Yesterday’s Talk

 

Please help me here. 

This article is dated 2015. 

I seem to remember it gave us some hope the man could kick himself away in Argentina and play Holy Hermit, obviously tweeting to the entire planet how good he is living in his holy poverty.

But wasn’t it just some days ago that he said he wants to die in office? Will someone send me the link? Does the man care today for the excrement he has spoken yesterday? I know excrement is excrement, but one supposed he at least should care about it. 

This man lives in a mad kindergarten, in which he can do whatever he wants without risking of being kicked out of the pram, and surrounded by people evil enough, stupid enough or cowardly enough to allow him almost everything.

The man is almost fascinating in his utter shamelessness. It’s like watching a freak show. There are times I think he is on cocaine. It would explain a lot of those yesterday’s talk, so obviously forgotten today.

Or he has just no shame, no brain, and no faith. 

M

  

 

 

 

SSPX: Let’s Play “Peace”!

Saintly, and smart.

 

I have recently stated that I do not believe in the “peace” between SSPX and the Vatican. However, as I have – on rare occasions… – been known to be wrong in the past, I would like to play some scenario as to what the SSPX will insist in having for any “peace” to be signed.

In my eyes, the SSPX should insist (and I do believe they will obtain) all of what would be, if things were in my hands, my three (let’s say two and a half) necessary conditions:

1. Maintain the property of the shop. I mean, by that, the direct legal ownership of everything: the deeds of the seminaries, the churches and other property; the sole ownership of the bank accounts, the investment accounts, etc. Keep everything in your hand, dear SSPX priests, and do not allow the Vatican’s paws to get anywhere near them. You can’t trust V II Popes. Not now, not in ten years, not in one hundred.
2. Maintain autonomy from the local bishops. The reason the SSPX exists is to provide an oasis of sane Catholicism in the middle of V II insanity. The idea that the insane should tell the sane where to be active, or could move them from here to there, or could hamper them in one thousand little ways isn’t really appealing, and runs counter to all the SSPX represents.      
3. (This is, actually, the corollary of two) Maintain the ability to expand at pleasure, in locations of their own choosing, as long as they pay themselves for the relevant expenses (church and ancillary structures, and trust fund for the upkeep of the churches and the priests). “My money, my church, my expansion plans”. Obviously, a formal approval of the Pope might be necessary, but no more than that.  This is, again, the other face of 2: if the SSPX takes her mission seriously, she will be interested not only in avoiding retaliation, suffocation and persecution in the dioceses in which they are already active, but they will also be concerned about expanding their activity in places where they aren’t. If you ask me, the one can’t go without the other. To admit any other solution would be to admit the possibility of either a “freeze” of their vigorous expansion activity, or to limit this to those conservative dioceses that have, in fact, the least need  for a SSPX presence. 

This is, I think, where you tell me: “But Mundabor: if they need papal approval for every new chapel, they will be put in the freezer instantly!”.

Not really. As long as they keep their money and their churches, no dirty tricks will be allowed to either Francis or his (hopefully, better) successors. Please remember that the SSPX was, in fact, fully in communion with Rome for several years before the laceration that happened in the Seventies. They weren’t fooled then, they wouldn’t be fooled now. As long as the Pope plays by the rules they keep – how shall I call it – wonderfully obedient. If the Pope tries to pull some trick, they do exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did: refuse to obey to wrong orders and, in general, keep doing their Catholic things on their own, as they have done so successfully in the last decades. The owners of their churches, and the owners of their seminaries, they would go on with their work without the Vatican being able to do more than launching those attacks so wonderfully useless in the past.   

The key is, I think, who owns what: firstly, because it would be fairly expensive to rebuild hundred of chapels and some big seminaries; secondly,  because it is very questionable whether the necessary money would be given to people so dumb to lose everything the first time in the first place; thirdly – and obviously – because direct ownership and ability to get one’s own way is the best, if unspoken, deterrent from the playing of dirty tricks from the Vatican side.

The canonical way how this is done is, provided the result is achieved, irrelevant. Call it Personal Prelature. Call it Ordinariate. Make of it a hybrid of the two. Make something entirely new. It does not matter. The possibilities of a bespoke solution are vast anyway because in the same way as the first Prelature was a new solution, so this one could be another new, never seen before arrangement, of whatever canonical flavour the two parties may choose.

The problem isn’t how the legal frame is called. The real key is whether Francis can put his socialist hands on the vast patrimony of the SSPX and rob them, oppress them, or both. 

I trust the good men at the SSPX are acutely aware of all this. But I wanted to have a go at it anyway, just in case… 

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Francis Admits He Is Corrupt And A Hypocrite At Last

Truly, this man is stupid.

“Whoever believes themselves just and judges others and scorns them is corrupt and a hypocrite,” the pope exhorted.

After saying this, one is clearly required not to judge anyone, unless he admits he is one of the worst. But here it goes:

“Arrogance compromises every good action, empties prayer, distances from God and others.”

Bam! A vast amount of people is judged instantly thereafter. Meet Bozo Francis, the funniest clown in clerical habit.

“Not like the Pharisee who prayed with arrogance and hypocrisy.”

Bam! The Pharisee, and clearly all those the Pope considers the modern Pharisees, are mercilessly judged:

Their prayers are empty.

They are distant from God.

They can't do any good action.

If this is not “judging others”, I don't know what is.

Someone of the Pollyanna persuasion might here try to interject that Francis is saying that one must be, at the same time, persuaded of his own righteousness to be worthy of his extremely harsh judgment.

It does not work.

Every Catholic knows he is a sinner. Therefore, Francis would automatically exclude every Catholic from his wholesale condemnation, and brutally indict every “born again”, “Jesus saved me” Proddie. If you know three things of this joker, you know this is not what he could possibly have meant.

Also, it would be absurd to say that if I consider myself a great sinner, I can go on judging half the world's population and Francis is ok with it.

No: what Francis is saying here is that if you consider yourself a better Christian than a public adulterer in obvious mortal sin and grave scandal, you are like the Pharisee.

And again, he says it himself: he is a corrupt man and a hypocrite. Then either he admits publicly that he is himself corrupt and hypocrite, and no better than any corrupt and hypocrite, or he has just “judged” millions of people even as he thinks himself better than them.

There.

Corrupt, and hypocrite.

Said from the man himself.

M

 

Loving Gorillas, Hating Children

Harambe, 400 lbs of beast.

The Cincinnati Gorilla news is everywhere, so no link.

Only the United Kingdom, apart from the United States, is a Country so filled with “Animal Rights” nutcases that the killing of a gorilla to avoid the risk of death for a little child of three can be questioned.

In fact, though, these extremists are clearly not expressing – whatever they may say – the love for animals. No. They are, in fact, revealing their hate for children.

The very idea of thinking that the life of a very little child should be endangered in order to save the life of, excuse my bluntness, a freaking beast shows the contempt of human life harboured by these individuals. Not only I doubt they can see the difference between a human and a brute; I am satisfied that between risking the death of a gorilla and the death of a little child, they would choose – no, wait! They did choose – the gorilla any day! This is lucid animal right madness!

It is also obvious what is at play here. Your average “animal rights” idiot clearly is in favour of killing babies in the womb. Therefore, protecting a small child is dangerously close to helping those babies to be born. They can't have that, of course. Screw the boy, what's a boy worth after all? A boy is expendable, a gorilla is sooo precious!

Poor “Harambe”! If he could only speak!

Don't believe for one second their “good faith” that the “good gorilla” would not harm the – nay: would be protecting! – the little child. They don't believe their own rubbish themselves. No animal right activist can be so retarded that he bases his analysis of a gorilla's behaviour on the “Jungle Book”.

It's not love for the gorilla. It's hate for the children.

These people make me sick. The only fact that they are around and talk is a clear sign of the acute disease which plagues our once so beautifully advanced, rational, faithful Western Civilisation. We are sinking in an age of new brutality, and the most unprotected – the children in the womb – have been paying the price of this for decades already.

Never mind the little boy. Let's save “Harambe” instead!

M

 

Reblog: War Cry, Not False Compassion!

War Cry, Not False Compassion!

The Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants

Mundabor, Self-Portrait, 2016

Not without surprise, I sometimes read the one or other Rad Trad blog (not excluding mine, I must very immodestly say; then my critics seem to read me more than I read them, and I notice their criticism only by way of a limited number of blog referrals, which in turn do not indicate a huge readership) called “insignificant”. As if, in the great battle between Right and Wrong, this had any importance.

Let us say you bravely defend Catholic Truth among friends and relatives, and no one heeds you. Is your effort insignificant? Certainly not! It is very significant, in fact, to the Angels looking on you from heaven. It is very significant for your own salvation. And, last but not least, it is significant because it is right.

But let us say, now, that you have a blog, and this blog reaches thirty people, who read you three times a week and draw some benefit from it. Thirty people who actually think that you make a difference in their spiritual life, or in their view of Catholicism, or in helping them not to drown in a sea of confusion; and, therefore, come back to your blog again and again. Is this insignificant? Certainly not! You are, in fact, already exercising a bigger influence than most teachers, bar the very best, have on their pupils! And all this, in most cases, gratis et amore Dei. No, it is certainly not insignificant. It is, in fact, a notable achievement.

However, it must be clear to all of us that, in the great scheme of things, we are all insignificant, in that none of us will ever, alone, change the course of history or be a leader of nations. This is true both for our insignificant blogs, and for those still insignificant Catholic publications who call us insignificant, and I doubt if they ever properly strengthen the faith of anyone, rather than leading them towards indifference or perdition.

But then again I wonder: how insignificant is insignificant, if it is mentioned among countless blog to one's own readership as an example of lack of significance? Does not this deny, in itself, the premise? Still, they are right in the essence: in the great scheme of things, insignificant we all are, together with our detractors.

How should, therefore, each faithful Catholic (mother and father, friend and colleague) see ourselves? We should see ourselves, I think, as warrior ants.

Each one of us, taken individually, is certainly insignificant in the great scheme of things (albeit what he does is most significant for his own salvation, which in itself is infinitely important). However, warrior ants are a frightful force when they march together. Does the individual warrior ant care about how much “significant” she is? I have never asked one, but most probably not. The warrior ant cares, in her own way, about what she can do exactly as insignificant, expendable warrior ant, and that is the beginning and the end of it.

When we die we will not be asked whether we have “changed the world”. We will not be asked how “significant” we were. We will not be asked how many readers our blog used to have. We will be asked whether we have kept defending Truth when no one listened to us; when we were mocked and insulted; when we were, in fact, being – exactly – insignificant to the world. And by the way: be afraid of when the world calls you “relevant”: you might just have become like it.

I have started this blog hoping to reach sixty or seventy people every day: two to three school classes. My thinking was that this kind of readership would allow me to help my fellow Catholics in a comparable way as, say, a deeply Catholic high school history or philosophy teacher who has the ability to, as they say, “touch the life” of a comparable number of people every day with his own solid faith. Every blogger who is inclined to write and perseveres in his aim can, I think, reach this goal (and compensate for a non-existent Catholic philosophy or history teacher) obviously for no pay. Call it insignificant as much as you want, but I think it already counts a lot, both in this world and in the next.

This little effort – insignificant, of course, in the great scheme of things – reaches around 1500 unique users every day, and it is sailing towards five millions page views. You can call it, if you wish, a very fat and very angry warrior ant, but a warrior ant it still is. Few good history or philosophy teachers reach as many lives as this warrior ant does. You can also call it fifty philosophy classes, or three healthy parishes (apart from the fact, of course, that your fat warrior ant is not a priest). But you see, I do not start writing a blog post thinking of the fifteen hundred people my blog post might reach. I start writing for this blog because I want to be one of the Blessed Virgin's Warrior Ants. Small. Expendable. Utterly insignificant. But still there, marching together with many other warrior ants, and not caring about this world's or his battle's outcome. A single warrior ant can be easily squashed, but an army of them is a devastating force.

One of the reasons I write this blog is to encourage every one of my readers to be, in his little sphere of influence, Blessed Virgin's Warrior Ants. I encourage you to be warrior ants – with the due prudence; we aren't like those Proddie in Oxford Street crying around: “repent!” – when no one seems open to you, when everyone considers you that very strange guy. One day, with God's grace, the one or other may well remember your words, start to connect the dots and, in time, start to finally understand.

In order to do this, the warrior ant must bite. Fluff is easily forgotten after two days, strong words will be remembered in fifty years. By God's grace, the words your atheist relative resents today might be the words God uses to save his soul on his deathbed in, say, 2055; with Pope Francis V very unhappily reigning , and Catholic ruins everywhere.

Yes, we are – taken individually – utterly insignificant. Expendable warrior ants. Not even a small nuisance to the world.

May we die that way, all of us, and what a blessing!

M