Monthly Archives: August 2015

“Here Is My Body, Please Stay Away From It?”

consecration

 

 

I have already written a blog post about the Novus Ordo and us. As the work has already been made, I suggest that you follow the link and read there, if you are interested. 

Today, I would like to expand (not a little) on one or two aspects of the matter. Please note I do not want to be polemical towards anyone, and respect the views of sincere Catholics in defence of Tradition. At the same time, I think I must speak on the matter.  

————

If you think that the Novus Ordo is offensive to God, and therefore a well-instructed and devote Catholic has no obligation to attend such a Mass and actually should avoid it, I cannot avoid the following conclusions from the reasoning:

  1. That the Church that Christ founded failed to, was unable to, or refused to give the faithful a Mass to which a well-instructed Catholic should attend in pretty much 99.99% of the cases between the end of the Sixties, and the Indult.
  2. That the Church that Christ founded was, after the Indult and slowly more so since Summorum Pontificum, able to provide a very small percentage of Masses to which a well-instructed Catholic should attend. All the rest was and is good for the Catholic Helots at best, and only because they can’t see the evil in it. 

We can, in both cases, add the SSPX masses to the percentage, because like many others I am unable to consider the SSPX in any way, shape or form less than 100% Catholic. Still, the conclusion remains the same: if you follow this reasoning, the Church has been unable to function as Church for those well-instructed Catholics, who have therefore been free from the obligation to attend to Mass – and consequently deprived of the Sacrament every time they would have received – in something similar to 100% of the cases for more than a decade, and something not very far away from that afterwards. 

This is, if you ask me, a very dangerous reasoning. It says that the Church has failed in being the Church, on a global scale; that she was unable to work as such. If we follow this train of thought she has, during the last five decades or so, allowed the uneducated masses (a difficult concept, this: in the first times after the Council the masses were rather well educated; the decadence set up only in the following decades) to fulfill a mass obligation in a way that is offensive to God.

This dangerous reasoning must perforce lead us to create, as it were, two churches: the Church of all times, which produced Masses the faithful had to attend to; and this strange “other ” church, “the church of Paul VI”, which is so radically different from the other church that she can’t even manage to celebrate a Mass to which alert, properly instructed Catholics should attend. A church so bad that… the first precept of the Church does not apply to her. 

We are, here, clearly sliding toward  Sedevacantism, then this “poisoned church” – poisoned to the point of not being factually able to produce anything but a poisonous Mass – can and, at this point, probably should be questioned in her legitimacy as the Church of Christ, from the Pope down. 

——

I allow myself to propose a different reading; a reading that has, in my eyes, the immense advantage of making my thinking coincide with the reality I see around me, that is: with the Catholic Masses celebrated – most of them, reverently – by the Church; in addition, this other reading coincides with the fact that this Church must, if she is to be considered the Church, still be able to produce Masses and Sacraments for the faithful which a good, well-informed Catholic should take part to; a Church, in other words, still able to bind us to her precepts instead of making of them a mockery for everyone who is smart and educated enough in catholic things to see how bad she is.  

A Church dissolved in thin air – not in her existence as Church, but in her ability to work as such –  for the work of one Pope does not really look like the Church to me. It seems as if this kind of church were if not defectible, at least extremely collapsible, able to almost disappear from the face of the earth as the provider of Masses for the real Catholics, and all this in a handful of years. It would become, at such lightning speed, the provider of Masses which: a) are perfectly valid, and 2) result in a true Consecration, but at which 3) I, a well-instructed Catholic, should not take part, deciding for myself that I am too well-instructed for the Sunday mass obligation to apply to me. 

This seems utterly illogical to me. It seems to me that if a Mass were a grave offence to God, God would not – as it is the case in the case of grave offencegrace this Mass with a valid Consecration. But if the valid Consecration is there, it seems to me that the Mass – sub-optimal and second-class as it is – is good enough for Him. And if it is good enough for Him it is good enough for your humble correspondent, too. 

A merciful God allows – following the image used in the other post – that wine be substituted for Coca-Cola, and still does not take distance from us. I for myself will then stay near to Him. But it’s coca-cola, not poison. It’s a valid Mass with a valid consecration. It’s still – theologically and sacramentally – the real thing, badly executed.  

In saying so I do not think that I am being truly ignorant, much less deliberately evil. I give an answer to a terrible dilemma that seems to me the one most aligned with what the reality I see around me (that there are worldwide valid masses, and a worldwide mass obligation), and with what it seems to me very natural, and very Catholic, that the Church would want me, the poor layman, to do: obey and suffer. May the priest think differently – and I myself will even praise him for it – I cannot find any reason to say that I have the same choice, because if I do so I declare that the church has, to 99%, ceased to exist as we all know and see her.  

I remember reading the words of Padre Pio, to the effect that the Church must be loved even when She kills us (as someone always asks I prevent the question, and answer that I think it was here; but no guarantee). It seems to me that the Sacrament should be adored, and the Body of Christ partaken in, and our duties complied with, even when this happens in a very sub-optimal, second-class manner. It seems to me that I will know when I die why Christ allowed that His own Church should fail to offer to Him the most reverent of Masses, but that at the same time it is not for me to refuse which Mass He, in His Providence, should decree that I, a wretched sinner, must suffer in expiation of my manifold sins. It seems to me that I have deserved this Mass, because in my wretched sinfulness I myself have put – through my Original Sin, of course – Christ on that very Cross, and if I am given the enormous privilege of receiving Him it is not for me – provided, of course, the consecration took place – to say that not only I will not approach the altar (I have no obligation to do so more than once a year, and might have many reasons not to do so anyway), but I will stay away from the Mass altogether. A Mass, mind, that I know valid, and resulting in the miracle of the Consecration every time, and to which I know I do have an obligation to attend.

I allow myself to say it once again: I do not see the NO as offensive to God, but I do not think that I am being ignorant. I do not think that I am being evil. I think that I am applying common sense, and I claim for myself the right to do what every generation of Catholics before me did: fulfill my obligation by going to a valid Mass, where I can at least witness – if I do not want to partake in it – the greatest miracle on earth, every time, and a gift that Christ still gives to us, still gives to us!

And no, it is not about my spiritual gifts. It is not about how how I feel. It is not about me in any way. It is about what I am told to do.

I want to die doing what the Church tells me to do whenever this is not in contrast with what the Church always told us to do. Mass obligation is a precept of the Church. The Mass is valid. The Consecration takes place. Case closed.

But what about love? Should there not be an overarching principle at work here?

The reasoning seems strange to me. Christ comes to me in the form of the Blessed Sacrament and I should, out of love,  refuse to even witness this greatest of miracles of love? Which of God’s gifts should I ever refuse out of … love for Him? What does God say to the well-instructed Catholic: “Here is my body, please stay away from it?”

I allow myself to offer another example of love. Think of the old woman who came home from the new Mass at the end of the Sixties and cried tears of sorrow, but still went to Mass. She knew how to show her love. 

We suffer and we obey. We give our suffering to the Lord. If we think the Mass is so horrible that Christ does not come in the form of a valid consecration, we avoid that Mass. If He is there, we want Him to find us! Crying if needs be, but there!

We find the most reverent mass we can. If we are lucky, we might have a TLM (Yes, SSPX too! What a blessing!). But if not, we think of the old woman above, and we love Christ exactly as she did.  

I have the greatest respect – again, refer to the linked post – for those priests who consider it impossible for them to celebrate such a Mass as the Novus Ordo. But the reasoning cannot apply to the laity, because it would lead 99% of them to contravene to the obligation to attend Mass, and would lead to the absurd conclusion of a Church individually declared incapable to properly work as such, as described above.

I do not think this is a rational position. Rather, I consider this position a very dangerous one.   

M

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

The “Reward” Reblog

The “Reward” Reblog

Of Course They Do!

Pope Sign

Does he mean “two rosaries?” No, that can’t be…

 

Very noble, and very interesting blog post from Tantumblogo at the Blog for Dallas Area Catholics. The blog post is a suffering, but rather cold-headed analysis of everything that has gone wrong with CMTV in the last… present Pontificate. I think the time spent reading the post will be time well spent.

I want to attract your attention on a rather interesting revelation made by Tantumblogo. The emphases are mine. 

The amazing thing is, privately, CMTV staff are totally willing to bash the living crap out of Pope Francis!  In fact I’ve heard some of the key players at CMTV say things regarding Pope Francis (privately) that go much beyond anything I or many others have written.  But because they’ve gotten totally twisted off on this notion of “never criticize the pope publicly, no matter what,” and the complimentary notion that any criticism of the Pope will cause huge numbers of souls to “fly” to the SSPX, they refuse to broach this belief in public.

I had to smile at reading the paragraph. So, CMTV staff are willing to bash the living crap out of Pope Francis, uh? Of course they do! It confirms to me what I have always thought: that with all their mistakes – I do not think here principally of the SSPX, but of the insults to John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt and Louie Verrecchio; insults for which, as far as I know, there has never been an apology – these “key players at CMTV” do love the Church. And if you love the Church, you will bash & Co, & Co.

But then again I reflect on this: that those who do so most certainly do so because they see in Francis a danger for the salvation of souls, and a wound in the body of the Church. No other motive – and certainly not personal antipathy – would justify such a behaviour.

But then one wonders how this behaviour can be deeply felt, and the consequences of it not drawn. If Francis is a danger for the salvation of souls – and it must be, for them to bash etc. – why would they not publicly warn about this danger? And if this danger is seen and nothing is done in public, those who bash privately should ask themselves what it is with being accessory to another’s sins through, erm, well, silence, and whether they are working for the right organisation.

It is hard to wake up in the morning and hope the radio will announce that the pope has died. But every day that the radio does not make the announcement Francis contributes to more souls being lost. Therefore, I repeat my invitation to the readers to pray for the end of this scourge: through conversion if can be, and through resignation or a painless death otherwise. This is – perhaps bar the resignation, which is a newer fashion – what pious Catholics before us have done. We should take an example from them, stop making of human life our god, and start realising that a Pope unrelentingly working against Christ deserves to have the living, if metaphorical, shit bashed out of him every day his disgraceful pontificate goes on.

M

Francis Effect Revisited

The circus was emptying fast...

The circus was emptying fast…

Sandro Magister has the figures, and Father Z has the text.

In occasione della centesima udienza generale [On the occasion of the 100th general audience] del pontificato di papa Francesco, mercoledì 26 agosto, la prefettura della casa pontificia ha comunicato che a questi cento appuntamenti hanno preso parte in totale 3.147.600 persone, così distribuite anno dopo anno:

– 1.548.500 i presenti alle 30 udienze del 2013,
– 1.199.000 i presenti alle 43 udienze del 2014,
– 400.100 i presenti alle 27 udienze del 2015.

Questo significa che anno dopo anno la media dei presenti a ciascuna udienza è stata la seguente: [the average at each audience]

– 51.617 persone nel 2013,
– 27.883 persone nel 2014,
– 14.818 persone nel 2015.

Quindi ogni nuovo anno con la metà di presenze dell’anno precedente. [Each year, half the number of the year before.]

Nè le vacche magre sembrano scongiurate, visto che alla centesima udienza di mercoledì scorso è stato comunicato che sono accorsi solo “in più di diecimila”.  [at the 100th there were “more than 10K”]

O my. Francis’ popularity is going down faster than the Ukrainian economy. It’s more than a crisis, it’s an outright meltdown.

The sad thing is that I do not think the rejection comes out of a newly found orthodoxy. More likely, it’s just that Generation Dalai Lama loves being excited and praised by new people every now and then.

Francis always telling them how good they are in their fornication, abortion, sodomy, and assorted sinfulness has tired them already. They are now looking for the next exciting guy who amuses them making things he is not supposed to do. I suggest that the Queen starts dancing the Macarena with Prince Philip. That would keep Generation Stupid occupied for an entire week.

Father Z has some other, very dry observations:

The square is emptier and emptier.

And it’s not because of the general secularization.

Romans aren’t going either, so it isn’t the economic slump.

No, it isn’t the economic slump. And it’s not the cold or the rain. It’s even summer, for crying out loud.

It’s that if you make of yourself the Miley Cyrus of the Catholic world, at some point your fans will abandon you for the next twerking slut.

M

The “Another Francis Effect” Reblog

Another “Francis Effect”

The “You Have Been Warned, Ma’am” Reblog

“You Have Been Warned, Ma’am”

Reblog: No Time For Protocol

No Time For Protocol 

“Can You Bone That Baby Leg For Me, Please?” Meet The Sensitive Nazi Scientist.

The Liberal US Flag

The Liberal US Flag

The shocking tale of the genocidal madness of the likes of Planned Parenthood and StemExpress keeps presenting us with ever new sides of the unbelievably cruel, heathenish world we are living in.

In a new, not very funny phone call we are informed some of the Nazi scientists are having “meltdowns”, and “freaking out”, at being confronted in a too clear manner that they are dissecting babies in best Nazi Scientist Trafition. However, in that retarded English typical of so many adults Americans nowadays we are told that many of those scientist are not disinclined at all to be Nazi Scientists in principle, provided they are not confronted with the reality of their being Nazi Scientists in actual fact. “Please bone the baby for me” – they say to StemExpress like you would say to your butcher – “I am a tad impressionable in these matters, you know…”. Then, the Mad Order of Things is re-established, and Nazi Scientist can go home without unpleasant images of real limbs of real babies in his mind.

I do not have adjectives for this anymore. It seems to me a Nazi Scientist was far more honest than these people, in that he had the honesty of knowing what he was doing and did not foolishly try to hide it from himself. Nor can the excuse be made that Modern Nazi Scientist thinks what he does is necessary to create a better world, then this is a common traits of most genocidal criminals from Hitler to Stalin, and from Pol Pot to Obama.

No. The Nazis are among us. They reach levels of cruelty and lack of humanity that normal, humane people cannot even imagine.

But they do so in a very sensitive manner, and – in contrast to their Nazi teachers – prefer to have their baby boned.

M

Let’s Talk About Clowns

Yes, always the same chap...

The blog “the tenth crusade” has an article whose content I do not feel I should entirely approve – the part about the SSPX I most certainly do not approve -, but which, besides its undoubted intrinsic merits, contains a wonderful digression as follows:

This is really the crux of the problem with Pope Francis, isn't it?

His conduct is that of the typical pastor who wants to bring in the heretics to teach our family, and when we point out the spiritual malpractice, he's written a book of insults to give witness to our children that we are antiquated sourpusses who can't enjoy a little clapping fornication. He has shipwrecked thirty years of catechesis in the family and parishes trying to help us navigate through the clapping fornication they are drilling into children at schools and the culture. On top of the bozo the clown act, he is surrounding our children with the clapping fornication show and culture of death and applauding it on the sidelines.

An absolute shipwreck that will take a generation to recover — some of our own children will be swept away and he's fixed it so there is little we are able to do.

I digress.

Truly beautiful digression. It shows another devout Catholic for whom it is natural, speaking of orthodoxy and heresy, to say that Francis is heretical, insulting to Catholics he hates, very clearly approving of the culture of death and, in a word, pretty much Bozo the Clown. The entire digression flows so naturally, the comparison with the heretical priest is so vivid, the clown comparison so obvious, the knowledge of the reader of the Pope's heresy so naturally understood, that no one is aware of any logical jump of any sort. If you talk of heretics within the Church, Francis obviously comes to mind.

The pope is compared to Bozo the Clown. You know the comparison is very fitting. If thousands of blogs like this had written thousands of comparisons like this one, I cannot imagine that we would be where we are now, politely awaiting to see what kind of havoc Francis will wreak in October.

But I suppose politeness, and not be seen as aggressive, must come first, and truth second. If Francis truly goes nuclear in October there will still be time for more polite disagreement.

M

 

“The Vatican Did Not Oppose The Project”.

 

 

If you hate Catholicism, but can't say it out loud, you will find one thousand and one ways to send the message that Catholicism is a wise choice at best, and oppressive machine at worst. You will, most importantly, always convey the impression that there is nothing particularly right in Catholicism, much less that everything that is not Catholic is wrong.

You can accept a crucifix with a hammer and sickle, mock those who count their rosaries, or simply explain to the half-asleep that Catholicism is this or the other, which is exactly the contrary of what your Grandma always thought it was.

Suddenly everyone is good in his own way, and we must admire all of them because the Pope, in his vast mercy, either promotes or does not criticise them. Other religions, heresies, no religion at all. If one follows his conscience, who is he to judge?

We now know of another way.

The Council in Rome decides to dedicate a square to Martin Luther.

“The Vatican did not oppose the project”.

M

 

Pray For Jimmy Carter, Satan’s Prize Fool.

Jimmy Carter is, as most of you know, pretty much about to meet his Maker. Or not, as the case may be.

I will, here, charitably shut up about his disastrous Presidency, the like of which we could witness again only if some U.S. Born Bergoglio became President of the Unites States. I will focus instead on Mr Carter utterly and completely satanical “view” of Christianity, and on the probable consequences for him if we were to die as stupidly as he has always lived.

Christianity has one clear mark, that was its distinctive trait from the start: it never allowed anyone to cook his own homemade Christian soup. You are told what Christianity teaches, and you have no excuses for believing something different from it. If you do, you can't hide behind your finger stating that you are oh so pious, and in such good faith. You aren't, and you aren't. All the rest is poppycock. Therefore, if you state that Jesus would approve of so-called “gay marriage” you are an enemy of Christ whatever your disgusting show of pretend Christian piety; and you will not fool anyone, least of all Christ.

In the case of our own US Jimmy Dismal, the following applies:

1. There is no doubt whatever Christianity was brought to the man.

2. He defies Christianity openly.

3. He does so, inter alia, in a matter concerning natural law.

4. He dares to proclaim his scandal publicly.

5. He dares to call his scandal ” Christian”.

Please do not even start to say that the poor man has been badly advised, or has forgotten, or had a sad childhood, or has eaten too many peanuts, or is too stupid to understand anything. Jimmy Carter is undoubtedly an idiot, but not of the retarded type. Rather, he is an idiot like Francis is an idiot: so much a prisoner of his arrogance that he thinks he can challenge God and get away with it. He is a fool, not a demented person.

Plus (and that would be number 3) sodomy is, like all perverted acts, against natural law. Even a heathen would not have any justification for stating that Our Lord would approve of so-called “gay marriage”. But when one makes such statement who perfectly well knows why Sodomy is called that way I see satanical arrogance at work.

Jimmy Carter is about to meet His maker as an openly satanical caricature of Christianity, blaspheming the name of the Lord in ways that no generation before this one would have tolerated since the West became Christian. What to do, then?

We should pray for his eternal soul, of course; because idiot as he is, his soul has infinite value in the eyes of the Lord. But we should also very drily reflect what is very probably going to happen to the man if he dies unrepentant; because whilst we can never know with ultimate certainty, a Christian isn't supposed to be so incurably stupid as to think that a tool like Jimmy Carter is not looking for damnation with the outmost zeal. Those who do so ignore the very stern warning of our Lord about keeping His commandments exactly as Carter ignores the stern warning God gave to us when Sodom was destroyed.

I invite you once again to overcome your natural and perfectly justified sense of aversion, disgust and sheer contempt for the man, and to pray for his immortal soul; then we are Christians, and we pray even for the enemies of Christ, that they may die in friendship with Him. But don't be surprised if you also shiver at the idea of how the man, and very many like him, have been deceived by Satan to this point of sheer blind arrogance, of hypocritical total revolt.

Make no mistake: no one can call himself a friend of Christ who spits on his face as Carter does, all the while claiming to be on his side.

Pray for him, then.

And shiver.

M

 

Excellent Michael Voris Video. No, Really!

Let The Sword Wound Mortally

wpid-Photo-20150802153114902.jpg

Evil Clown.

This, my dear readers, is one of the rare occasion when I link to a (quality) Sedevacantist site. I do not need to repeat here (but I do it anyway) that Sedevacantism is wrong, you might endanger your soul if you follow it, and I will continue to delete any comment even vaguely smelling of Sedevacantism, because in this blog we prefer to deal with reality – however unpleasant – rather than fabricating a reality of our own for our own reassurance.

Capito?   Very well..

The article merits the very rare honour of a mention on this blog because of its very extensive, and very catholic explanation of what a Catholic is supposed to do or not do in time of heresy or emergency, or when the enemy tries to strike at the foundation of Truth.

I leave you to read for yourself the parts concerning:

  1. the “uncharitable” words of Our Lords. Words which, if written today in a catholic blog, would attract all kind of accusations of being uncharitable, inflammatory, and utterly counterproductive.
  2. the distinction between right criticism and contumely, a concept utterly lost in the Patheos-like blogosphere.
  3. further proof of “uncharitable” words from the Old testament.
  4. The necessary requirement that the accusations be truthful.

After you have perused the first parts, I will attract your attention on the last one: the retaliation ad hominem in the face of enemy attack.

Here, I leave the word to the author, Father Felix Sarda Y Salvani. I liked the emphases, and kept them.

CHAPTER 21 Personal Polemics and Liberalism

“It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines” some may say, “but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?” We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.

The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads, they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust into the background. We have reason–and substantial reason–on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased.

The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate of themselves. Left to themselves–if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them–they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective, when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them, the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would not be common sense.

The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their bands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat [“out of the fight”], he can do no more mischief.

It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an “i'” As a French writer says: “Truth is the only charity allowed in history,” and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.

The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal–a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.

Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.

—-

A disease is inseparable from the person of the diseased. Francis is an Evil Clown because he is a heretic and enemy of the Church, and for no other reason. I don’t know the man. As far as I know he could have died in Buenos Aires without myself and countless bloggers even becoming more than vaguely aware of his existence. But I know the heretic. Now that is the problem.

Very often, says the author, it is indispensable and meritorious before God and men to attack those who uphold error. I suggest that one reflects ten thousand times before doing so with a Pope. But I also suggest that he reflects, with the same intellectual honesty and fear of the Lord, whether the heresy upheld by the very pope does not make the pope infinitely more worthy of personal attack and mockery than anyone else. Then at some point you will have to decide what is more important to you, Christ or Francis; and in front of such unprecedented attack I do not think Christ will look very mildly on you if you think you can sit on the fence and content yourself with “on the one hand” and “on the other hand”.

The situation of a pope constantly and publicly attacking the faith is unprecedented. Un.pre.ce.den.ted. Christ and His Truth are always the same. Choose this day to Whom your allegiance goes, and do not think being a pansy will bring you anywhere. Christ did not come bringing pansies. He came with a sword.

We must inspire contempt and horror in the heart of the multitude. The multitudes aren’t very impressed if you write that, with all due respect, you think that the words of the Holy Father have been, perhaps, and how shall you put it, a tad imprudent. This is going to go exactly nowhere, though it might make you feel better in the moment.

The reader must have the reality smashed in front of his face. Contempt and horror. That’s the way.

It is not enough to criticise the cannon. The gunner must go down. If you can look at the last two and a half year and not understand who the Chief Gunner is, I smell reprobation in you. Amazingly, an army of bloggers very well know who the Chief Gunner is. But they think they are fine with writing that the cannon is very bad, but the “holy” gunner is probably just badly advised, and they are sure he is the holiest of men.

Is it permissible, then, to aim at the gunner?

“Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach”.

Amen. Read it again. And again. What shall we do: look at heresy advance and oppose our polite disagreement?

“When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war”.

Look! A man! Not one of those polite pansies of the “I wish our dear pope Francis would talk less to the journalists” sort.

We are in the middle of a war against heresy, in which the Pope sides with the heretics and leads their army. The sooner you get this, the sooner the huge cognitive dissonance in your brain will dissolve and make place for a clear understanding of reality.

Reality is shouting at us in the face. It says that there obviously is a Pope, and that this Pope is a heretic (as happened in the past already). What is different today is that the Pope’s heresies travel around the word in hours, and they basically never stop coming in one form or another. Today’s papal heresy is more dangerous than any heresy of the past, with the possible exception of the Arian one. Today’s heresy is both far more pervasive and far more insisted than the ones of the past. It is also more dangerous, because whilst the man will never fool a properly instructed – or even serious and sincere – Catholic, he will create a cultural ripple effect that will spread very wide, and countless atheists or indifferent people will take it as a matter of simple truth that the church “changes” and wants to “steer a new course” on adultery, fornication, sodomy & Co, like any political party or protestant sect. This equates to neutering the message of the Church for everyone who does not know it already. It’s the perfect de-evangelisation tool. Satan at work all right.

Look at reality. Realise that you cannot shape your own world at your own liking. Face the reality of an Evil Clown as Pope. 

And then take your sword and your rosary, and fight as bravely as you can.

You don’t want to die and say: “I wanted to be polite”. You want to die and say: “I saw the evil, and I called it with its name”.

Let the sword wound mortally.

M

The “Princess Grace” Reblog

The “Princess Grace” Reblog

The Athanasius Question

Athanasius was excommunicated. He continued his job, uncaring. More than that – and something I seldom read about – he and St. Eusebius started appointing bishops of their own, again ignoring the Pope. The bishops they appointed – and I read about that seldom, too – were not bishop without territorial jurisdiction, like the SSPX one. They were bishops in charge of a diocese all right. Nor can it be said that in that world of difficult communications the Pope might not have had control of certain territories. Firstly, it is poppycock (communications in the Roman Empire were, like all the rest, stunningly efficient), secondly it is neither here nor there, because the fact remains that Athanasius and Eusebius clearly appointed those bishops without caring a bit of what the Pope thought about it. He could approve them if he wanted to. If he did not like them, though luck.

To make a modern comparison, it is as if the SSPX appointed the new archbishop of Chicago without either asking or caring for what Francis says, and the Catholic faithful of Chicago accepted this appointment as a matter of course, fully uncaring of Francis’ more or less sensible thought on the matter.

Let us, then, now pose the “Athanasius question”: did those Bishops have jurisdiction? Could they hear confession, administer the Last Rites, marry their sheep? And could the priests appointed by them do the same?

If yes, why? If not, why not?

It is very tricky, the Athanasius question. There is no doubt whatever Athanasius was a Lefebvre on steroids. There is also no doubt there was no precedent for the situation in which Athanasius found himself, whilst the SSPX has the shining example and illuminating precedent of… Athanasius. We know as a fact that Athanasius refused to obey to the point of incurring excommunication, did not recant after receiving it, appointed bishops of his own, and really did not care what Patheos would have said.

Therefore, if you follow modern mainstream V II conservatism Athanasius and his brave men had no jurisdiction, those sacraments were not valid, etc. If, however, we accept the principle that when those at the top behave like heretics the tough Catholics begin to play then we must apply the same reasoning to the 100%, 2k years-certified SSPX.

There is no doubt in my mind that the second applies. Every now and then, the Church loses her mind from the very top. It is then the task of a handful of very tough Catholics to simply keep doing what they have always done, safe in the certainty of their orthodoxy because… they do what Catholics have always done. There is no better guarantee of orthodoxy, and no better litmus test of Catholicism.

Athanasius did not know when sanity would come back. Nor did he ever care. He kept doing the Catholic thing and if the entire world derides him, so be it. Athanasius knew he might have to die in the middle of rampant, apparently triumphant heresy. He did not care for that, either.

Truth is truth. How many people refuse to follow the truth is ultimately irrelevant. If the Pope sabotages the truth, then he will be punished more harshly unless he repents, but sabotage it still is.

Truth is truth. It does not depend of from the rank of those who spread lies.

So: Athanasius disobeyed to the Pope. What say you? Athanasius appointed bishops, and bishops with territorial competence, fully ignoring the Pope. Schism? Athanasius decided to disobey and to die, if needs be, excommunicated for being (far) more Catholic than the Pope. What is the difference with Archbishop Lefebvre?

Why, why all those semi-conservative legalists apply all their clerical rigidity to Archbishop Lefebvre, and forget all of it when they speak of Athanasius? Was Athanasius schismatic in the moment, and Catholic only after victory? Or was he, as logic commands, 100% Catholic all the time?

The Athanasius question cannot be easily avoided. It stares at us straight in the face every time we compare Athanasius’ “disobedience” to Lefebvre’s. It has no other answer than this: no heresy can be acceptable because it’s promoted or protected or encouraged from the very Pope, and those who defend orthodoxy are right even when the pope excommunicates them.

In times of great turmoil, God sends us great men.

Thank God for Athanasius, and for Archbishop Lefebvre.

M

 

 

By All Means, Attend Mass At An SSPX Chapel!

So, should we attend a SSPX Mass? Most people (even conservative ones) say “no”. Other people say “of course”. I personally say “by all means, but paying attention it does not lead you culpably go down the wrong path”.

The short, but already meaningful history of this little effort shows than not a few are the cases of people who start attending a TLM – which can easily be in a SSPX chapel – and after a while throw away the child with the bath water and become either Sedevacantists or so venomous against the Church that one does not understand what their understanding of Catholicism is.

I cannot – in the same way as Bishop Schneider – detect any area in which the SSPX are not Catholic. It is, therefore, a mystery to me how this previously unknown concept of “imperfect communion” may work. The SSPX are as Catholic as they come, and infinitely more Catholic than the Pope – as every good Catholic is, by the way – and they merely refuse obedience to the pope on matters in which a sound Catholic has always been entitled to refuse obedience. You can’t be half pregnant, and you can’t be in imperfect communion. Most of all, you can’t be something that never existed before, and the fruit of a verbal gymnastics invented after V II to describe someone who does not want to give in to Neo-Modernism (or outright Modernism) when the hierarchy in Rome does just that.

By all means, go to a SSPX mass if you can. Only pay attention, if you want my advice, that this does not create in you a siege mentality, according to which only a little moat separates the SSPX from the Whore of Babylon.

I find it a useful experience to also attend at NO Mass. It teaches me obedience. It tells me that the Church is my mother even when she nourishes me badly, and at times seems to hate me. It helps me to avoid the moat thinking, and the siege obsession. It reminds me that horrible as her state may be, this organisation that celebrates these NO Masses all over the world is, in fact, the Only Church; and I prefer to bring this kind of sacrifice as a penance rather than run the risk of slowly persuading myself I am too good for the Mass the Church gives me.

By all means, attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel. But do not think that there are too churches, of which the Vatican is the wrong one. There is only one Church, and he who does not see that the SSPX is 100% part of it probably cannot be helped anymore.

M

 

Clarifications

And it came to pass Bishop Schneider gave a wonderful interview to the Spanish version of Rorate Caeli, stating that the SSPX are not in any schism whatsoever, praising their orthodoxy and wishing that they were brought again (I use Vatican terminology here) in “full communion”. Your humble correspondent reported.

After which, Michael Voris embarrassed himself once again with a series of “improvements” of the Bishop's thoughts. The manipulations and misrepresentations were painful to behold. Your humble correspondent ignored them, and so should you. Spend your time on Rorate, not on Voris' outlet.

Now Bishop Schneider has addressed Michael Voris with a very dry clarification on Voris' misrepresentation of his interview. There are no open criticisms and no emotional tones in the Bishop's answers, but as they say, intelligenti pauca.

Now, if Voris were one of the many wannabe “c”atholic incompetent hacks who go around writing rubbish about Catholicism (or about me) I would, life being too short for hacks, simply ignore the whole thing. But the problem here is that Voris is – and there is no doubt about this in my mind – a good and sincere Catholic soul who has been led on the wrong path, if you ask me, on three issues: the matter of criticism of the Pope, the position of the SSPX, and the shameful attacks to great Catholic writers – and true Catholic men – like Vennari, Ferrara, Matt, and Verrecchio. A great shame, because the man has heart and talent, and he is wasting his credibility away.

I understand Voris has his set opinions on a couple of matters, as I have mine. Reasonable people will also be able to disagree in matters that have no sure answer in the history of the Church. The situation of the SSPX (sidelined for being pure Catholics as the Vatican smears itself with Protestant thinking) and of the actual papacy (too atrocious for words, and absolutely unprecedented in 2,000 years of Church history) are two rather obvious points in case. But when Voris looks at the matter coolly, he will see that he has misrepresented a bishop in a way that moved this bishop to correct him in a very decided way. All this, because his emotional investment in the jihad against the SSPX has now gone out of control, and the man just can't think straight whenever the issue is touched.

I wish Voris would stop embarrassing himself, and free himself from the influence of horrible priests and misleading, if very probably good intentioned, donors. If an interview of a bishop goes against his grain he can, in my eyes, do one of the two: openly criticise the bishop, or simply ignore the matter. He does the first all the time with the other bishops, and he does the second all the time with the pope. Therefore, it should not have been too difficult.

A great pity. We have a very sincere Catholic soul here, misled by people he should do without.

M

 

Adulterous NuChurch: One New Book Already Out, Another In The Making.

Father Z informs us that a new book, authored by eleven Cardinals, is about to be published. The book aims at combating the “protestantisation of the Church”. I can imagine that the matter of communion for adulterers will have a prominent space, but it is clear that this book deals with a more general topic, and it is meant to help recovering authentic Catholicism at least in matters of Catholic morals as opposed to this “inclusion” madness, but hopefully also dealing with issues concerning the liturgy, the other sacraments like Confession, and the Catholic life.

More in general, though, this book clearly has its gun sight aimed straight at one person: Francis. It is obviously published in preparation to the Synod, and the defence of Catholicism on a broad front cannot but be another implicit, but clear demonstration of growing restlessness at the broad attack that Francis has launched against the Church in the way it thinks, operates and prays.

I do not remember books authored by multiple Cardinals as a Church tradition. We now have two in a little more than one year. Whatever anyone should tell you about this being about the rediscovery of Catholicism etc, this can only have one aim: to present a solid wall of Orthodoxy to Francis and his army.

Not coincidentally, the same article reports that another book is in preparation, exclusively authored by African Bishops and Cardinals. This will be fun, too.

Francis has clearly decided to launch a Big Heretical Offensive in October, which is why the blog post on the Rape of the Church is still pinned at the top of this blog. But he must know that he will never prevail, and will have either to abandon his satanical plans or to push forward towards a nuclear conflict from which he will, even if he survives it as pope, never recover.

Perhaps nothing of this will happen. Perhaps Francis will die before the Synod begins. Perhaps he has already decided blabla is good enough for him, and he will use the upcoming Year Of False Mercy to spread more heretical practice and thinking without an open confrontation. We don't know.

But there are more and more people who are sending clear signals that they will not shun the fight, however painful.

Let us pray for the Cardinals and Bishops who do their job and speak out for Truth. And let us hope we will soon have a new Pope, who thinks and act like a Catholic instead of like a socially envious, not very intelligent Castroite.

M

 

Cardinal Maradiaga, The Lady-In-Waiting

I do not know if he is the only one who has noticed this, but I have it from Vox Cantoris: an astonishing tweet of Cardinal Maradiaga stating that:

 

 

Maradiaga hell

 

 

Vox Cantoris charitably wonders whether the man’s account has been hacked. More realistically, I think the man is just being his usual heretic self.

Read the tweet again.

The man flatly denies the possibility of damnation. Your pastoral accompaniment is “authentic” (that is: not characterised by the “exclusion” typical of the “rigorists”) if the pastor 1) always walks with the person and 2) knows that whatever road the person chooses, it will lead to heaven.

This clearly is a new religion, which aims at taking the place of Christianity.

Christianity very clearly poses boundaries to the “walking with the sinner”. The sinner is invited to repent; he is welcome as a repentant sinner anytime; but he is not allowed to participate in full to the sacramental life of the Church in the same way as the one who is not in grave and open, scandalous rebellion to God. For our religion, the pastor is not one who “accompanies”. He is one who – as the name says – leads the sheep.  In Maradiaga’s world there is no place for a shepherd, merely for a lady-in-waiting. There is no need to lead any sheep safely to the sheepfold, because there are no ditches or ravines where they might fall, and no wolves wanting to devour them.

The pastor who “always accompanies” is totally useless as a pastor. He proclaim his own superfluity. Every friend can “accompany” one. Actually, someone who is an accomplice in the sins of his friend will do exactly that which Maradiaga praises as so pastoral: “always walk with the person”. For this pathetic excuse of a priest, being pastoral means being the contrary of being a pastor. This is satanical. Satanical.

Then there is the second bomb. The second bomb is bigger because so openly heretical, but the two are closely intertwined because you could never understand the second part of this heretical statement without the first or describe the first without hinting at the second.

In the world of Maradiaga, High Priest Of Satan, the only possible outcome is heaven. This must be so, in order for Maradiaga to justify his transformation from pastor (who leads) to lady-in-waiting (who accompanies). If the man admitted any possibility of hell – that is: of the existence of ditches, ravines, and wolves – he would as a consequence have to admit the necessity of being a pastor, that is: of leading the sheep, telling them where to go, using the rod and the staff to make them go where he wants. 

Hell is denied. Satan is believed if not exactly non-existent as an entity, certainly unable to do any damage to anyone of us in concrete. This is exactly what Satan wants, and this is exactly what Maradiaga also wants.

The man should be exorcised.

After being defrocked, of course.

M

 

 

 

The Wrath Of Christ

Victory Over Japan, Surrender To Satan

Today is, as every Brit knows, VJ, Victory over Japan day; and as this is a round anniversary, the pomp and rhetoric will be commensurate to the occasion.

What no one seems to ask is how all the soldiers who gave their life for their Fatherland would have felt in knowing that, merely two generations from their sacrifice, not only the Empire would have been lost, but the Country for which they gave their lives would have become worse than heathenish, positively recognising and actively supporting sexual perversion.

Seventy years later the United Kingdom is a Country where perverts can not only contract “civil partnerships” (utterly satanic), or “marry” (the same), but even adopt children (the same, but please add the heightened danger of child abuse).

Would those soldiers have died for a Country like this? Could they have even imagined that things would have reached such a level of moral decay and sexual perversion only decades after their sacrifice?

Today, a Country still wallowing in the feeling of a past greatness, and long downgraded to middle-class regional power with no world policy of its own (whatever influence they still had at least in the Middle East obviously gone since the Gulf War, and I wonder how much was left of that even then), has betrayed not only its own past greatness, but the very Christian foundation – wrong, because Protestant; but Christian nevertheless – of that greatness. The result is unprecedented faggotry flaunted like it’s the latest fashion (another thing faggots clearly like), and made a banner of the new United Kingdom of Sodom and Gomorrha.

Today, this Country has nothing to celebrate. Today, this Country ought to be ashamed, and start a serious reflection on where Satan has been leading it for now many years.

Don’t hold your breath. Prepare for the rhetoric of peace and inclusiveness. Prepare to see Sodom and Gomorrah celebrated as a development of the victory obtained with the blood of soldiers who would have been horrified at what is happening today.

Britain, you won on the battlefield against Germany and Japan. But not only this cost you the Empire, as Hitler in the end broke your spine and your ability to suffer for the sake of something bigger than individual happiness. No, it cost you your soul, as you have started then – and continued to this day – to betray Christian values for the sake of material comfort and a life lived in the immature, ultimately stupid quest of a personal self-fulfillment that can be found only in God.

The Country that only a few years before VJ day had vowed, at one with its brave leader, never to surrender, and to defend their island, whatever the cost may be, must now recognise that Satan has swallowed their island whole, and that they have surrendered to an ideology made of sexual perversion, indifference or open enmity to all that is sacred, and proud of it like Churchill was proud of the Empire.

VJ should be a day of somber reflection, and firm desire to change the Country’s way.

Exactly the contrary will happen.

M

Where Does It End?

Mundabor's Blog

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…

View original post 221 more words

Listen To The Voice Of Reason

Mundabor's Blog

Barnhardt, the S&W Model 29 of Catholic blogging. Yes, it's a huge compliment. Barnhardt, the S&W Model 29 of Catholic blogging. Yes, it’s a huge compliment.

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…

View original post 147 more words

Gaystapo At Work

RT reports (yes, I know; no, I don't care) about the Spanish corrida organiser who dared to state that it is harmful for a child to be exposed to sexual perversion.

Predictably, the homo Mafia was all in a tizzy. But the way it happened is why I write this blog post.

If you displease the Gaystapo, they will immediately go after your livelihood. In this case, the call was immediately made for a man guilty of such a criminally sane thinking to not get public structures for his corridas, which certainly equates to severely damage, and probably destroy, his activity. The poor chap had to apologise to those who were offended by his words.

This is how it works in once Christian Europe. The most obvious banality is now a crime against the God of Sodomy, and everyone who dares to make a remark against the new satanical deity is threatened with economic destruction.

Our democracies are becoming a farce. Our freedoms are becoming a joke. A bunch of fags and their liberal friends decide what you can and cannot say. The populace (stupid and easy to manipulate, like the populace always is) is fast asleep and cannot see the danger, nay, the persecution already in place.

Meanwhile, the Pope complains about air conditioners.

M

 

Quick! Switch On The Air Conditioner!!

 

 

Yes! Do it now! The earth is on the verge of a massive cooling!

Run to your A/C! Go start that car and make it run at idle! Take a holiday involving some intercontinental flight!

But wait…

Wait…

Global Cooling, this was the same phenomenon sold to us in apocalyptic tones when I was a boy! And then, it was sold by the same anti-Western agit-props who are now telling us we are soon going to fry, or at least get severe climate change shocks!

You know what? The best weather forecaster cannot forecast absolutely anything with a reasonable chance of success beyond a handful of days. What do we know? We know that the earth has phases in which it tends to become warmer and phases it witch it tends to become colder.

We know this because we have seen it happening in the past couple of thousand years. But how it happens, and how long each phase goes on, is as per today not in our power to predict with any accuracy.

Some things we know, though. There was a time when Greenland was so green that they called it that way. A time in which England was a reputed producer of wine. A time in which patrician palaces in England were built with porticos open to the interior, and people dressed in tunics as a matter of course.

No one fried. The world was, actually, extremely prosperous. The melted arctic ice did not flood England. The wine tasted just fine.

I do not believe anyone who tells me he can reliably forecast the climate changes in the next 100 years. But I am a Christian, and believe that Creation is good, and that anyone who thinks God created a planet that his creatures can destroy by producing perfectly natural, harmless emissions (or, in the end, by multiplying according to His command) should be seen by a doctor and watched very closely by a man dressed in white.

That would be funny. A man in white watched by another man in white.

“Mom, who is that man in white?”

“The one near the madman? It's a nurse, dear…”

M

 

Be Suspicious

Admits to pot smoking. Admits to stealing a rosary from the hands of a dead man. Admits to lying his mother and sponsor over his studies. Says you are bad if you count your rosaries.

 

 

A priest (more so a Bishop, etc) has received a long training before being ordained, and has a more or less long experience of priestly activity. Bad as his formation might have been, the fundamentals will certainly have been transmitted to him. Being ordained, and able to read, and in possession of a brain, even a badly formed priest would feel the duty, if he takes his job seriously, to improve his formation with patient evening work, rather than continue in an ignorance that must be – if he takes his job and his vocation seriously – painful to him.

This is why I become extremely suspicious of those priests and prelates who start talking like politicians, and put social issues of various kind before what should be their first job: the salvation of souls.

I do not think such priests and prelates suddenly decided that, say, the Last Four Things are irrelevant to our times. If they believe in God, they must know that they are as relevant now as they always were. On the contrary, I think that something of massive scale happened in their life, and makes them now say things they would never say if the event had not happened. The most frequent, if you ask me, are:

1) Loss of faith.

Father does not believe that there is a hell or a heaven, a reward or a punishment. Instead of praying more and throwing himself at the feet of the Lord at the very first doubts (understanding that the devil is trying to get hold on him, and trusting what the Church teaches him), the man embraces his loss of faith and consents to it. Consequently, he cannot escape a great feeling of hypocrisy and uselessness. Therefore, he reinvents himself as the social worker. You recognise these people easily because they mention the sacred only as an excuse to push the social agenda, and pervert religion to an instrument of social change. This appeases their conscience, and lets them feel they have a useful role to play. Other motives may get in the mix (ambition, careerism) but at the root is the loss of faith. If you ask me, Francis and Cupich are prime candidates of this group.

A variation of this is, of course, the Kirchensteuer Whore.

2) Mistress

Father has allowed himself to be entangled in a relationship. Instead of fleeing at the first signs of danger, he has consented to his sinful thoughts and has allowed them to fester. Being a “forbidden fruit”, he will attract a certain kind of woman, the “heroine of the impossible relationship” type. (No, good women do not allow themselves to be involved with a priest. Not on any circumstance. No, really. Yep. You are welcome). Father is torn between his duties to God and his earthly desires. He might or not continue the relationship, but in both cases he will start to hate the Church and her strict, but salutary, rules. “Inclusion” will start to become an issue. The “plight” of those who have betrayed a vow will be very near to him, because he has done the same. “Change” within the church will be supported. Sins of the flesh will be happily ignored. The obvious social issues will give him something to talk about. This can become so bad, that an exposed and ousted bishop has the gall to say, in his defence, that at least he did not talk about sexual morality. You couldn't make it up. One's own shortcomings become the foundation of one's own morality.

3) Homosexuality

This is the perverted variation of 2). Add the subtle encouragement of perversion to what I have written above, and I think you pretty much have it.

—–

In my eyes, these factors (loss of faith and desire for popularity, at times also for the money attached to it; mistress present or past; or sexual perversion) are behind much of the senseless talk we hear today from the Pope down.

Catholic doctrine is, and has always been, crystal clear. It is, therefore, not possible that a new thinking may be attached to it now, that was never seen in the past.

On the contrary, the new thinking is the fruit of a conflict with the authentic one, and a desire to eradicate it for one's own private motives. This applies, in my eyes, to everyone of these priests irrespective of rank, because a priest of dubious morality and non-existent orthodoxy does not improve merely because his manure is spread as bishop, archbishop, Cardinal, or pope.

You should be suspicious of Francis, Kasper, Marx, Cupich, Baldisseri and all those like them, down to the “inclusive” priest in your parish. If they believed in Catholicism they would be terrified, and unable to sleep at night. Their behaviour shows that there is something very wrong with them, in their own personal life, in their own faith, and in their own attitude towards the Church.

Be suspicious. Heterodoxy happens because of personal hidden motives.

M

 

 

The Blood-Stained Garment

Deception has always lived of half lies and distorted truths. The manipulator will take something that easily catches the imagination of the simple, inflate it without any shame and use it to deflect attention from some real issue he does not want you to think about.

A wonderful example of this is the seamless garment rubbish, something we thought put in the rubbish bin once and for all, but more and more frequently used during the Rubbish Pontificate.

The simple, the ignorant, the retarded and the libtards are easy prey of the strategy, because their desire to “feel good” moves them to react uncritically to any sort of emotional appeal. This allows their puppet masters to deflect the attention from the real issue.

Take “social justice” and the genocide of children in their mothers' wombs. The agents of Satan will not hesitate in trying to catch the imagination of the simple with vastly inflated claims of the ills caused by poverty, and use it to cover the infinitely bigger issue of the genocide. The simple and the retarded will not get the absurdity of the comparison, whilst the libtards will choose not to see it.

One of the most prominent agents of Satan is Archbishop Cupich, whom the Evil Clown has catapulted overnight from local liberal nutcase to prominent Archbishop and – if Francis lives – one day, Cardinal. Cupich has dared to declare the unthinkable, willingly and shamelessly downplaying the huge scandal of the Planned Genocide video with a “seamless garment on steroid” propaganda. The extent of the satanical deception (comparing abortion and unemployment, say) is beyond belief.

We stop a moment here, and reflect on the times in which we live. A huge genocidal organisation is under fire because the inhuman Nazi mentality within it has been exposed, and an Archbishop intervenes to take pressure out of them and deflect attention from their monstrous activity.

There can be no doubt that the likes of this minion of Satan are terrified by the very thought of a Catholic offensive against abortion; very probably because they approve of abortion, and very certainly because they understand that such an offensive would put them on the defensive in any other issue, from sexual perversion, to fornication, to loss of faith and espousal of the world's thinking as “moral” compensation.

Mind, though, that Cupich is not the only one, nor is he the most prominent. Pope Francis himself has managed to shut up about the videos for week – astonishing for a man who must talk incessantly, possibly even during sleep -, whilst he keeps insulting our intelligence with the “sins against the world” and such like excrements. Whilst this is no open “seamless garment” talking, it certainly prepares the ground for it and helps it to develop.

I am fed up with these people. Archbishop Cupich has on his hands the blood of children killed in the womb. He does not even have the decency to shut up whilst Planned Genocide is under fire. No, he must enrol on their relief army instead.

Archbishop Cupich's “seamless garment” is drenched in the blood of the children he obviously does not want to see spared. He has no excuses. Not even from the point of view of the darn socialist he is. Even one like him should understand when the time has come to, at the very least, shut up so it is not seen by everyone that he sides with the abortionists.

Can you imagine Hitler openly (he never did it; openly, I mean) gassing Jews and the Church telling us that the extermination camps are in the same ballpark as the difficulties of the poor? Can you imagine Hitler publicly gassing Jews by the millions and an Archbishop make a moral equivalence with unemployment? Wouldn't you call such a man Hitler's best ally?

Cupich is the enemy of the child in the womb. He has no business being a priest, much less an Archbidhop. He should be defrocked and send to work in some slum in Chicago (if there still are any), in order for him to discover that whilst a black baby has around a 40% probability of being killed in the womb, in 2015 United States no one dies of starvation.

I am informed that recently Mexico has been exercised.

Perhaps Archbishop Cupich should receive the same treatment.

M

 

SSPX: Obviously, No Trace Of “Schism”

Good shepherd: Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Rorate Caeli hat the link to the interview granted by Bishop Schneider to their Spanish speaking counterpart.

It seems to me that the Bishop's message is very clear: there is nothing in the SSPX that is not 100% Catholic, and there is therefore no sign of Schism whatsoever. The Bishop himself makes clear enough that not liking – or refusing – the pastoral devastation of V II does not make one any less Catholic. The consequence is clear: the SSPX should be – as they themselves say – accepted as they are.

Bishop Schneider recognises a reality that sincere Catholics have always seen: if the SSPX isn't Catholic, Catholicism has muted into something else. If Catholicism cannot change into something else, the SSPX is Catholic. One can talk himself stupid trying to find an escape from this, but there is no escaping facts.

I am not holding my breath, and do not desire the “recognition” of the SSPX one hundredth of how I desire the end of this papacy. I do not attach any dramatic value to a 100% Catholic organisation being declared 100% Catholic. Certainly, to be recognised “as they are” would be good for the SSPX and good for the Church, and would mean that even Francis can do something right once in a lifetime. But the latter is the man who said “soon, soon!” concerning the end of the persecution of the FFI, so I do not count his word as worthy anything.

The recognition of the SSPX as fully, entirely Catholic from a Vatican so tragically poisoned by Modernism would be akin to a very influential drunkard recognising the sobriety of his far better behaved, but far less influential, neighbour. A nice thing to say, for sure, and good for the neighbourhood at large. But all those who can tell the drunken from the sober neighbour do not need this sort of recognition to know what is what. I certainly don't.

The SSPX is as Catholic as they come. Every sincere Catholic cannot but recognise this reality. If Francis decides to make this kind of historic gesture I do not see how it could or should be refused or criticised. On the contrary, it should be praised as a positive development. However, I do not believe Francis has any intention to proceed to such a step, and his decision to send Bishop Schneider on visit is just a variation of the “soon, soon!” Leitmotiv.

Do not lose your sleep over this. Do not start to nurture hopes of a “full reconciliation”. The SSPX is pretty well positioned where she is now, and we need a strong, fiercely Catholic order to call Francis a true Modernist, because that's what he is.

We also need to have them fully independent, financially and otherwise, from the Modernist forces at work in Rome. Whilst I can't imagine the SSPX would renounce to their independence in case of reconciliation, this could be another way how Francis tries to neutralise them.

Still, at the end of all this we have this powerful development, of the papal officially unofficial envoy saying very clearly that there is, in essentials, nothing wrong with the SSPX.

We don't need the good Bishop Schneider to realise this obvious fact, but many others certainly do, and certainly will. The recognition would contribute to the fall of some barriers now preventing badly instructed Catholic to recognise the wonderful catholicity of the Society. Therefore, if the full reconciliation were to happen it would be a positive development nevertheless.

But I, for one, will not be holding my breath.

M


 

In Praise Of Nuclear Arsenals

Tupolev Tu-95 Bear.

As every August – when there are no news to write about, and the Hiroshima/Nagasaki anniversaries come very handy – the calls for the abolition of nuclear arsenals are heard from more or less predictable sources. Let them call as much as they want. Personally, I am very happy with things as they are now, and will not join the calls for the abolition of anything – minus Iran and North Korea, of course; but of this later -.

The danger of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what has given us decades of peace in all major Western Countries. Moreover, it has allowed the application of the famous NATO military doctrine, that is: the open statement – and threat – that a conventional Warsaw Pact attack would have been countered with a nuclear retaliation. This has allowed the West to dedicate huge economic energies to further economic growth, in preference to what would otherwise have been an immense military effort. As it was, the seriously inferior Western armies – and the economies of the West – were allowed to rest in the shadow of a comparatively cheap, extremely effective, technology-enhancing nuclear umbrella.

The last seventy years have known no major international or intercontinental conflicts, and certainly no world wars. Regional, limited conflicts (like Corea, Indochina, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq II, you know the names…) and endemic local, war-like situations with outburst of war (like Israel & Arabs, India &Pakistan) is all we had. On a global scale, this is small change compared to what happened before, and never threatened in the least the security and welfare of the West.

As a result of the threat of MAD, seven decades of peace have fostered unprecedented economic growth for everyone. Even Francis' “poor of the poor”, as a general rule, never had it as good as now; at least, whenever their own corruption and stupidity did not manage to destroy their economies nevertheless.

But not only do I see the enormous service that huge nuclear arsenals have made to everyone of us. I also see in them a great device for the preservation of Christian culture in the future.

I have already written that it appears that Russia and China will be the heralds of Christianity in the decades to come, as the USA and Europe transform themselves into perverted, heathen wasteland worshipping the gods of the Sodomites, or a heathenism on its way to become Nazism on steroids. Without nuclear weapons, the USA and Europe together would not hesitate to try to strangle those emerging Christian Countries, and ram their own new religion of politically correct madness and sexual perversion down their throat. It is the nuclear arsenals that will prevent this from happening. And it is because of them that a smart welter weight like Russia, or a big but still fragile boxer like China, can be a credible counterweight to what would otherwise be the absolute dominance of the Western Heavyweight and of its allies.

No. The nuclear arsenals have served us wonderfully in the last seventy years. They will continue to do so, and they must continue to do so, as the aspirations of the wrong type of Country (Iran, Pakistan, North Corea) to obtain a credible nuclear capability is, in case, even better evidence of the necessity of nuclear arsenals. Unless, that is, you are so thick that you believe that if the USA destroyed their nuclear arsenal Iran would not be interested in having one. But not even Francis is as thick as that, so there…

That's it, then. I thought I would swim a bit against the current on this, because every August I must hear the same trite slogans, and enough is enough.

M

 

 

Official: 1 September Is Catholic Idiot Day

who am I to judge?



The Evil Clown has found another way to keep pushing his utterly secular, environ-mentalist agenda. I hope to be the first to call “bullshit” on this. If not, I assure you I posted this as fast as I could.

Not only we have Catholic Idiot Day on 1 September, but we are also informed that we must ask forgiveness for “sins committed against the world”.

Boy, the world must be really offended. If I ask him for forgiveness very, very hard, will he forgive me? At least a bit? Eh? no? Come on, world, be a good world, give me the hand!

Good Lord.

I remember when the Church thought Her role to save souls, not trees. Today, the very pope helps you to damn yourself as a pervert or adulterer, whilst he asks you to ask the world for forgiveness.

What a clown.

What an evil, evil clown.

M

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: