Monthly Archives: December 2016
This year, this little effort will not only wish a happy 2017 to its readers, but also give an Award for Man Of The Year 2016 (note the absence of politically correct gender rubbish).
This having been an unbelievable year, yours truly has decided to split the prize in three. All perfect things, they say, come in three.
The first of the three winners is Nigel Farage. I cannot remember, in recent decades, of any one who achieved a result of such importance as Brexit, little by little, for many years, fighting against all odds until final victory; a victory which will have British students having to remember his name for centuries to come. Not only intelligent but well prepared, extremely witty and not prone to being bought by promises of power and influence, Farage is the kind of chap you should feel obliged to like even if you disagree with him. May the Lord bless him and give him, and the other two, abundant blessings in life and a good death.
The second of the three ex aequo winner is Julian Assange. This improbable hero of conservatism, once much praised by Leftist milieus when he was leaking material concerning the Iraq operations of the Bush administration, suddenly found himself out of favour when his love for hidden truth extended to the DNC and the Clinton Clan. Alas, Hillary did not get her wish to “drone” him. Unfortunate for her, pretty good for all of us. I am not saying here that Assange was decisive in the election’s outcome (those looking for handouts and easy abortions would have voted her if she had been found to eat children alive, but he certainly contributed to opening the eyes of more than a few), but that his willingness to take up on the Clinton Clan deserves the highest praise irrespective of the influence his work had on the honest electors. It is good that there are people like Assange. It is a strength of the West.
The third winner is, as you all have already imagined, The Donald himself. What this man has achieved has a magnitude only the most retarded among the already brain-challenged Libtards still struggle to grasp. Donald Trump is the best demonstration of the last years that it is not true – as Marxist view of history would have you believe – that economic processes and social conditions unavoidably cause the emergence of people who are, in fact, merely the result and product of what was just there. This is not the case. Some people literally make history by creating events – or, in this case, a movement – few people could even imagine, much less consider inevitable or bound to happen at some point. Donald Trump is the man Providence has given us to create something considered by most soi-disant intelligent observers not only improbable, but laughably stupid.
As this incredible year approaches its end, it is fitting to say a prayer, or three, for the three men who, to various degrees, changed history in 2016.
Your humble correspondent hopes to be able to write such an article, at the end of 2017, about the Four Cardinals. Alas, the latter still have to demonstrate one tenth of the steely determination, clarity of vision and absolute devotion to the cause of the three gentlemen described above. Yet, we should pray for them too, as we enter the year of the supposed big confrontation: that they may fight like Crusaders for the faith, as they are supposed to.
As we all wait for the issuance of the correction, let me state once again how I think things will progress.
1. Correction of the Pope's errors contained in Amoris Laetitia, firstly in camera caritatis.
2. Public correction after Francis has refused to retract. Declaration that some teachings in AL are of heretical nature. Intimation (or supplication, which is the same) to Francis to acknowledge the heresy of his opinions and retract them.
3. Warning to the Pope (again, in a strictly private way) that he will be declared a heretic unless he publicly retracts/answers the Dubia in the only possible way.
4. Public declaration of the Pope as heretic after he obstinately refuses to condemn his heresies.
It seems to me that all four steps follow from the very rationale of the presentation of the Dubia to the Pope. I do not see a way how any of the Cardinals can do anything differently. Please consider that the warnings to the Pope are the necessary premise of his being declared in obstinacy, and the private nature of the first warning is both wise and charitable. Let no one say Francis has been “surprised” by the events, or no one wanted to talk to him.
What happens next is, I think, either a new imperfect Council to declare the Pope deposed as heretic and proceed to a new conclave (if enough Bishops and Cardinals are found for it; I can't imagine four Cardinals and a handful of bishops would be sufficient, and I therefore think this hypothesis remote) or what I call Honorius 2.0.
Pope Honorius was heretic to such an extent, that after his death it was felt an ecumenical concil (a vastly expensive exercise) was needed to rid the Church of the stench emanating from his papacy. But that was, as we all know, after his death. There was, therefore, a time when Honorius was in charge, public heresy and all, as the only legitimate Pope, and no one was publicly convening a council to have him declared heretic and self-deposed.
The questions spontaneously arise: what was happening during the rest of his Pontificate?
Was the See vacant? Of course not.
Not even with a heretical Pope? Not even then, as the See was not declared vacant afterwards; not even retroactively.
Did he appoint bishops in the meantime? Very probably yes.
Did some or all of these bishops take part in the election of the next Pope (no Cardinals or Conclaves then….)? Ask a Church historian, but my take is: very possibly.
How was, then, the election of his successor valid? You would have to ask a theologian here. My take is that the election was valid because clearly happened in accordance with the thinking of the Church. The same Church, mind, which went through unbelievably chaotic times around the years of the Synodus Horrenda and still emerged with a succession of validly elected Popes. The same church who elected Popes, for several centuries, simply by gathering those Bishops around Rome who could be gathered for the task within a reasonable time, without a rigid “instructions manual” as to the exact proceedings, required participation, causes of invalidity of the election, and the like. You trust that the Church will keep being the Church, and the Lord will protect her in such a way that the faithful will always know who is the pope and which is the true church, no matter how bad the times.
And so we come to the most logical step forward: if the first four points all happen and no revolt against the Pope materialises, where are we?
We are, I think, at Honorius 2.0, and we should act in the same way as I think faithful and informed Catholic acted when Honorius kept being Pope after having publicly supported heretical positions: the Pope is still Pope, but he is a heretical one. As long as he is not declared self-deposed as heretic, he is – unworthy as he is – still the chap in charge. He will be refused obedience, but we will have to leave it to Divine Providence to find a way to sort the mess out. It happened brilliantly after Honorius' death, but this was an outcome no one could foresee with certainly in the time we are, basically, living now: heretical pope goes on spreading heresy and appointing cardinals and is not stopped.
Let's say Francis dies ten months after being officially branded a heretic, having appointed (say) 30 cardinal electors before and 12 after the official declaration concerning his heresy. Will we all become Sedevacantists if these 42 Cardinals are allowed to participate to the next Conclave, or even only the 30? I can't imagine that. I will always keep seeing the Church in that organisation that is reasonable for a thinking man, supported by orthodox Catholic organisations, to see as the Church. When the SSPX tells me “twelve Cardinals and 50 Bishops are enough to declare a Pope self-deposed and elect a new one” I will believe it, but until that point I will keep seeing the Church, however polluted by heresy, as exclusively the official and apparent one.
And if – and when – the SSPX were to declare the the Pope is deposed and a new Pope is elected, then the new Pope would have the support of the strongest, most orthodox Catholic body in existence, with around 500 of the best priests you could find, people whose orthodoxy puts Cardinal Burke himself to shame.
But I will not condone, on this little effort of mine, claims of papacy supported by a handful of V II bishops or cardinals without the support of clear beacons of orthodoxy like the SSPX; an event, this “four cardinals and a few bishops meet and elect a Pope” thingy, that I consider extremely improbable in the first place.
We must do like the faithful in the times of the heretical, but still living Pope Honorius: pray for the Church, avoid taking refuge in splinter-MiniMe church fantasies, and trust the Lord that, in His own time, he will allow the Church to emerge from this mess with a strong orthodox Pope and an uninterrupted succession of validly elected Popes.
Unless Francis dies very fast or retracts, there is no way we can avoid posing ourselves extremely strange questions, as at this point even the refusal of the Cardinals to issue the correction would factually make of the Pope a heretic, by the mere fact of his obstinate silence when requested to uphold the truth of the doctrine. Therefore, we must prepare for a time of great trouble knowing that the Lord will never fail to clearly show to us where the Church – however corrupted – is. What we must not do is to decide for ourselves who is Pope and who isn't, lest we degrade ourselves to the level of those funny guys thinking that some chap has been made pope by, I don't know, ten people.
Pray, hope and, if possible, don't worry.
Oportet ut scandala eveniant.
The Church will survive this madness, too.
Former priest, now full-time heretic commie Leonardo Boff said it very clearly: Francis is one of us.
He gives facts and places, too: a meeting not happened because Francis was too angry after the thirteen cardinals letter, and an official request of material written by a heretic for his own opus diabolicum.
What kind of chap Boff is would be clear, to casual observer who does not know him, simply by reading this interview: he states he still “celebrates” every now and then, and talks of women deacon with the same levity with which I talk of Italian football.
Such a man openly claims his vicinity to Francis, a Pope who uses his writings for his own heretical “pastoral” documents.
In sane times, such an interview would cause an immediate, scandalised denial from the Vatican. In this case, you may be sure the reaction will be the usual one: silence, and a “wink-wink” to heresy.
From their friends you will recognise them.
Pretty strong words from Cardinal Burke in a new interview clearly meant to increase the pressure on Pope Francis to at least publicly declare he is Catholic, and avoid worse trouble.
The words that define the interview and send the clear message to Francis are the following ones:
If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope
Naturally, and pretty much in style, Cardinal Burke goes on reassuring us of how much he likes Pope Francis, & Co. (this always surprises me; an obviously extremely grumpy, cantankerous, nasty, boorish and permanently insulting man appears to be liked by everyone. One wonders…). But the issue here is not of peoples, but of truths.
In another interview, it was indicated that the formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could appear in January, and would remain limited to correcting the document itself, not declaring the Pope a heretic (yours truly reported). Cardinal Burke is now sending a first message about what could happen after that correction.
It is, in fact, difficult to believe that the Cardinals would issue a formal correction of the Pope’s document as clearly heretical and, after a certain time has elapsed, would refuse to draw the conclusion that the Pope who still insists in not condemning the errors is himself a heretic.
Amoris Laetitia is, however you see his magisterial rank (the position of cardinal Burke that it hasn’t any was, of course, negated by the very act of posing the Dubia), a document Pope Francis has signed and for which he must answer. There is no way to deflect the accusations by saying that he doesn’t remember what he has written, or was drinking too much mate, or was in the bathroom when the document was released.
Every day that Francis avoids answering the Dubia, he digs a bigger hole for himself. He should swallow this bullfrog, lose face, and save what has left of his papacy, truly south-american in the scale of its failure.
What happens now is one of those multiple possibilities with the “inverted tree” diagram I cannot draw here.
The correction is issued, or not. If it is not issued the laity will keep condemning, and the Cardinals will keep shutting up. If it is issued the Pope will have two alternatives: finally answer the Dubia or further refuse to do so. If he answers the Dubia he will most certainly answer them in the proper way, and this particular matter at least will be settled. If he does not answer them the Cardinals will, once again, have the choice between shutting up and declaring him heretical and having “ceased to be Pope”. If the Pope is declared such, either nothing will happen (most bishops and cardinals simply refuse to enter the controversy and simply wait for the heretical Pope to die, as already happened for Honorius) and the not-anymore-Pope remains in office as a sort of Vatican squatter, or the “bishop against bishop” scenario sets in, and we have a number of Cardinals and a greater number of bishops willing to see this to its end. In this last scenario an imperfect, extraordinary council would be convened (say, in a place like Poland; or, more probably, Rome), at the end of which the pope would be declared a heretic in the same way as a murdered is declared a murdered when he is condemned, though in a factual sense he was a murderer the moment he committed the murder. The “inverted tree” can go on for very long, but at this point I think Francis would be told very clearly he either resigns or the cardinals and bishops kick him out with vast majority and physically remove him from office, after which a heresy trial begins.
It is sad to say that, as I write this, the most probable hypothesis still seems to be the first one: the Cardinals do not follow through, and the matter dies here.
The newest development in the matter of the dubia are now on LifeSiteNews. Quote:
“Now of course we are in the last days, days of strong grace, before the Solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord, and then we have the Octave of the Solemnity and the celebrations at the beginning of the New Year – the whole mystery of Our Lord’s Birth and His Epiphany – so it would probably take place sometime after that.”
The cardinal, who is the patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, said the format of the correction would be “very simple.”
“It would be direct, even as the dubia are, only in this case there would no longer be raising questions, but confronting the confusing statements in Amoris Laetitia with what has been the Church’s constant teaching and practice, and thereby correcting Amoris Laetitia,” he said.
Two elements emerge:
- The awaited correction of Amoris Laetitia is scheduled for ” sometime after the Epiphany. I think it’s reasonable, when reading the timeline of events mentioned by the Cardinal as, so to speak, in the way of an earlier declaration, to expect it for sometime before the end of January.
- The correction will (at least at this stage) pertain to Amoris Laetitia only. Therefore, it will not entail a formal declaration that the Pope is himself a heretic. However, it seems to follow from the premises that if Francis, after the correction of Amoris Laetitia, insists in not answering the dubia he will, at some point, have to be declared a heretic in view of his obstinacy.
It is impossible not to see in the interview a further warning to Pope Francis. It is also noticed by more and more people (Edward Pentin already did it, now Ross Douthat agrees) that if not Amoris Laetitia, but the dubia were scandalous we could not save ourselves from a tidal wave of public declarations of solidarity with the Pope and condemnation of the Four Cardinals. Nothing of the sort is happening, and the only ones who have run to defend the Pope were notorious dissenters, perverted Jesuits, and “philosophers” once again licking the boots of those in power, as they have done all life. None of those silent bishops can be called in any way courageous, or even right, as they have the darn duty to defend the teaching of the Church with more than silence. However, I can’t imagine that Francis hasn’t got the message.
Sadly, Francis has already seen that these bishops are very ready, and many of them willing to be strong-armed (the dismal silence after Amoris Laetitia is ample evidence of this), so at this point it requires a healthy dose of optimism to think that Francis will simply cave in. Remember: the dubia have already cut off any possibility for him to waffle himself out of the situation. Therefore, either he or the Cardinals will have to lose face on this.
I had thought that, the Vatican ways being always so slow, Francis would have been given more ample time to reflect on how to organise his defeat, as it seemed not realistic to me that after the Cardinals need five months to decide that Amoris Laetitia is very, very bad, they would not give Francis an even longer time to come to the same conclusion. Still, this correction still appears to be scheduled around four full months after the original letter, and the Cardinals might be trying a last display of determination after having been informed that Francis will not answer the dubia, full stop.
As Christmas approaches, I invite all my readers to set aside the polite fluff and sincerely, openly pray the Lord that he may, in His mercy, rid us of this unspeakable disgrace of a Pope.
Of all disgusting wannabe Catholics who infest the wannabe “c”atholic press, probably the most disgusting are those who want to appear moderate, or conciliatory, by suggesting that the tones have become too heated, and it is now time to, as they say, turn down the heat on the matter.
Some people really don’t get it, or else they pretend they don’t.
Truth is the most important thing there is on this planet. Compared to it, “niceness” does not even appear on the radar screen. To ask for a verbal truce when a war for our souls is raging is exactly the same as asking for a kinder way to converse with Satan lest the proper manners are forgotten.
It boils down to this: if for you Catholic Truth is sacred, nothing else count in comparison to it. There is literally nothing else that can be seen with a binocular.
If, however, to you it’s not really important whether sacrilege becomes an accepted, officially (albeit heretically) sanctioned part of Church life, or perhaps you even secretly wish that it be so, then certainly priorities will align and a Rodney King moment will emerge: can we all just get along, please? We would like to sanction sacrilege a little piece at a time, and it’s so difficult if you make all this noise.
No, we can’t get along. We won’t get along with heretics inside Holy Mother Church. We will not be stopped by people who don’t care for the Church calling us “nasty”. War is nasty, and it is luxury enough when the war is only verbal.
This is not a time for peace, or niceness. This is a time for war, and for calling a heretic a heretic. And no, there will never be a “both/and” when Christ has said it’s “either / or”. Everything else comes straight from Satan.
The Evil Clown can stop this madness, if he has a brain. Does he have a brain? I don’t know. I suspect him of eating shit, so it’s difficult to gauge the reactions of such a one. But one thing I know: if the man does not back off he deserves the nuclear explosion that will follow, and such an outcome is about one million times preferable than letting widespread, mainstream, everyday sacrilege enter the sacramental life a bit at a time, for the sake of moderate tones.
We will all die one day. I would not want to go to my judgment after having lived worrying about tones, rather than truths.
Muslim bastard thinks he can treat a young apparently Western (though ethnically Chinese) woman like cattle.
He learns one thing or two.
It is suggested to watch until the end. It’s actually a pity the video ends so soon.
Original link is here , in the comment section, for those who cannot see the video from the Twitter link.
Made my day.
We read already – and we will even more if the SHTF – Bishops, Cardinals and journalists criticising Catholics because they refuse to “follow the spirit”, who has allegedly “spoken”. Let us explain shortly why this is blasphemous rubbish.
The Holy Ghost is Holy, and He is God. If a hypothetical holy spirit were holy now in a different way from yesterday, either he would not be holy now, or he would not be holy yesterday. In both cases, he would be a fraud.
Perfection cannot change. Truth cannot change. This is something a child of eight can grasp, and many bishops and journalists apparently can't.
This reasoning is, mind, never applied to the past. Why do these bishops and journalists not say to us that all the heretical Popes of the past were right? Was it not so, that a Pope “chosen by the Spirit” was leading the faithful towards some “surprises?” If the “God of Surprises” can “surprise” us now, why not then? If what is at variance with Truth was heretical then, why not now?
“Oh, but it's Vatican II, you know”…
More poppycock. Why can God only surprise you with an ecumenical council, and not with a “spirit-led” Pope? Why would God start V II and hide from you for fifty and more years that truth has radically changed, until an ass of an Argentinian becomes Pope and w all know the new truth between talks about coprophagia and coprophilia? Who is anyone to say which surprises are valid and which aren't? Why has the Spirit lied to JP II (canonised by the same Argentinian ass) and waited until today to “surprise” us?
And more in general, where does this mentality lead us? If one thinks that the concept of good and bad, saintliness and sin can be radically changed, why criticise those who embraced Nazism and the Holocaust? Were they not stating, just like those bishops and journalists, that a new, God-willed (“Gott mit us!”) moral order is now in place, and he who does not follow it is an evil man and an enemy of the newly minted true religion?
The most shocking thing is that such rubbish does not come (solely) from Proddies, who have accustomed themselves to an image of God as capricious as Madonna (the aging whore, not the Blessed Virgin) a long time ago. No, it comes from people who should know better from either the tenderest age, or from their conversion at the latest. That they dare to call themselves Catholics tells you about the extent to which Satan has penetrated their dark hearts.
And this is so stupid, so unbearably stupid. It's like promoting the virtues of meth. Only the addicts are going to approve of you. Normal people will understand you are selling death.
Catholics know better than to follow such satanical blabber, and everyone who tells you that he believes in the “God of surprises” is obviously rotten to the core, a sin junkie looking for his next fix.
Pray for them , and do not follow them and their unholy spirit.
I do not know how much time the Cardinals have informally given Francis to answer the Dubia, but it is reasonable to assume it will not be beyond Easter 2017. Unless the man does us all (and himself) a favour and dies, he will have to start thinking seriously about this at some point.
It is, in my eyes, very improbable that an open condemnation from the Cardinals will lead, in a landslide effect, to his deposition after a vast number of pussycats suddenly starts to roar. Normally, pussycats don’t roar. Francis should be very worried about his salvation, but not really worried about his job.
However, there can be no doubt at all that being the first Pope in almost 700 years officially censored by his own Cardinals would irremediably destroy this papacy, even if not one single Bishop and Cardinal besides those who have already spoken will take position on the side of Christ. Bishop Fisher’s opposition to Henry VIII was and is nothing to do with numbers, and Church history always sees past the complicity and cowardice of the day. If the Cardinals speak, Francis’ pontificate will be nuked for all eternity.
Now put yourself in the position of an atheist, heretical, Communist Pope. What do you do? Is it I do not say reasonable, but sane to willingly go into a fight he knows he has lost on day one in the judgment of history? Atheists may think that there is nothing but nothingness when they die; but they are still, generally speaking, vain enough to worry of what people will think of them when they are dust. The extremely vain Francis is not likely to be an exception.
Nor can you say that the man prefers to remembered as a Revolutionary Pope, and be fondly remembered by Castroites. Whilst nothing is impossible with this man, it would be stupid beyond words: no one remembers Honorius as a brave trailblazer, not even alternative Catholics and revolutionary SJWs. Atheists and Communists will remember Francis rather as a hypocrite than as an innovator. But they will, far more likely, ignore him altogether.
No. The only rational thing to do at this point is to, unpleasant as it is for him, swallow this big, fat, ugly frog. Loss of face will follow, but I doubt Francis is much concerned about his face in general. He will continue to insult Catholics to the last day of his life, and keep off-the-cuffing heretical excrement until he is six feet under. He will seek petty revenges and become even crankier than he already is. He will seek ever new ways to provoke and scandalise Catholics. But he will fall short of spreading his rubbish in form of new official documents again. One thing is being despised in life, another is knowing one will be the laughing stock of countless generations to come.
This, obviously, assumes that Francis isn’t a total ass, and is still able to think and act rationally rather than being an old, cranky idiot quarrelling with everyone and everything out of spite and blank hatred for humanity.
Which, in the end, is the big question.
I have already published a blog post about the talk given by Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the 5th of December.
Bishop Schneider states the following:
A pastoral accompaniment and discernment that does not communicate to the adulterous person, the so-called divorced and remarried, the divinely-established obligation to live in continence as a sine qua non condition for admission to the sacraments, exposes itself in reality as an arrogant clericalism, as there does not exist any clericalism so pharisaical as that which arrogates to itself rights reserved to God.
We see here a theme mentioned very often: that what is clearly a scandalous adulterous relationship is fine if continence is given (and, I add, necessarily made public).
I always found such affirmations “off”, and – perhaps because of the times we live in – more than a tad stinking of Vatican II. According to this thinking, it appears that two old people could live together in what appears to be, for all the world, an adulterous relationship, with the addition of the obvious fact that they have no sex and they, duh, admit it. But you see, I though the adultery consists in the way of life, not in the accidental circumstance than one or both the adulterers happen to be impotent, or not interested in sex. This, leaving aside what must be, in very many cases, the obvious provocation of the couple who is in an age where sexual activity is to be assumed but tell you the “brother and sister thingy” because hey, we don’t want to give scandal, do we now?
I have asked before, and ask again, help from my readers in finding statements supporting this “brother and sister thingy” before the age of Vatican II. I never could find any, hence my detecting the pungent smell of V II.
Interestingly, in the already linked interview Bishop Schneider also states the following:
One of the most ancient and unequivocal testimonies of the immutable practice of the Roman Church of rejecting adulterous unions by way of the sacramental discipline–unions of members of the faithful who are still linked to a legitimate spouse in a matrimonial bond—is the author of a penitential catechesis known by the pseudonymous title of the Shepherd of Hermas. The catechesis was written, in all probability, by a Roman priest at the beginning of the second century, as indicated by the literary form of an “apocalypse” or account of a vision.
The second dialogue between Hermas and the angel of penance who appears to him in the form of a shepherd, demonstrates with admirable clarity the immutable doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church in this area: “What, O lord, will the husband do if his wife persists in this lust of adultery?” “Separate from her and the husband remains on his own. If after having left his wife he marries another woman, he also commits adultery.” “If, O lord, the wife, after she has been abandoned, repents and wishes to return to her husband, will she not be restored?” “Yes, he says, and if the husband does not receive her he sins and becomes guilty of a great fault. He should, instead, receive the one who has sinned and has repented. . . . Because of the possibility of such repentance, the husband should not remarry. This directive applies both to the wife and to the husband. Not only is there adultery if one corrupts one’s own flesh, but also the one who acts similarly to the pagans is an adulterer. . . . For that reason it was ordained that one remain alone, for both the woman and the man. One can repent . . . but he who has sinned must not sin again” (Shepherd of Hermas, Fourth Commandment, 1).
See? Second century, and no brother and sister thingy to be seen absolutely anywhere. “Remain alone” cannot mean anything else than “remain alone”. The point is also forcefully made that every spouse must be ready to readmit the other in the family life. It seems difficult to reconcile this with what we hear today: the children would be oh so horribly traumatised, and the like. Did they not have children in the Second Century?
It seems clear to me that what is required is that no alternative family is created, period. No “brother and sister” thingy, and no “let’s think of the children” thingy. It is not clear to me what part of
For that reason it was ordained that one remain alone, for both the woman and the man
I have not understood.
Once again, I am grateful for every authoritative statement in this regard from pre-Vatican II times. As it stands now, it seems to me that the matter is not being appropriately dealt with, and that it was exactly this “brother and sister thingy”, together with the bringing of children into the equation, that created the slippery slope that ends up with…
Kasper and Francis.
The extremely obese human being of (probably) female sex at the start of this video has already been hosted on this little effort. It was cringe worthy, but very funny.
Now, others are trying to steal her crown.
Personally, I think the woman in the car crying “rape” gets the biscuit; but I must admit that the “stalking postman” act was a tough one to beat.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Save a prayer, and a laugh, for these poor deluded people.
Eight years of hell await them.
As we get into the Third Sunday of Advent, I have a clear feeling this Christmas will see us more optimistic for the future than any Christmas since 2012.
Some of you will have read that Bishops Schneider and some others met in Rome on December 5 and discussed the matter of the Dubia.
The full text of Bishop Schneider’s talk has now been released, and it is a full declaration of war on heresy. I invite you to read this lengthy talk in its entirety.
The main points that Bishop Schneider wants to make are, in my opinion, the following:
- This is not the first time in the history of the Church that weak prelates cave in to the desire of powerful others (Kings and Emperors in the past, Kirchensteuer-payers and public opinion today) to have God’s law set aside. Nihil sub sole novi, cowardice and threats included.
- Faithful prelates will tolerate no compromise with the Heresy of Kasper (and Francis). That door is shut. Francis can forget it just as well as Napoleon had to, though Francis will certainly be able to count on the complicity of many cardinals, just as Napoleon did.
The talk is momentous. There is no way the Four Cardinals do not approve every word, and it is apparent Schneider speaks on their behalf to his audience. The best evidence of this is a lenghty quote from the absolutely brutal statement from Cardinal Brandmueller (one of the Four)
“In the case we have examined, this means that that, regarding the dogma of the unity, of the sacramentality, and of the indissolubility of a marriage between two baptized people, there is no way back if not – inevitable and therefore to be rejected – of considering it to be an error which must be corrected. The way of acting of Nicholas I in the dispute regarding the new marriage of Lothair II, as conscious of principle as it was inflexible and fearless, constitutes an important milestone on the road to affirming the doctrine regarding marriage in the Germanic cultural context. The fact that this Pope, like various of his successors on similar occasions, proved himself to be the advocate of the dignity of the person and of the liberty of the weak – in general they were women – has made Nicholas I worthy of the respect of historiographers, of the crown of sanctity, and of the title of ‘Great.’”
Cardinal Brandmueller makes two points here: the first is that there is no other way out from this situation than for Francis to a) retract or b) be corrected. The second is a contrast between a courageous Pope of the past and a cowardly, heretical Pope of the present.
And concerning the heretical Pope of the present, please look at the tone of Bishop Schneider, who openly mocks the heretics of our day ( for example when he states: “Perhaps they did it for pastoral motives and for advancing the possibility of a pastoral accompaniment and discernment”) in a way that is the nearest to accusing Francis, short of a direct shot.
I can’t see how there can be any retreat from Schneider & Co now. I trust even Francis will have the brains to get that, if it is explained to him slowly a couple of times.
This does not look like an attempt to find a compromise. The terms chosen are such that not acting on them would cause the most grievous loss of face for the party of the Four Cardinals.
If Francis had illusions that this matter may deflate from itself, he can abandon it now.
S.Armaticus has his, as usual, very perceptive views about what is happening with Creepygate. The article links some “pre-poop” affirmation of Bishop Fellay to Edward Pentin’s very recent interview to Regina.
Both sources indicate, more or less, the same: opposition to Francis (and, by extension, support for the Dubia) is far more widely spread than the very limited number of voices who have spoken for the Four Cardinals would let you believe. Pentin goes as far as to say that as the play is now, it is not unreasonable to assume that very many of those who have not intervened in defence of Poop Francis are, in fact, ipso facto opposed to his position.
I am not Pentin or Bishop Fellay. They talk to a lot of people. They might know more than they can (or want to) say.
However, from my keyboard on the other side of the Continent I cannot avoid thinking:
1. How can it be that there are bishops or cardinals thinking that waiting for Francis to appoint more and more poop cardinals and poop bishops, whilst hoping that he dies soon, is the way to go? Are we really at such a level of dumbness that we believe problems go away from themselves if we hope very, very hard?
2. In the same way as Fellay and Pentin talk to bishops and cardinals, the latter most certainly talk among themselves. If they are nearly as many as the sources seem to indicate (Fellay says up to 30 cardinals; basically instant death for Francis’ Poop-ificate; the number of bishops would then be a multiple of that), they most certainly know it themselves and are fully aware of their devastating strength. Would, then, the smartest thing to do not be this: the issuing of an ultimatum to Francis, with the alternative (however flowery put) between caving in or being declared a heretic?
Whilst right is more important than numbers, two dozen cardinals have quite a different impact than four, and two dozen cardinals backed by 100 or 150 bishops are game, set and match.
3. I understand Pentin’s reasoning: questioning the Pope’s orthodoxy (which is what, all diplomacy aside, the Four Cardinals are plainly doing) is such an extreme measure that all those who consider the Pope unjustly accused would speak out, surely? Well, yes and no. Yes, they do not consider Francis an orthodox Pope. No, there is no indication they would be ready to risk persecution or even inconvenience for the sake of truth. Amoris Laetitia was published in April, and as I write this the bishops and cardinals who have openly criticised it can be counted on two hands. No St Crispin’s Day lot, this one.
We will see how this pans out. Certainly, Francis’ propensity to shoot himself in the foot is helping our cause, and the more nervous he gets, the more mistakes he will make. But I don’t see on the other side anything even vaguely resembling determined Christian troops; and those bishops who decide to shut up now will, if that Francisthing hits the fan, probably decide to keep shutting up in order to “avoid a schism”.
If things come to the point where Francis is officially, publicly rebuked, I expect only a tiny minority to speak against him, and there will no doubt then that all those who shut up are helping him to stay in power. However, if such an open and public rebuke were to happen it would never be a game of numbers: this papacy would be shattered in one thousand fragments, and Francis would never recover from it.
We will not have a Francis declared heretic and self-deposed through his heresy, or a Francis forced to resign to avoid such an event. But we will have a papacy mortally wounded, and unable to recover credibility for as long as Poop Francis lives; which, apparently, even a lot of people in purple and red hope will not be long.
“Creepygate” may merely be Francis’ vulgarity number 3528, but it appears this time the patience of even the mainstream press is running shorter. One wonders why, seen that even the word “c@zz0”, an extremely vulgar expression, slipped as of nothing (thus betraying a long and constant habit) from the mouth of this boor failed to cause anything approaching discomfort.
What has changed now is that the Catholic world has become increasingly more tired of Francis’ provocations, and more and more people start to see him exactly in the way this little effort has described him for now very long: a lewd, ignorant, arrogant, frankly stupid wannabe South American dictator so much out of his depth that it is embarrassing for the Roman cats.
Plus, your garden variety Catholic journalist slowly but surely begins to smell the time in which everyone will be required to have anti-Francis credentials; because make no mistake: no matter how many people follow the Four Cardinals, if the latter officially censor him this papacy will go down in flames in a very, very spectacular manner. Therefore, it is now necessary for the professionals of mainstream Catholic writing to start distancing themselves from the failure of this pontificate, which is now assuming such proportions that it can be easily seen from Mars.
Your humble correspondent hopes to be able to say, one day, that most of the ‘I never liked the man’ people have needed an awfully long time to open their eyes; whilst others, like myself and many other traditionalist, rigorously non mainstream bloggers and writers have seen the fraud of this pontificate a long, long time ago.
Poop (see what I am doing here?) Francis is now in real trouble. The day he will resign in ignominy is, if still not probable, far less improbable than one year ago. The year of mercy has been unmerciful in exposing all the destructive heresy, blasphemy, ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and outright stupidity of this man and his pontificate.
My impression is that, in the years left to him, the man will have to eat an awful lot of that by which he seems so obsessed. He wanted to be the great innovator, but he will now have to battle every day to avoid being remembered as the great cretin. And as he is a cretin, he will do it in the wrong way, with more recriminations and insults and vulgarities, which will have the only effect of causing him to dig himself into a bigger hole.
I still think the foul tomatoes wouldn’t be a sin, though. It’s not really physical violence. Merely defence of orthodoxy.
Poop Francis is in real trouble now.
And not even a Fidel around to be asked for help.