Monthly Archives: September 2016
When was last time you heard about the “Francis effect”? Yep, and you now know why: even the secular press knows it did not work.
The article is, as you would expect by a libtard publication like the NYT – the author works for “First Things”, though; more about this later – entirely centred around secular issues. In line with the forma mentis of your average IYI (“Intellectual Yet Idiot”) reader, The Church is seen like a party, or a product, or a firm: where an “innovator” who seems “in line with the times” steps in and “revitalises” the ailing organisation. And this leader does such wonderful things as living in a luxury hotel, wearing black shoes, shooting selfies, and other such like stupid things very much liked by a stupid age.
The article, showing the great ignorance of his author in matters of Catholicism, (but we are talking of Libtards here) even absurdly criticises the Pope because
Francis has also shied away from big changes on doctrinal matters. Instead of explicitly endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried couples, he has quietly urged them on with a wink and a nod.
(Yes: you can facepalm here. No, really. It’s ok).
The secular mind sees the secular Pope at work; it sees him trying to make of the Church something similar to the Democratic Party; it sees, also, that he is failing miserably.
The secular mind cannot understand the Church more than the devil can like holy water. They just do not get that the Church – as an organisation – prospers when she opposes the world, and withers when she cozies up with it. If they knew this simple truth, they would never invent strange and absurd expressions like the “Francis effect” and mean that it would be good for the Church as an organisation.
The Catholic mind understands the folly of all this. But hey, they are “homophobic”, so they don’t count.
As the author points out, very rightly, Francis has failed miserably even in the other – and originally, we were told, the most important – reason for his appointment: the reorganisation of the inefficient, corrupt Vatican apparatus. We knew that already, because we know that South American dictators tend to be extremely stupid wreckers of everything they touch. But it’ s nice to see that some libtard notices that, too.
However, the obviously Catholicism-free author must have heard, at some point, something about Catholicism at First Things, because he seems to have a very confused idea of how the Church works. Examining the cause of the continuing decomposition of the Church in the US, he writes something that has always been a mainstay of this little effort:
Francis has built his popularity at the expense of the church he leads.
The cult of man damages the Church of God. Francis, in his vanity and folly, presents himself as the good guy in opposition to the bad guys of the sixty generations before his. It can work for him, for a while, until people understand what a phony the man is. But it will never be any good for the Church. This is now apparent, and the “Francis effect” thingy has gone the way of “reading Francis through Benedict”.
The author, who is so blind that he sees something positive in Francis “paying his own hotel bill” and “eschewing the red shoes”, still has some ideas left of what Catholicism is:
Those who wish to see a stronger church may have to wait for a different kind of pope. Instead of trying to soften the church’s teaching, such a man would need to speak of the way hard disciplines can lead to freedom. Confronting a hostile age with the strange claims of Catholic faith may not be popular, but over time it may prove more effective. Even Christ was met with the jeers of the crowd.
So, is this author Catholic after all, and just too servile to the NYT to write like one? I don’t know, and I am not interested to know. What interests me here is that even the entirely secular outlook of this article must see Francis’ dismal failure.
The Church is the enemy of the world. Francis is the friend of the world. Francis is the enemy of the Church.
And he has failed.
Even Libtards see it now.
Hillary freezes in panic, oblivious to the world, with a “what I am doing here?” face that is just plain scary.
Big Black Guy (secret agent? Or rather a nurse of sort?) is very fast in recognising what’s happening (methinks, not the first time…), jumps on the stage and promptly reassures her; she still remains there, smiling but still clearly unable to connect with the reality around her. It’s only when Big Black Guy urges her to “keep talking” that she recovers and remembers her line and her purpose on that day.
You can say “panic”, it looks more like incipient Alzheimer to me. In both cases, this is the most stressful job on the planet. How is anyone fit to do it who needs to be reassured in the middle of a panic attack/ loss of reality that the people around her are “not going anywhere”?
This video was watched more than one million times, I think it’s from August or earlier. Can’t think it brought her the vote of many still undecided.
if I were Trump, I would run this and the other one of the 11 September in my own ads.
I have already explained in Part I what I think was the main factor in the rapid advancement of the “Spirit of V II” within a Church so strong and self-assured only a few years before. I would now like to spend two words about what was, if you ask me, the second most important factor: the rapid changes in education and the connected giovanilismo, the exaltation of everything “young” typical of those years.
The unprecedented economic progress since the end of WWII had brought another huge social upheaval: the education revolution. In less than twenty years, the entire West had undergone a massive change: the son of the peasant was on its way to become an accountant, and the son of the accountant was listening to new (and often crappy) ideas at University. Never had such a transformation occurred so rapidly. Never had so many young people been so obviously better educated than their parents and grandparents.
This caused a rapid deterioration of a traditional hinge of the social fabric: the respect for the elder.
Once seen as the depositaries of wisdom, old people were suddenly seen as uneducated, ignorant, prejudiced, superstitious obstacles to progress. In parallel, the young men and women (better educated, optimistic, full of reformist zeal, and often able to speak without accent or dialect) were seen as the new frontier, and the pathfinders to the discovery of a new and better world. A new world which saw all the prejudices and limits of the old one (and they were there; they were clearly there) and thought that the old system of religious rules, piety, and rigid propriety was pretty much on the same level with the countless superstitions they saw in their old people. The young people might have loved, but they did not esteem their parents, and they did not think their parent had much to teach to them. They were grateful to the peasants who had, with their sacrifices, allowed them to become accountants or teachers or lawyers or civil servants. But they saw in their parents just that: peasants.
For their teaching and guidance in life, they started to look elsewhere. In all the wrong places.
It is apparent to me – and I have seen it very often in real life – that the old generation had, very often, an instinctive sense of what was right, and that they were right; but they were unable to defend themselves, to appropriately articulate their belief against the tide of opposition of their own children and grandchildren; children who spoke so well, better than they ever could, and were filling their parents and grandparents with pride and joy even as the latter were worried at what their children and nephews were actually saying.
These were the children for which the old generation had made so many sacrifices. Look at them now, speaking like lawyers and pharmacists! The son of the small tenant, or of the daily labourer; the daughter of the milliner, or of the domestic servant! They know so much more than their parents and grandparents! Yes, they are wrong. But how to explain it to them? They speak so well…
And the entire world, the entire planet told the older people that the future belonged to the young, who would make a better planet for everyone. Largo ai giovani, “make place for the young” – possibly the stupidest slogan of all times after “Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternite’ ” – was not much questioned in those times. The “Springtime of the Church” is just the same madness in a different way. Guitars in the church are just another byproduct of the same stupidity that gave us the May 1968 in France.
And so, my dear readers, we have it, the explosive cocktail that gave us first Paul VI, then Assisi, then the rock mass concerts and mass media popes, then eventually the Evil Clown himself in all his wheelchair-embracing, Castro-cuddling, planet-“saving”, heresy-promoting, perversion-protecting, sacraments-desecrating debauchery. It was an explosive cocktail of growing welfare and growing, but secular, education; sadly not contrasted by a clergy too often tired of being party poopers when the party, which had been going on for a while, seemed to want to go on forever.
Too many were weak. Countless others were simply ill-equipped.
Satan was, as always, looking for those whom he may devour.
I had never seen the like.
Gloria TV does not dedicate one part of their news to the Letter “With Burning Concern”. No. They dedicate to it the entire edition.
Oh joy! The thinking Catholic heads may be a minority, but there are still more than a couple around. As for those who refuse to think, I wonder how much FrancisMercy they will receive when they die.
As I write this, the video was clicked 6,100 times. Please follow the link and spread the word!
I read around the (right) consideration that not all must have been good in pre-V II times; otherwise it would not be explained how V II could do so much damage in just a few years.
I will, therefore, try to make some considerations about this myself.
We tend to see a strong Church as a wonderful apparatus, eliminating sin from around it like a hoover gets rid of the dust. I am afraid it might not work that way.
Fallen nature being what it is, even a strong church can only be something similar to a strong dam, opposing a strong wall of faith to the immense quantity of sin pushing against it. You can stand at the bottom of the huge wall and observe its majesty, and you will certainly think the dam beautifully strong; but what you won’t see is the huge amount of water ceaselessly applying its pressure on the wall, and which would flood to the vale below if allowed.
Such was, in my opinion, the Church of that Great Pope, the Pastor Angelicus. An extremely strong dam, for sure; cared for by many trusted guardians; but still, with the huge mass of world sinfulness exerting a huge pressure against it. This pressure was growing and growing as the Western world left behind it the years of great deprivations (and, as always, strong faith) of the war and marched resolutely towards unprecedented prosperity and optimism; and, to an extent, unprecedented belief Religion is now not the basis for life, but an optional not really useful in times of advanced medicine and ever-growing individual security.
Strong as the dam is, the water behind it will always be immense, and will always be ready to flood everything if a leaked, no matter how small, is found.
The leak has a name: il papa buono; or, as I think it far more appropriate, il papa stupido. Pope John XXIII was really so dumb, that he thought a little leak would do no great harm, and the bit of water coming the other way would be a welcome refreshment and cleansing force for the dry, dusty, at times crusty walls of the old, majestic, very hard dam.
The rest all followed from the initial madness: as it is in the nature of things, once the water found a small aperture it did not take long before the huge pressure, which had always been exerted (but was kept in check by the Pastor Angelicus and his very smart Church) caused a big leak, then a break, and a huge quantity of water naturally rushed the other side in a roaring waterfall. When Roncalli died too many were already those now tasting of the water, and desiring to shower in its roaring freshness.
Pope Roncalli had contracted two typical diseases of the age: the first was niceness, and the second a boundless, rather stupid optimism about the future. These diseases belied the traditional, realistic and dryly somber evaluation of the human shortcomings prevalent up to then. John XXIII was probably so dumb that he really believed in a new era of sort; as if humanity could transition to a new phase just as easily as the Soviet Union could transition from Stalin to Khrushchev or the US from Eisenhower to Kennedy.
Pope Roncalli is, therefore, the main – if unwitting – agent of the flood. But not he alone, of course. The flood came because of the original sin-laden water that had never ceased to apply its huge pressure on the Church, and which only the strong dam of a very fortunate series of excellent Popes (five of the last six rather stellar by any Church History standard) had kept in check for so long, and with such success. But human sinfulness is a huge weight to keep in check. The desire to “make peace with the world” is an extremely heavy temptation. The water will still be there pushing, pushing all the time…
Here ends Part I.
Part II will deal with what is, in my eyes, the second most important factor in the unfolding of the first, brutal stage of what was to become, as we can now safely say, an apocalyptic tragedy.
Mahound’s Paradise has excerpts from the latest, extremely stinking public performance of the Evil Clown.
The following atrocious words attracted my attention more than the (almost equally atrocious) rest of the ramble.
“We are called always to live out and proclaim the newness of the Lord’s love: ‘Jesus truly loves you, just as you are. Give him space: in spite of the disappointments and wounds in your life, give him the chance to love you. He will not disappoint you,’” Francis said.
This is so gay, it redefines the boundaries of Eltonism.
Francis sounds like a hippy homo on pot: not only the “lurv” that does not care for truth is worthy of foul tomatoes, but – worse still – the clear idea that one should consider giving Christ a chance even as he does not want to change a thing in himself is the perfect denial of all Christianity stands for. What a gracious step, what a moving concession this entirely secular person would be making to Our Lord and Saviour!
I picture your average pot-smoking, fornicating, ugly, fat, aborting feminist slut out there thinking: “oh well, I love myself just the way I am, too, and I do not see any reason to change at all! So the old man got that right, for sure! Therefore, I might give this Christ the man talks about the chance to love me just as I am, and let’s see if this Christ knows what is good for him! Of course, I am expecting a lot from his unconditional, non-judgmental, guilt-free, gender-neutral relationship now, because that’s what the man in white promises”.
Francis keeps peddling around a Christ resembling a whining, groaning, whimpering, extremely beta guy dying for some attention whatsoever, and not asking anything in return: I do not say adoration, but even some basic respect and attention. “Oh please, please, just give me some thoughts every now and then! You don’t need to do anything! No repentance, no change, nothing at all! You are so wonderful as you are! If you love me,
keep my command it’s quite enough for me, and you won’t regret it!”
When I read it on Vox Cantoris I thought it might have been in jest, but actually it is real news, as EWTN confirmed: Apostate Homosexualist Michael Coren has been stripped of his Papal Knighthood, has been requested to return the medal, and has so far refused.
Boy, this is funny. A man who decides to leave the Church and insult her with his homoheresies is peeved at being told bu the same Church to draw the consequences, and does not want to return the symbol of something in which he does not believe anymore, and says publicly so.
But the funniest thing is this: that Coren must now realise that even in FrancisChurch, where even Muslims and Lutherans are treated like the same thing plus some squabbling theologians, he is considered worthy of public rebuke.
Can’t wait for the man to appeal to the Evil Clown himself to allow him to keep his medal, though he doesn’t believe in that which the medal represents.
We truly live in a world of self-obsessed, deluded hyper-individualism, in which every cretin thinks he can make up his own religion at will.
Can’t imagine what kind of people will buy his books.
Or perhaps I do.
I have published all three parts of the “With Burning Concern” letter; therefore, you all know which side I am on.
I think it very wrong that those (names not named) who should all be on our side waste their time and undoubted intelligence for this kind of mini-squabble.
I will offer this thought: it is bad to want to be “mainstream”, and it is bad to want to have a big readership. The world is such, that if you want to have a big readership, and be able to boast that you are so and so big, you will have to get “middle of the road” positions even when more uncomfortable roads are the only ones indicated. The “mainstream” is unlikely to ever be persuaded that the Pope is a heretic. They will drink all the cool-aid they have to drink to persuade themselves of the contrary instead.
This Pope is a heretic. A tool of Satan. An old, lewd man obsessed with sex and social so-called “justice”. He is an Atheist through and through. In short, he is an Evil Clown. That’s it. If you still can’t see the evidence, you will always refuse to see it. Still, the harsh truth of a heretical Pope will never be “mainstream”.
And please don’t give me that rubbish that we can’t judge people’s heart. No one uses the argument with Hitler. We can see actions, and from the actions we see the motives. As outside, so inside. You can’t act like Martin Luther outside and be Padre Pio inside.
This Pope may repent one day, and we should all pray as much as we can that he may one day come back to be (or, more likely, become) a Catholic. But if he swims like a heretic, walks like a heretic, and quacks like a heretic, I will leave this rubbish about the “not judging” to others.
Let your nay be nay. Don’t go to your judgment and be told you listened to hundreds of episodes of defiance of the Church, and all you could say was that you were “surprised” or “confused”.
Being neither cold nor hot is rather dangerous.
This part deals with the “pastoral heresy”, the blatant situational ethics, the aggressive secularist and anti-catholic behaviour demonstrated at every turn and, last but not least, why faithful Catholics cannot remain silent in the face of such a disgrace.
Once again I repeat my appeal: please spread these links as much as you can. Opposition to the Evil Clown can only be effective if more and more people are helped to understand the reality of this truly unbelievable Pontificate.
Part II of “With Burning Concern” is Out.
This part focuses on Francis’ shameless defence of Islam, his ignorance and superficiality, his worldly megalomania, his brutal attacks on orthodox catholic faithful and institutions, and his attacks to the sacraments.
Please post these links everywhere you can.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
This definition coincides with what the average Pewsitter answers when he is requested to define schism: someone separates himself from the union with the Church.
Mind, here, that the definition – and the common parlance – refers schism to the Church, not to the Pope. One is not in schism purely because he separates himself from the Pope, or the Pope separates himself from him. One is in schism because he has cut himself off from the Church.
Let us, therefore, imagine Francis (he about whom nothing is unimaginable) state that those who support the death penalty have separated themselves from the body of the Church and are now officially in schism. Most certainly, every well-instructed Catholic would refuse to give obedience to the Evil Clown in such a matter. However, they would most certainly not be in any schism whatsoever. They would be as part of the Church as they always were. They would also (being Catholics) most certainly not go around creating a parallel “church” under, say, Pope Pius XIII Williamson (no, I think even he would never do that). They would never declare themselves “severed” from the Church in any way whatsoever. They would simply point out that the Pope is a heretic, and a heretical Pope will not be obeyed in everything that is heretical or going against the Church.
I also would find confusing to state, in such a circumstance, that the Pope is in schism himself. No, he clearly isn’t, because he has never declared severed the ties who bind him to the social organisation of the Church. In order to do so, he would have to resign and declare himself separated from the Church, which he will clearly never do. One might say that he has put himself in a factual state of schism (as in the case of the notorious Dutch Schism), but even in this case this factual separation would concern him, not you; and would still make of him the Pope exactly in the same way as the Dutch bishops remained bishops, continued to validly ordain priests, and were never deposed.
What Francis would be doing, and what he actually does with Fornicationis Laetitia and his many satanical statements, is “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics“.
Pope is heretic. Faithful remain faithful to the Church, and refuse to obey the Pope. No schism happens. Pope is deposed, or not. If Pope is not deposed, his appointments of Cardinals are valid – and therefore his successors are validly elected – until a Council decides on the matter of the orthodoxy of both his papacy and his successors. If Pope is deposed, Council decides about the validity of his acts and appointments whilst being a heretical Pope.
We, the simple Pewsitters, do not decide any of that. We cannot depose Popes. We are worried about dying in the state of Grace. To do this, it is highly advisable to do our best to help the right side. But it’s not for us to foresee when, and how, the Lord will put an end to this. It is also not for us to talk of schism, because no matter how heretical the Pope becomes, we remain and want to die in communion with the Church. Church, obviously, seen as the Bride of Christ, not the Vatican Gay Mafia, no matter how bad the latter may become.
The Church is the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”, not Francis’ Gay Sauna. It is not for Francis to declare you in or out, if he is being heretical in so doing.
You are still in. He is still a heretic. That’s it.
Once again, it seems to me this talk of “schism” derives from excessive and wrong consideration for the figure of the Pope. It is as if some people would think that if the Pope officially converted to Islam the Catholics would have to a) do the same or b) be in schism, because ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia and if the Pope is now within Islam, then so must you. Nonsense.
Francis will cause no schism. He will cause (more or less) widespread disobedience to his heresy, but he will not be able to cause any schism, or to cause obedient Catholics to declare themselves in schism, or to separate even only one of the faithful from the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Pray for the painless death of the Evil Clown. Pray also for his conversion as sincerely as you can, though I think his death is by far the most probable and the only assured outcome. Pray that the Lord may soon put an end to this scourge. But never, never go around talking of schism.
Let him be a heretic.
You will remain faithful.
The following is from the latest blog post from Father Blake (emphasis mine):
When we ask for clarification from the Cardinals of the Church, as we are bound to do, we are met with either silence or told, as we were in England, by many of our superiors that Cardinal Nichols ‘was displeased’ that we should even voice such a concern in a private communication to him and his fellow Cardinals, that is the absolute moral low ground, though maybe a not entirely unexpected response.
Yep, it’s “officially official”. Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols let England’s priests know, by way of their own bishops, that he “was displeased” that they should voice their concern to him.
We understand from this something of what is going on behind the scenes in England: a reckless hierarchy scolds those among the priests who dare to think their job is to be Catholic, and the job of their bishops more so.
“Absolute moral low ground” says it very well.
I hope the retaliation against Father will be slow to come, and not too painful. Though that it will come at some point and in some form seems likely.
Welcome to the (earthly) church in the time of the Evil Clown: a place where perversion is celebrated without consequences, and fidelity to the Church causes “displeasure” in her own Princes.
Identifying likely voters by asking them how likely they are to vote shifts the electorate from the demographic composition observed in recent presidential elections towards a whiter, older electorate. While it is always possible that the electorate will be older and whiter in 2016 than it was in 2012 and 2008 — we will not know what the electorate in 2016 looks like until Election Day — given the demographic stability evident in past presidential elections we are reluctant to rely on screens that shift the composition of the electorate too far away from the composition of recent elections. Given historical patterns and the relative stability of presidential voting, our working assumption is that the electorate in 2016 is more likely than not to resemble the 2012 electorate; we trust the stable patterns in the data more than self-reported responses. (emphases mine)
I had to read it twice, because I could not believe that even NBC could be so brazen.
What they are saying is this:
“we are well noticing that we are seeing an increase in White and older voters among Likely Voters only six weeks away from the vote. Clearly, there is change afoot. However, this is very bad news for Crooked Hillary’s fans. Therefore, we prefer to adjust the reality we are seeing to something pretty similar to what we have seen in 2012. Because you see, in 2012 we had far less Whites and far more Blacks voting than it seems likely this year. Therefore, we will make Crooked Hillary look better and give her apathetic supporters some much- needed morale boost”.
2012? With Mulatto President running and mobilising (racist) Blacks all over the Country; and his flip-flopper, Mormon antagonist clearly unable to do the same with his core electorate?
2012? Without the Most Hated Bitch Alive running? The woman almost destroyed by an underfunded Socialist ostracised by his own party machine? The woman embroiled in scandals concerning her behaviou rin government, her behaviour out of government, her “pay to play” tricks, her health, and her chronic inability to tell the truth even by mistake?
2012? Did Romney pulverise Gay Mulatto for public attendance at his rallies in 2012? Can we really not see that things appear to be different in 2016? Is this not a matter of simple observation of facts?
What is a poll worth, if the pollster decide they are going to ignore the reality they see in front of them, a reality they openly admit to you they are seeing and measuring, and give you the manipulation of the data they see “safer” (read: not a disaster for Hillary) instead?
Then there is this other pearl:
Our respondents are selected from the nearly 3 million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day. To do so, for a random sample of those taking a survey, SurveyMonkey displays a map of past election results colored in gradations of red, blue and purple and they ask those individuals to “help us predict the 2016 elections.” Because individuals choose whether or not they want to help predict the election, those individuals choosing to participate are arguably more likely to be politically interested and likely to vote [ and younger, and more urban] than respondents who see the same invitation and decline to participate. (red and emphasis mine).
Are they telling us that their data are taken exclusively from a sample of people who are Internet-savvy enough to a) participate to online surveys and b) tell the pollster they want to be counted? Seriously?
Does it take a genius to understand that among a sample of real likely voters out there, those who will vote for Trump but are not interested in these Internet plays will easily exceed those Hillary fans who do the same? Trump’s voters are more likely to be Midwest welders and motorbike mechanics. Crooked Hillary’s voters are more likely to be students, internet-savvy young employees, or Starbucks failures spending a lot of time on their laptops.
I understand it when a pollster tells me that he has adjusted the data in order to make the, say, 3,000 respondents better match the reality out there. But it is very different from a pollster saying that he sees a clear reality out there, and he adjusts it because he can’t ( = does not want to) believe what’s really happening.
This reminds me of Brexit. Tweeters from all over the Country reported long lines in “deep England” full of old-ish people and people who had not voted for a long time, whilst the BBC & assorted faggots kept explaining to us how their statistical models returned a clear victory for “Remain”.
I am not saying this is in the bag. What I am saying is that even the polls which try to explain to us why Hillary is not sinking like she is the Titanic fail to persuade.
Can’t wait for a) the TV debates, and b) the leaks, and c) the next fit of cough, or d) fainting caused by (what was that? Oh, another lie…) “dehydration”.
They say in Italy that the mother of the idiot is always pregnant, a dry way of saying that there are a lot of them around and new ones are born without interruption.
There is much wisdom in this popular saying. I had the last confirmation of this by reading the comments of some already born idiots in the comment box of the Remnant blog post with the Book of Accusation (Part I) against Pope Francis.
It is depressing enough to read of the usual cretins asking why to do this if it is not likely to change the world (these people have, obviously, never heard of Christian witness, defence of truth, or such like ways of wasting one’s time), but it is outright infuriating to read self-referencing wannabe bloggers who have not published any post in two months accusing the writers of the letter of neglecting some of the heresies of the heretical machine gun called Francis…
Some people are happiest when they can criticise the effort of others.
They are, very often, those very lazy with their effort themselves.
Liber Accusationis “With Burning Concern”: Matt, Ferrara, Vennari Publish Open Accusation Against Francis
“With Burning Concern”, the title of the document, is the English translation of the German Mit Brennender Sorge, Pius XI’s encyclical (actually written by Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pastor Angelicus) against the Nazi regime. And in fact, Francis is being more devastating for Catholicism than Hitler was.
Please post/email/link to this document everywhere you can! Let it spread like wildfire!
As I was reading it, it was like every new breaths of. Refreshing, invigorating, exhilarating!
It is beautiful to know that as we all die and go into the ground, our struggle for the defence of Truth will live on and will be remembered by others, who will carry it out and remind the faithful of the public opposition of the laity since the time of Francis.
Let this mess continue for as long as God pleases. Let those disgraceful bishops and cardinals damn themselves as surely as they like. Let Francis II, Francis III and Francis IV, if our sins are so big, ravage the Church as much as they can.
Truth will never die. In His Mercy, the Lord will take care that there are always voices who speak in its defence, no matter how many bishops stay silent.
Let every bastard – of whom God has, in His justice, so disposed – rot in hell.
But you, you will stay faithful to your last breath.
“The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved.” -Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD)
“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” -Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 AD)
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” -Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.” -Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590-604)
“By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.” -Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208 (DS 423)
“You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[Rom 1; Heb 11; Council of Trent, session 6, chap. 8.] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[St. Cyprian, epistle 43.] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[St. Cyprian,de unitat. Eccl.] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.[St. Cyprian, epistle 72.]” -Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, #4, 17 March 1856
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian Faith. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science.” -Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, #27, 12 August 1950
All the statements above are beautifully coherent. There is no contradiction in them. In them, the Church explains and teaches one Truth. The emphases are obviously mine.
Please read all these statements attentively. Then reflect on the following:
Cantate domino does not state that a man who does not want to be damned must make a conscious, voluntary, publicly communicated decision to leave his heresy and join the Only Church. The requirement to avoid hell is that he be joined with Her before Death.
God, who is Omnipotent, can certainly join anyone He wishes to save to the Only Church before death. He can do that either by giving the soul of the man the consciousness that he is wrong and the Church is right, and a desire to be part of Her, just before his death (and neither you or I need be informed about the fact), or by joining him with Her of His own decree because the man was particularly good and God has decreed that he has died in invincible ignorance and is, therefore, worthy of becoming part of the Church before his death.
Christ is the Bridegroom. The Church is the Bride. It follows that Christ will not admit to the presence of the Bridegroom those whom He has not decreed to be joined with the Bride.
This is all very linear, very logical, elegantly unavoidable from the premises of Truth.
Where the problems begin is when the “imprudent zeal for souls” leads people to talk nonsense for an apparently good, but ultimately childish desire to see everyone (or almost everyone) saved; a childish desire and wishful thinking which, in fact, contributes to the damnation of those the childish person is so desirous to see saved, and might well be dangerous for the salvation of this person himself.
We cannot say, with absolute certainty, that this or that just deceased Proddie, or Infidel, or Unbeliever has gone to hell. Every single one of them might, just might, have saved his ass to Purgatory in the end. Odds don’t count here. We can just not exclude it, no matter how little the odds.
But we also cannot say that one particular sperm will not manage to fecundate the ovule. We cannot say that, no matter how little the odds!
Good luck, you little sperm. I wish you well. I really do.
Allow me not to bet my pint on you, though…
Being humans, we can’t avoid asking ourselves: “how are the odds”?
The answer lies in the simple phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Seen that the “being joined with Her before death” by Divine Decree must be an exceptional circumstance (otherwise, you will agree, it would not make much sense, and in the extreme it would not make any sense at all, to be a Catholic in the first place) the odds can’t be good at all; in fact they must be, in descending order, from bad to absolutely terrifying for Proddies, Infidels, and Unbelievers*. How many of them will, without any obvious decision to convert, be fished out from Christ from the very jaws of Hell? We don’t know, but as stated above, it can only be the exception. He who stakes his salvation on God making an exception for him is, it seems to me, a presumptuous idiot.
Another important element must be derived from these reflections: there can be no true saintliness outside of the Church. “No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
There is nothing like a “Protestant Saint”. There is also nothing like “protestant saintliness”. Every Protestant is marching towards hell. His piety and love for the Lord, his Christian zeal – no matter how strong; and I am sure it is very strong in many of them – avail him nothing, until and unless he is joined with the Church before death. Let us not kid ourselves about this, lest our “imprudent zeal for souls” makes their path far more difficult, and encourages them to walk toward a cliff out of which only the merciful hand of the Lord can save the one or other of them when they have their feet almost in mid-air.
What a blessing it is, to be a Catholic! How easier it is for us to safely travel through the perilous sea of life from the security of the Barque! How many, who think themselves too good for it, will drown! The greatest blessing of my life was to be born a Catholic. The second, to be born with a strong faith. Yes, in this order.
There is no salvation outside of the Church. The one or other will save their backside by being fished in by Our Lord just at the very last moment. But no one can say that he thinks that they will be very many and believe in extra ecclesiam nulla salus at the same time.
* For these, of course, they might have received the grace of faith and being joined with the Church before dying. If they died in their atheism, the matter is settled already. But this is why the Church teaches us to pray for our relatives and loved ones who apparently died in their atheism.
After the first Bizarro World post, we assist to the continuation of this utterly unreal situation.
The Catholic Herald has a fairly decent article (for their standards, at least) concerning the reaction of the Catholic world to Lettergate and the utterly stupid title of the Irish so-called Catholic, which I do not even repeat. The best part of the linked article is this one:
In the CDF’s 1994 Letter to Bishops, publicly approved by John Paul and signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the practice is referred to as “doctrine” three times; it adds that a change in discipline would be “impossible”, that this is a “constant and universal practice”, which is “binding” and “cannot be modified because of different situations”. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Benedict XVI affirmed this practice as “based on Sacred Scripture” – that is, God gave it to us.
This is a teaching of formidable authority. The idea that a Pope could snap his fingers and overturn it – in a private letter which does not even mention the words “communion” or “remarried” – is a fantasy.
Yes, it is a fantasy. Truths are things. The truth of marriage, and the reality of adultery, do not exist since 1994. They are integral part of the fabric of the Universe. Nothing could ever change them; not even God, because God – by His own nature – cannot change. Marriage and the Catholic understanding of adultery should, by the by, never be defended with the help of V II documents. They are part of the Depositum Fidei. Therefore, they are not based on the one or other official document. Rather, it is exactly the one or other official document that is judged according to how well it represents and explains the teaching that has always been there.
Therefore, we have the following – utterly unreal – situation:
- Evil Clown implies in a footnote that in certain circumstances two and two can be five.
- Argentinian clown bishops write a letter to Francis and ask him: “we interpret your document so, that in some special circumstances two and two is five. Are we correct?”
- Evil Clown answers in writing: “there are no other interpretations”
- Irish Wannabe Catholic titles in huge letters: “Two And Two Is Now Five”
- Various bishops insist that two and two can only be four.
What all these people – the Argentinian clown bishops, the Irish wannabe “c”atholic newspaper, the Catholic Herald, and the other bishops – forget to mention is the huge elephant in the room: the Pope has issued a written heretical statement going against two thousand years of Catholicism: an open challenge to the Church and Her Sacraments, and a spittle in the face of Christ.
It is high time we stop living in this Bizarro World and state what every person with a brain can see: the Pope is openly, officially heretic, and must be deposed.
He proclaimed his heresy very openly. There are no other interpretations.
How long will we live in this Bizarro World?
The Remnant reports of a DCLeaks revelation that George Soros’ OSF prepares weekly (laudatory) reports about the social and political activism of the Evil Clown.
Now, this does not mean that Francis prepares these reports, or helps them to be prepared. It does not mean that Francis himself is in Soros’ pocket, either. But what this makes clear is that the two are perfectly aligned in their own utterly diabolical Weltanschauung.
Francis has appointed himself the high priest of the religion of Soros: a satanical sect promoting everything that is evil from environmentalism to Muslim invasion to the destruction of borders.
The naive part of the Catholic world needs to wake up to the reality of a Pope working against all that the Church represents day in and day out.
They can choose to close their eyes, but they must pay attention: at some point, obstinate naivety becomes willing silence in the face of an evil that was certainly recognised, if brushed away because of convenience and cowardice.
We live in very stupid times if we think that countless adults, people who are fully functional in all other spheres of life, can systematically ignore or excuse this Pope’s behaviour and get away with it.
A child of seven can commit a mortal sin.
Think of this, you Pollyannas out there, and shiver.
As the Pope proclaims – by why of footnote + letter – a heretical doctrine, the bishops of Alberta, Canada, state the obvious: (emphasis mine)
In the case where the tribunal upholds the validity of the first union, obedience in faith to the indissolubility of marriage as revealed by Christ will make clear to them the actions that must follow. They are bound to live with the consequences of that truth as part of their witness to Christ and his teaching on marriage.
(I will, out of pure mercy, spare you the rant about the “brother ans sister” thingy, which is now truly going to my nerves. However, see here).
What a world has this become where bishops must intervene, very publicly, to reaffirm with their sheep the most elementary truths of Catholicism, because the Pope himself is spreading heresy.
And what another troubling sign of the time, that Bishops must intervene to correct the Pope’s heresy, but do not think it fit to say that he is.
One is obviously happy that at least something is being done. But from a bishop one expects more than something. One expects the clear denunciation of heresy within the Church no matter who is the heretic.
I know that it is not asking a little. But being a bishop is not “a little”, either. being a bishop should bring with itself the understood, unquestioned preparedness to whatever fight, whatever suffering, whatever persecution. Bishops are the descendants of the Apostles, almost all of them martyrs. They aren’t the descendants of diplomats or politicians. When they have accepted the purple, they knew they were treading on the blood of the martyrs who preceded them from the very start. They knew the job required and required of them to unquestioningly accept every sacrifice their position demands.
They are not the poor baker forced to bake cakes for perverts in order not to lose his house. Their moral position is eminently different from the one of the poor quisque de populo, squashed by a hostile environment and trying (be it for reasons of prudence, or weakness) to be as Catholic as he can without making of himself a beggar. More than anyone else, a bishop is required to invite and accept persecution for the sake of Christ, because this is exactly what is in his job description.
We need bishop martyrs. We need to give to the generations that will come after our disgraceful one the example that some bishops resisted, that the Church was not all rotten, that a shameless rapscallion of a Pope was not allowed to affirm heresy one footnote, one letter and many off-the-cuff speeches at a time and no single “Vatican” bishop dared to confront him openly, no matter what the consequences.
And by the way – I say this only as a fact; it has no bearing on the duty of a bishop – many thousand priests and missionaries, and countless simple faithful in dangerous zones, give witness of their faith every day at a far greater peril for their life and limb, and for the welfare of their families, than Francis will ever be able to do to bishops daring to challenge him as a heretic.
The Pope spreads heresy. Some bishops mumble something to the contrary. Nobody challenges him directly. Most of the (if memory serves) 8,000 bishops of the Catholic world just shuts up, and wait for this to pass (which it won’t, because the Evil Clown keeps appointing Cardinals).
It truly is a bizarro world.
This one here makes for interesting reading.
Or from here: (emphaisis mine)
A person is more susceptible to pneumonia if they are elderly, have a weakened or compromised immune system, are a cigarette smoker, are an alcoholic or are suffering for some other illness
Or you can read here about (again) the Bronko’s episode, the drinking contest, the (you don’t say?) “accident” of (cough) falling.
Or do you want to know more about what happened in Cartagena?
And several more episodes..
Now “barking Hillary” makes more sense?
No, this is not a “light” problem. Before knowing she was going around barking, I remember reading an article on the “American Thinker” stating her entourage had suggested to her she goes into a clinic to deal with the “problem” before starting the campaign, in order to both keep the issue under control and defuse the otherwise unavoidable rumours, hints and allegations. She apparently declined stating it was not necessary, and the author of the article went on wondering how a person who already has an issue with drinking will react to the prolonged stress of a long, ferocious battle for the White House.
I think I might know how this ended up.
The question in the title is asked in a LifeSiteNews article, and it is answered in a variety of ways, none of them wrong. Yours truly had his own take on the matter pretty recently, albeit seen from the angle of enviro-faggotry now becoming spread among the Prius Generation*.
I have abandoned the idea that masculinity was shown by physical strength at about third grade, when I started to learn in detail about men who were either at their strongest in their old-ish age (Julius Caesar come to mind) or those greatness was not in the least dependent from their physical strength (Hannibal, say). However, I am sure a Napoleon exuded a masculinity fully uncaring of his small dimensions.
Masculinity consists in thinking, moving, talking, acting, praying like a man. And you are in front of a man who is made in such a way, you will immediately recognise him irrespective of his physical attributes. Which is why the relatively small Putin commands a respect – and exudes a manliness – his much bigger predecessor never had, not even when sober. Though I do not doubt that, when sober and of same age, Eltsin would have defeated Putin in every lumberjack test.
It is wrong to identify masculinity with physical strength, but it is right to see in Obama’s faggoty demeanor a sign of faggotry. It’s the limp-wristedness, not the physical strength, that makes the unmanly man.
* Prius owners of this forum excluded. Though I wish they had a Mustang.