”.
I can relate to this as I know a parish where exactly that has happened (the prayer used to be said, and now isn’t), albeit the new man does not appear to be less conservative, rather more afraid of his bishop.
There can be no denying that the prayer to St Michael is radically catholic and, as such, unacceptable to NuChurch. People who recite it must say words like “battle”, “wickedness”, “devil”, “host”, “hell”, “satan”, “ruin of souls” to mention only some parts.
A pagan priest in Francis’ style does not want you to think even for a moment of yourself as engaged in a war, rather in a “dialogue”. He does not like to speak of “wickedness”, much less the one of the devil: he prefers to address the supposed injustices and inequalities in this life. He dares to hope (and is, actually, rather persuaded of that) that hell is empty of human souls, if hell exists at all. He rejects the very concept of “ruin of souls” as referred to the sin of his sheep (adultery, fornication, sodomy), and if something like that must be admitted he prefers to mention it in connection with bankers, oil men, and managers of mining companies.
There can be no doubt that the very invitation to recite such a prayer – nay, the very teaching of it, as the prayer must be, nowadays, taught to your parishioners – is a clear indication of the priest’s desire to engage in exactly that battle the “Francispriest” wants you to forget. In my experience, there are still an awful lot of priests around – Novus Ordo priests, I mean – who have sincere fear of the Lord and interest in the salvation of the souls entrusted to them. But being smart, they recognise that their biggest – or one of their biggest – obstacles lies not in the secular world around them, but in the bishop above them. The prayer to St Michael is one of the ways of calling the souls to arms whilst remaining within the narrow confines of what the bishop considers acceptable, or would not have the nerve to officially discourage. Again, I see this happening – in my frequent Novus Ordo exploration trips – fairly often: a testament, I think, of the good will of many priests, and of the bad will of a couple of bishops.
How to help the good priest in his work? By praying not only for him and for the poor, trampled Church, but also by praying the Prayer to St. Michael with renewed zeal. I recite the prayer every day I see obvious dykes or faggots in the street, which in the modern cesspool known as London is an all but infrequent experience.
Good priests are helped by praying, as is prayer in general.
The more NuChurch does not want us to pray, the more we do.
Just another “religion of mercy” reblog
How powerful they are with the simple! How many of the latter there are!
Cardinal Wuerl has now made clear what the strategy of the Modernist faction (led by TMAHICH) against orthodox Catholics (factually led by the SSPX, and by Cardinal Burke in the Conciliar camp) in the months leading to October will be: comparing them to “dissenters”.
Wuerl’s aim is transparent enough: leveraging on the love for orthodoxy of your common Catholic to create an aura of rebellion around those who defend Catholic orthodoxy, whilst letting the heretics appear orthodox because the Pope sides with them.
Mind, Cardinal Wuerl makes no names concerning who the “dissenting” brother bishops are: but Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider immediately come to mind, together with the five Cardinals who authored “Remaining in the Truth of Christ”. Others have also spoken, but I think these seven are the main targets.
View original post 311 more words
The “Almost like Francis” Reblog
The Mexican Presbyterians have decided, after 139 years, to file for divorce from the PCUSA, the Presbyterian [so-called] Church of the USA.
It would appear that whilst the Holy Ghost spoke to the ones suggesting to them that homosexual priests – I mean here outright sodomites – are just the ticket, the same Holy Ghost spoke to the others – in good Spanish, I presume – telling them that this is a no-no.
As a consequence of this translation/communication/phone signal problems, the two organisations have resulted in an event that can be rightly defined one of the defining features of Protestantism, and a significant Protestant gift to the modern world: divorce.
I do not know whether or how the two organisations will discuss their differences, and whenever I am in front of these situations I can’t avoid being embarrassed for the boys, girls and third sex members (plus all the…
View original post 149 more words
It seems to me the more The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) feels isolated, the more he tries to counterattack with assertions that can only be defined as opposed to Christianity, if not outright blasphemous at least in their end result.
Firstly, Francis has taken on this disgusting (heretic, possibly blasphemous) habit of telling us that whoever does not follow him in whatever heretical (blasphemous?) novelties he preaches displeases God, has no God, is dead inside, or something of the sort.
This time, as you might have read, it is “dialogue”. For two thousand years, Christians wanted to convert. In the age of Francis, suddenly conversion is nowhere to be found. Instead we have “dialogue”, which basically boils down to giving legitimacy to error against a very vague hope that our blabbering may persuade someone to convert out of us telling him to hold on to his Koran.
Who the heck is this old nincompoop; this ass in white; this fat, arrogant, lewd old man to tell us that not only God has changed (an heresy in itself, and a blasphemy in that it obviously denies a fundamental attribute of God’s Divine Perfection), but that he is the legitimate authority, the Chosen One to tell us exactly how God has changed, and how we must behave in order not to displease this, erm, new god Francis apparently knows so well? Give me a stake, and I’ll show you how such arrogance should be fittingly punished (after due deposition, of course; see above in the fixed “pages” for more details).
Then there is the other habit, which enrages me beyond words (even the strong ones), of always comparing Christians to Pharisees.
The evil clown obviously wants to persuade you that the Christians of today are exactly what the Pharisees of yore were: wrong. As the Pharisees were stubbornly attached to an old religion, made obsolete by Christ, Christians who believe in everything in which Christianity has always believed are now obsolete, passé, and left behind by a new god and a new religion; a religion consisting in adoring the Goddess Of Mercy and Francis, her Fat Prophet.
These two heretical, and in the end blasphemous habits both point out to a core message: forget Christianity. We are in a new time of mercy, and this new time has a new god and new rules, and those who follow the Only God and the (forcibly) immutable rules are the bad ones.
My blood boils everytime I read Francis’ pagan preaching; a preaching coming from the Pope, of all people; a satanical cocktail of lies and deception that can only be explained with God’s wrath at his faithless and stupid children; so faithless and so stupid, in fact, that they even reject the concept of God’s wrath. It pains me beyond words that whenever this heretical (or blasphemous) propaganda is spitted by that disgusting mouth, I seldom read more than polite disagreement.
Call him an idiot, a nincompoop, an evil man. That’s who he is, and you know it. Polite disagreement will not make him stop. Worldwide ridicule might.
Let us say it again: the stake is what this man has deserved. I doubt it would be enough to save a man as rotten as this, but you never know.
I am, at least, all in favour of making the attempt.
Rick Santorum is weighing his option as a candidate to be President, and I can’t say I like the way things are going.
Asked whether he would participate to a so-called same-sex marriage (you know: that kind of circus where two perverts smash their own perversion in your face and ask you to “celebrate” it) Mr Santorum is quoted with the following words:
“I would not,” Santorum replied to radio host Hugh Hewitt. When asked why not, he said, “Because I don’t, I’ve just self, as a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”
What the Elton does that even mean?
“A violation of my faith?” Is he apologising? What is he talking about, Truth or the Highway Code?
What about “an abomination”?
And what the Elton (again) does the “support” thing mean? How can anyone “support” anyone else in the latter’s doing something that one knows is gravely evil?
This all sounds so stupid and hypocritical. The message Santorum sends (as read in the linked article) sounds so much like: “I will give you all the support I can, but alas, I can’t be at the ceremony itself”. This sounds like the boy saying “I would like playing soccer with you, but my father has said I must make homework instead; so very sad, but I must obey”.
If Mr Santorum believes in hell and heaven (which I am sure he does), he must say so openly. He must say that he does not take part to the circus ceremony because the entire matter, and not only the ceremony, is gravely evil and bound to send the main actors to hell (and possibly those who area accomplices in their sin; I have no idea to what extent they would be punished in the same way, though I am sure they would be punished harshly) with the Sodom Express.
It’s not about what Mr Santorum’s religion forces him to do, obviously with a degree of reluctant sadness as it clearly emerges from his words. It is about the very objective reality of right and wrong. If Mr Santorum thinks he can take refuge in a kind of “get out of embarrassment card” because hey, it’s his religion, but you can be assured of his “support” in everythign that does not involve participating in ceremonies, we have here another one who has sold his integrity for the sake of a dream that will never become reality anyway.
Man up, Mr Santorum. Stand up to the Truth. Don’t dance around the subject. You will never be President anyway. The best thing you can do is to contribute to the shift of the US political landscape towards sanity.
I am sick and tired of these politicians thinking they must be everything to everyone. The exceptional politician – as opposed to the usual little whore so common in Western democracies – is the one who fights for his own Christian vision of the world and tries his best to shift the voters on his position. It seems to me Mr Santorum is doing exactly the opposite.
Is there *one* candidate who is still ready to stand for Christian values? I dread to read of Ted Cruz making the same mistake Santorum is making. Perhaps he already did, but please don’t send me any link, my old heart asks for some respite at this time.
Santorum must man up and say loud an dclear how things stand. This will be more important as the US Supreme Court – as it appears certain now – will sit squarely on the side of Satan in a matter of one or two months now.
Santorum can’t seriously think the Supreme Court decision will allow him to say “hey, relax, there’s nothing I can do now”. The real battle begins now. Roe vs Wade did not end the abortion controversy, either. He will have to take a stand, and “I would support them” is nothing like taking a stand.
Actually, it is more like bending over.
On the “mainstream” blog “First Things” there is an excellent article from a Maureen Mullarkey about the latest blunder of The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) and, expanding from that, the clownesque, stupid, socialist, godless, self-centred boundless egotism of the man. Follow the link as long as you can. Kudos to Rorate for making us aware of the article.
In case the blog post be taken down, below are some of the pearls. Emphases mine.
Handwriting has been on the wall along the Viale Vaticano from the get-go. At the beginning of his pontificate, Francis revealed himself to be fastidiously attuned to image. He refused to give communion in public ceremonies lest he be photographed giving the sacrament to the wrong kind of sinner. So, when he agreed to pose between two well-known environmental activists and brandish an anti-fracking T-shirt, we believed what we…
View original post 389 more words
I have been kindly directed to an excellent blog post written from Ann Barnhardt; this post concerns on the one hand the similarities between Francis and Obama and on the other hand – and far more importantly – the similarities between the way Francis cajoles the stupid masses and the way Satan tried to tempt Our Lord.
The similarity between the two main populists of our time has been already stressed on this blog several times. The second part hasn’t, and I invite you to take the time to read this long but beautifully written post to become aware of what is going on with this unspeakable Pontificate.
As always, Barnhardt does not mince words: for example, speaking of of Obama and the Unholy Father she writes:
“They are both stupid, babbling fools, completely incoherent when not reading off a script prepared by others. Both are Marxists. Both are media darling fronts for a thuggish regime…”
Harsh? You bet. But seriously: how can truth be condemned because it is a harsh truth? “Babbling fool” is, in fact, the gentlest thing that can be said of both, all other possibilities being even worse for their eternal salvation.
It all boils down to one point: Francis has, like Obama, chosen earth over heaven. And like Obama, very probably he does not believe in the latter. The consequence of this is that secular thinking that always was, is and always will be the tool of Satan to harvest as many souls as he can.
I invite you to read the article, and to say a prayer for the brave author.
It isn’t often that one gets the truth said whole, even when it is harsh.
As many of you know, Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco has been involved in a controversy for some time now, because he insists on unspeakable things like demanding that teachers in Catholic schools live and teach in a Catholic way.
Things have now massively escalated as a group of soi-disant prominent
Catholics dissenters have bought an entire page of the San Francisco Chronicle to ask that the Archbishop be removed, as his obvious Catholicism is out of place in the diocese and could keep other dissenters from deceiving themselves.
I think only one of two can apply here:
1. The dissenters have really – as they claim – tried to obtain the Archbishop's removal through unofficial channels; they have failed, and now bitch in public like it's Elton John Day.
2. The dissenters have been told by friendly sources in Rome: “we can't just move the man out of the blue; but make some Lio and we will take it as an excuse to remove him because hey, he fosters divisions”.
I hope the first, and fear the second. It seems to me very much in tune with this satanical Pontificate that mob-pressure in Stalin-style be used as the excuse for the purge. The obvious Catholicism of Archbishop Cordileone must be unwelcome in Francis' entourage, and runs counter to the anti-Catholic rubbish the Unholy Father goes spitting out of his godless mouth practically every day. I am, therefore, not very optimistic, albeit it can still be that Francis prefers not to create a precedent of the sort, particularly after his extremely controversial appointment in Chile.
The main point of today is, though, a different one: if we had a halfway decent Pope, the public call for his removal would not make any sense both financially and as a PR instrument. Irrespective of how this situation is going to develop, the very fact that the call was published shows how emboldened dissenters feel in the so-called “age of mercy”, where being Catholic is considered unmerciful.
Let us increase our prayers not only for the good Archbishop, but for the end of this satanical Pontificate.
The Unholy Father tries, once again, to muddle the waters of logic and common sense with confused talk about poverty.
Now let us clear a couple of things for the simple: the very first community of Christians put, factually, their goods in common because they were inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit in order to create a leaven that would then allow the Church to grow. But this societal organisation never was the expected model of Christian society, nor did the Church ever encourage this sort of exercise outside of small organisations who freely decide to organise themselves in that way. Not even a priest is obliged to give his patrimony to the Church, much less the poor, much less the Government.
Francis knows that. He knows that, I am sure, even when he is tipsy, which I suspect happens more often than many imagine. But he does not refrain – whether because of alcohol intake, or not – from implying or suggesting that this is the way things are supposed to work now, in the Argentina and Italy and United States of the XXI Century.
This is patently stupid. So what does the man do? He first implies his embracing of the stupid, populist ideology, and then covers his fat backside with some linguistic exercise which boils down to plain, old, Jesuitical deception.
We are, then, informed that “poverty” would be “the capacity to manage my possession with generosity and for the common good”. But this is simply not what poverty is. Poverty is, by definition, a state of unwanted and painful scarcity of, in this case, material goods. Even the simple lifestyle of the man of means who donates much of the income he doesn't even know how to spend can, in case, be defined as an extreme example of generosity, but never of poverty.
So why does Francis push this strange idea of poverty? Because, my dear reader, he wants to expropriate you, as made abundantly clear by his frequent socialist talk of forced redistribution.
The entire thinking is, of course, contradictory and perhaps simply drunken. You can't condemn poverty one day and praise it the day after. But Francis isn't the type to care for coherence, or – I suspect – sobriety. To him, you must put your good at the disposal of the poor. If you don't, the state must take them from you and do it for you. On a planetary scale, the UNO must push for this to happen at interstate level.
Francis is a Socialist's dream, and a Catholic's nightmare. His forma mentis is one of utter and complete Socialism, with the excuse of a very thin varnish or pretend Catholicism.
He is a fraud packaged in lies.
There is a lot of talk about the “recognition” of the SSPX as a Catholic organisation from the Argentinian Government, and with the obvious help of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. Personally, everything seems very straightforward to me, and nothing to get anyone excited.
Bring a Catholic, non-profit organisation obviously gives a legal status in Argentina. Whether it is about tax treatment, or the issuing of visas, or who knows how many other things, being recognised as Catholic has a bearing on your legal status as seen by the Argentinian Government.
The SSPX would obviously never say “we aren't Catholic”. Just as obviously, no archdiocese which does not want to cause a huge uproar – and big trouble with the Vatican, very possibly – would say to the Argentinian Government “they aren't Catholic”. Besides, I imagine that rules of Catholic decency and common courtesy do not allow for this kind of under-the-beltline bickering.
Result? The Archdiocese says to the Argentinian Government “why, we have internal disagreements; but of course, of course they're Catholics”.
Again, I would not want to be the Archbishop who has to explain to the Catholic Press why the SSPX are allegedly “not Catholic”. He would lose face before he loses the argument.
Therefore, the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires has done the only thing it could reasonably expected to do: confirm the reality on the ground.
Of course this is no canonical recognition, something that is nothing to do with how a Government sees you. Of course the SSPX is not now the obedient subject of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. What has simply happened is that the Archdiocese has had the common sense of recognising the reality on the ground: the SSPX is a Catholic organisation, and not less so because of unresolved issues.
There's nothing more than this, I think. It all seems very straightforward. Nothing very exciting has happened.
Unless it be this: that those outlets – not the Vatican – who described the SSPX as schismatic might have some explaining to do. But the latter weren't much fazed by facts beforehand, and will not be swayed by this further occasion for a reality check now.
The SSPX is Catholic. Dogs bark. The sun goes up on the East.
A painfully beautiful blog post addresses the issue that it in our suffering hearts in these disgraceful times.
Where does it end?
Will Francis kiss a Trannie in the mouth one day? Will he give him a dildo as a birthday present because “Jesus would have wanted to let him feel included?” Will he dance in a tutu in St Peter's Square? Will he promote the beatification cause of Saul Alinsky?
I do not know where it does end. I know that it will end when the Lord decides that we have been punished enough, and when our yearning for things as they were leads us to reject the abominations of FrancisChurch.
But even in these times, and most of all in these times, we must keep in mind that it is not for us to question at which point the Church is not the Church anymore, because there is no such point. The Church is Indefectible even if Francis and Bishop Cupich makevlewd sex acts in public. She is Indefectible because the Lord says so. Therefore, nothing that can happen will lead me to question Our Lord's words, and seek for reassurance that “he is still right”. Forget “still”.
What we do, is to question at every step the antics of those (from the Pope down) who defile the Church. It might be that few of us do. It might be that very many of those who are born Catholics in this generation will be damned. But if this is so, they will be damned because they chose to believe lies, not because the Church is a lie.
Whenever you get discouraged, reflect on this: the lowest point of the Church was, very arguably, not during the Arian crisis or the Great Schism or the Protestant revolt. It was, arguably, when her first designated head, the one slated for being Her pastor in chief on earth, the one chosen by Christ as the first stone of the Divine Edifice, denied God three times.
The Church recovered then. She will recover now.
Where does it end?
We do not know. But we stand resolute in our intention to condemn bad pastors whatever happens, and stand with the Church whatever happens.
The always unbelievably satanical Nick Clegg (head of a fifth-wheel party largely noticed in the last five years for its vast uselessness) has proposed that a new profession be introduced in Britain: the professional surrogate for fags wanting to “have a child”.
Apparently, such monstrous “uterus for hire” agreements are already legal in the Socialist Republic of California, so if it is good for a country of legalised potheads it cannot be bad for LibDem Britain, can it now?
Clegg is not slow to point out that there are more fags wanting a new toy than women with a fully unnatural desire to have a baby in their womb for nine months and then… give it away. Life is astonishing, isn't it?
So let's put money into the equation, says Cleggy, Cameron's demure and very girlish boyfriend, and let us hire some prostitute uterus ready to be occupied for money, for nine months, for the pleasure of two fags. I am sure, absolutely sure, the same Clegg would consider the usual prostitution (the occupation of a sexual organ, for probably no longer than eight to twelve minutes, for money, and for the pleasure of one man) immoral; but hey, logic has left the man a long time ago, and I am afraid he will rediscover its cold touch only when he finds himself in hell.
It is completely pathetic how this fifth-wheel party tries to gain relevance by obsessing over the “rights” of an extremely tiny minority of perverts, hoping that the growing mass of the accomplices in the sin of sodomy may give them their vote because they… help fudge-packers to pack more fudge with such enthusiasm.
I doubt the strategy will fly. Fifth wheels are fifth wheels, and everyone looking at the car knows they don't count much.
Nick “Girlish boyfriend” Clegg might discover it very soon, too.
I had joked some days ago, and said I missed the Trannie at Francis' Easter stunt.
Turns out I was wrong: one of the “women” (“Trannii probati”, evidently…) who got their feet washed was, you got it, a Trannie. Said Trannie also had the effrontery of receiving communion, at the hands of another priest, and live on Television, shortly thereafter.
If Francis knew of this, the degree of evil of this man clearly goes beyond what even I had imagined, making nothing less than a satanic mockery of Jesus' washing of the feet of His disciples.
But let us imagine that this was not the case. Let us imagine that Francis hasn't noticed the voice of the man, or in his innocence (provided such an old lewd man like him has any left) really thought her a woman, or has not noticed the man's Adam's apple (which, for all I know, should be an inescapable giveaway even if the man stays there without uttering a word, and hidden behind a ton of hair). Let us imagine all this, out of a charitable attitude the man (Francis, I mean here) does not deserve in the least.
Even if Francis has, in hypothesis, not willingly washed the feet of a Trannie, what has happened goes to show what the consequences of these media stunts are. Jails do not gather the most beautiful flowers of humanity. The Church certainly belongs in a jail, but the Church belongs there in order to convert or reform the sinners, not to encourage them in their sins. The latter is, most certainly, what has happened with this disgraceful episode.
There is no possible universe in which a Trannie can present himself for communion dressed like a woman – and therefore fully embracing, for everyone to see, his own perversion – and receive worthily. Her very attitude, clothes, walk, talk, in short: all her person will scream: “I am in mortal sin!”
If we can accept a world in which that is not mortal sin, then nothing must be a mortal sin. If we make excuses for a man dressed like a woman, there is no case in which we cannot fabricate excuses. If it is possible to walk, act, dress, and therefore live in perpetual defiance of Our Lord without this being a mortal sin, then it is impossible to see how the public concubine should not be able to receive communion. If we make allowance for, say, a fantasy “repentance” just before receiving, we must make the same allowance for the child rapist just before he proceeds to rape the child, and then again just before killing him.
Mortal sin is not only the specific act of, say, sodomy, or fornication between concubines. Mortal sin is already in the public scandal: in the obvious, and public, defiance of Our Lord's laws. This is why the public concubine is in mortal sin qua public concubine, and not only if she has sex. This is why the very fact of living in sin in front of the community excludes from communion even if Mr Concubine happens to be secretly impotent, and Mrs Concubine happens to be the frigidest bitch alive.
This is another grave scandal born of the immense stupidity – even excluding the evil intent – of this pontificate.
A Trannie had his feet washed, in place of men chosen in order to remind us of the Apostles. Men who had, traditionally, to be people of tested repute in their own community: viri probati. In the past age of sanity, even an immoral man would have been considered, and emphatically so, not worthy of having his feet washed on Maundy Thursday. We live in times in which a Trannie has his feet washed and no doubt many idiots, even among Catholics, wax lyrical about the “peripheries”, and all that rubbish.
Huge blunder or willed, satanical mockery? I do not know.
But it tells you everything you need to know about this Pontificate.
“Remaining in the Truth of Christ”, the “five Cardinals' book” already the object of the famous “raid” at the Vatican (where manipulation, theft, and lies are nowadays called “mercy”) is now available in the Polish version, and carries the endorsement of the Polish Bishop's Conference.
One cannot imagine many warning shots clearer and louder than this one. Instead of expressing themselves in favour of the Sacrament in single statements, the Polish Bishops endorse the entire book, en bloc.
Let us skip the niceties here, and let us say straight who the addressee of the endorsement is: the Unholy Father himself, as he lives and… eats. It is not really thinkable that the Bishops would make such a statement merely to slap a couple of German prelates. Rather, they are putting their very face on the line, and stating clearly that they are compelled to defend Christ's teaching wherever the attack may come from.
It would be beautiful if other Bishops' Conferences would follow the example, but I doubt there will be any other takers. In the chaotic hours after the homosexual Relatio post disceptationem the Poles were exemplary, other Western Bishops' Conferences certainly weren't.
It is good that these warnings are sent. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Those within the Church who are ready to fight and to fight hard – and to fight hard against the Pope, if needs be – can do nothing better than to say it out loud, and let whoever has ears to hear.
The other way – the naive hope that there is no need for such warnings, because they could be interpreted as hostile to the Unholy Father; who, being a nice chap, doesn't want to do anything naughty anyway… – only emboldens the enemy; and yes, I am talking of Francis. I do not think the Polish bishops have many illusions as to who the enemy is. They do not say it openly, of course, but it's clear enough.
Francis understands very well the universal language of a – metaphorical – punch on the nose. Last October he showed how ready he was to backpedal, though not without some bitching to let us know how cross he was. But the bitching was merely the petty revenge of the bad loser: in the end he knew what he had to do, and he caved in to the pressure because he immediately realised he could not afford a massive conflict with his own bishop.
This, my friends, is the way. Those prelates who still care for their own salvation must keep sending warnings, and at the same time put their face on the line: if given the choice between remaining in the truth of Christ and selling out to the lies of Francis, they won't choose Francis.