Monthly Archives: May 2017

Cardinal Marx, The Multi-Faith Guy

Cardinal Marx has some homework to do

Cardinal Marx asks God to listen to the prayers of Infidels.

One wonders how far Catholicism is from the mind of these people. The first thing that a Cardinal – or any Christian – should ask concerning Muslims is that God may give them the grace of conversion. The second, third and fourth too.

The idea that an infidel should pray and a Catholic – a Cardinal at that – should ask God to listen to those who deny the Son and the Holy Ghost (thus also clearly disfiguring the Father) would be ridiculous if it wasn't deeply offensive to Christian thinking.

The Cardinal is here simply saying that God should listen to infidels irrespective of their infidelity. At this point, why not ask God to listen to atheists? At this point, what value does it have to believe in Christ? At this point, what prevents this man from asking Luther's intercession – he certainly believes him in heaven – for whatever pet project Catdinal Marx has?

The entire meaning of being a Christian, and more specifically a Catholic, is being reneged. The problem of not being it is being willingly ignored. One is clearly proposed an image of the world in which what is important is to believe in something wordly like peace, social justice, and the like; a world in which salvation is a recompense for fuzzy feelings. One who talks in this way is not even Christian anymore: he is a multi-faith guy supporting any religious feeling – nay, any allegedly good intention – whatsoever.

Who made this man a bishop and a Cardinal? Oh wait, it wasn't Francis!

The rot has been growing for a long time before Francis. It nourished itself on rubbish like Assisi, and an overdose of fuzzy feelings. It was multi faith propaganda way before Francis appeared on the balcony in St Peter.

We are now only witnessing the explosion of the bubo.

M

 

Remaining Faithful In The Age Of Francis: Ten Points To Know And Share

Ora pro nobis

Francis is about to appoint more Cardinals. It is a slow process of erosion, from Cardinals who do not believe in God but feel obliged to fake their faith to Cardinals who do not believe in God and feel obliged to demolish the faith.

At this point it is fair to say that even if Francis were to die tomorrow, the probability of getting a Tagle would be very high. Or a Schoenborn. Or some other CINO. Bar a Divine intervention, the demolition of the Church is going to continue. People like Schoenborn would be far more dangerous than Francis, because whilst Francis is stupid and uneducated Schoenborn is neither. We might, therefore, be steering towards a phase of far more dangerous, because far more subtle, perversion of Catholicism going on for a very long time.

What is, therefore, a poor Catholic to do? I suggest the following:

1. Realise that God is punishing us for the madness and rebellion of Vatican II. He is making us swallow the entire bottle of the poison we wanted to drink. This will teach us a lesson all right.

2. Resolve to live and die in your faith no matter the scale of the destruction.

3. Realise that your individual salvation is not decided by Tagle or Schoenborn or Bergoglio. It is decided by God, who expects you to collaborate with His grace towards it.

4. Understand that God's ways are such that no one, whom God has decreed worthy of Salvation, will be lost because of Francis. God does not allow Francis to decide for Him concerning the eternal fate of anyone. Therefore, an age of unbelief and clown Popes is simply an age in which many are Reprobates. But they always were. They were Reprobates from all eternity. God has decreed already that they will refuse, out of their own volition, to collaborate with His grace. Not one of them will be lost because of Francis; rather, they were born in the Age of Francis because God has decreed that they will be lost.

5. Fight your battle with determination and perseverance, but do not expect to see any improvement during your lifetime. We don't know how long this punishment will go on. We can do no other but endure it in faith and fight our little battle for as long as we breathe.

6. Realise that this determination will cause you to collaborate with Grace and “merit” (as far as your part is concerned) Purgatory one day. Paraphrasing the famous statement, blessed are those who carry on for decades believing what their forefathers have believed in the face of generalised treason from the clergy. Inasmuch as we can gain merit for ourselves, there must be more merit for carrying on for an entire lifetime in an age of sabotage.

7. Use the possibilities modern technology and the wealthy, peaceful conditions of the West give you. You are not living under bombardments, or in time of famine, or pestilence. Nurture your Catholicism on the endless sources you find on the Internet, buy good Catholic books, deepen the faith in its many aspects. React to Francis by becoming more Catholic.

8. Ask the Blessed Virgin to intercede with the Lord so that your faith may be strengthened no matter what. Resolve to let your faith grow, not falter, at every papal assault. Pray your favourite Saint every day that he may also intercede for you.

9. Reflect that even if you have a very long life, it will be but an instant compared to the eternity afterwards. Whatever pain FrancisChurch gives you, resistance to it is an investment with huge rewards.

10. Think of this every day: nil inultum remanebit, nothing will remain unpunished. All those popes, Bishops and cardinals who betray the faith and die unrepentant will pay the most atrocious price for their rebellion. When their antics enrage you, reflect that God will not leave anything unpunished.

I wish I could tell you that this is soon going to end. Alas, I am not one of those who know the future and talk to you with great certainty about it. I have no idea how long this will go on. But I know that at some point, when everything seems lost, Our Lady will intervene.

Will I see that moment? Better not to become complacent. I prefer to prepare myself for a lifetime of resistance. I know that the Lord above will count it for me, and for us, one day.

Keep the faith no matter what, and expect to die in the midst of chaos. It's the best to save your soul in the Age of Francis.

M

 

Francis Has No Answers. Catholicism does.


Once again, Pope Ass has expressed the 3mm profound opinion that he has no answers for the suffering of children.

Lord almighty, I had the answers when I was in Kindergarten. Mundabor at 5 was more advanced in Catholic thinking and general outlook on life than this rotting piece of Communism at 80+. The Manzonian expression vecchio malvissuto (ill-lived old man) seems to have been created for this one; and in fact, I can picture in front of my eyes an old Jorge Bergoglio inciting to the looting of bakeries with rabid expropriatory rage, just like Manzoni's original.

It is utterly absurd to think that Francis has no idea of what Original Sin is. Of course he does. The problem is that he does not believe in it. As a result he has, like Steven Fry, no answers for the evil, or suffering, in the world. He stays there like a retarded adolescent who has been listening to John Lennon for too long and now feels so pure as he complains that in this world innocents suffer. You would excuse the man if he were senile; but this is not senility, this is pure unbelief.

Obviously, Francis must pretend he believes in Jesus. Therefore, he keeps saying that when he does not have answers he simply looks at a Crucifix and stays there like a moron, instead of switching on whatever brains he is supposed to have. Funny this. If you believe in Jesus you believes in what He and His Church say. If you don't believe in those you clearly don't believe in Jesus as Lord. Francis is a secular mind with the addition of a pretend crucifix.

Little Mundabor was, at the tender age of Five, told all about the suffering of children. It all made perfect sense to him. He accepted the truth told to him with childish innocence, without questioning what he was received. I wonder if little Jorge Bergoglio received the truth with the same innocence when he was very young and corrupted himself later or whether he was so rotten, even as a child, as to question his religion at the age of five.

You may think these words harsh, but you must recognise that there is serious, serious evil spouting out of this man day in and day out. This is not your run-of-the-mill scoundrel. The forces of evil are strong in this one. This is one able to weep like a girl about the suffering of innocents and tell us we should not obsess about abortion!

I thank God he is so obviously dumb he cannot deceive but the already corrupted, eagerly willing to be deceived by him.

M

 

The Religion Of Peace And The Smiling Policeman.

Policemen

 

You see them at trains stations, or in shopping malls, or near tourist destinations. Armed policemen. This is historically unusual in a Country like England, where the policeman is often unarmed. But these ones sport not only pistols, but short-ish guns looking like rifles or carbines to me.

The weapons look the part, though the policemen don’t.  They smile at children, make an effort to be extra friendly, and generally endeavour to look non-threatening to the populace. But the message is clear: I want you to feel reassured by my smiling, armed presence.

I wonder.

Your typical UK terrorist would likely not try to go on a shooting spree. Too risky to get the weapons and to provide for the necessary training (whatever they told you in the movies, shooting people ain’t so easy). Rather, they would use devices like trucks, cars, or bomb vests. No training needed, and the results are pretty much assured. Not much a rifle can do against it, either. It will stop the terrorist at some point, but only when said terrorist has mowed down a dozen or three according to the distance of the friendly policeman. As to the self-exploding bastards: when they’re up in the air, that’s it.  

Yours truly observes the smiling, rifle-carrying policemen and cannot avoid two considerations: 

  1. Either it is useful to have a gun or it isn’t. If it is useful I, as a law-abiding citizen, want to be free to carry one. If it isn’t useful, then the police should wear smiles instead of rifles. But you see, they do carry the rifles. It works, then. 
  2. The willed, planned immigration of millions with a different religion from our own has caused this. This immigration was pushed by largely Labour governments, and by weak and stupid Tory Governments, in the Fifties to Seventies. It is clear that the aim was to de-Christianise England. Have an awful lot of Hindus, Sikh and Muslims coming in and at some point Christianity will cease to be the defining moral system of the Country, and the Religion Of Man will take its place. It worked, though I must say the so-called Church of England and our very own priests have helped a lot. But it also means to import the problems always linked to importing Muslims. Then where there are many Muslims you know trouble can’t be far away. 

And this is where we are now, with smiling policemen sporting pistols and rifles I am not allowed to carry; because I cannot save my life on my own, you see, the job being forcibly contracted to a friendly professional who will likely arrive there to protect me after I am dead. 

This Country is braced for a good dose of religion of peace. But it is a strong Country, and it will react at some point.

As to the Germans, God save them; though clearly they don’t deserve it in the least. 

M

 

 

Vatican Visit: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

I could not resist posting this photo again...




Melania Trump refused to wear a headscarf in Saudi Arabia, but she wore a veil in the presence of the Pope. Good girl.

Less good are the rants of those idiots on Twitter who took scandal for this, as if if was some kind of hypocrisy or double standard to follow your religion but not the religion of others. This, apart from the fact that, apparently, Melania follows the right religion anyway. Bad losers.

But what is truly ugly is that Francis blessed Melania's rosary. From the man who mocks those who “count their rosaries”, I wonder how much this blessing is worth. The man does not even kneel in front of the Tabernacle. If I were Trump, I would suggest to Melania's that she throws away the thing immediately.

M

 

Francis: Making America Great Again One Visit At A Time

A picture that says it all



Pope Francis heaped insults on Donald Trump when… he thought he would lose.

Sadly for him, Donald Trump won. Bergoglio, who is just as good at bullying the weak as he is incapable of opposing the strong, had to readjust to reality and decide whether he wanted to part of the “resistance” (outing himself as a damn Sixty-Eighter for the last of Cathokic Trump voters, who are an awful lot) or limit himself to the useful trite common place that do not frontally attack anyone of the really powerful and popular.

Trump, on the other hand, keeps being his usual self. Trump would screw someone multiple times whilst smiling telling the world what a wonderful person the screwed one is. He has done it with Romney, he is doing it with Francis. Today we had another example: Trump beaming, Francis grumpy. It was clear who of the two has bent the other to doing what he has to do.

The Wall with come. Francis will look and whine, but the Wall will still come. Trump will sport a radiant smile as he swears how much he likes the Francis, and forces everyone to acknowledge him as the POTUS and just live with it. It will be mighty fine to watch. Today, Francis has contributed to make America great again by being too cowardly to risk an open confrontation with Trump.

But again, this is what the man always does. A bit of pressure, and he will cave in. No pressure, and he will eat you alive.

A last word about the gifts. Trump to Francis: Martin Luther King. Francis to Trump: (as always) his own crappy writings. Francis is so full of himself he thinks he is the best thing anyone could read.

What a humble Pope we have.

M

 

Reblog: The Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants

Mundabor, Self-Portrait, 2016

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why The Correction Should Happen

Giant, not dwarf.



I read around other blogs comments which ask what would be the use of the correction, seen that Francis will not change his mind or his policy afterwards.

This is tantamount to asking what good it was to condemn Luther's heresies, seen that Luther did not change his mind or policy afterwards.

Truth must be defended irrespective of immediate consequences. It must be defended to encourage the faithful of this generation, and to serve as a witness to faithful of all generations to come.

In the present times, countless good Catholic will feel a great consolation in knowing that they have not been left entirely alone by their clergy. In future centuries, it will be known that, when the rot within the Church was so deep that even Popes were not ashamed to support – if not openly proclaim – heresy, at least some of the Princes of the Church had the guts to stand up for Truth.

There is in the history of the Church a period that is given little attention, but in my opinion was absolutely devastating at the time: the period between Pope Honorius' heretical statement and his death first, and the condemnation of his heresies second. Honorius had given support to the heresy of Monothelitism in 635, with a letter clearly intended to be circulated and to end a controversy. Heresy was, at this point, openly defended. A materially heretical Pope was, at that time, sitting on the throne of Peter.

To my knowledge there was, at the time, not only no convocation of a council to depose the Pope, but also no open confrontation with him and refusal to accept his authority in everything pertaining to his heresy. There was, in short, not only no ecumenical council, but even no Athanasius willing to go against the flow of acquiescence to papal heresy. This went on for three years.

This situation (of a heretical Pope not officially censured) did not end in 638, when the Pope died unchallenged und en-deposed. In fact, the official condemnation of the man as heretic only came more than four decades later, in 680. However, between 638 and 680 we know of continued confrontations between the promoters of the heresy and Rome, with all Popes after Honorius firmly on the side of truth.

Still, the fact remains: a Pope intervenes in a controversy openly supporting a heretical position, and he neither deposed nor (for what I know) denounced as heretic. What a stunning challenge to the faith, what shockingly turbulent times, and without an Athanasius to challenge his Pope Liberius!

We need our Athanasius. We need witnesses for Truth among our Bishops and Cardinals. It does not matter much (though I would love it) if Francis is or is not deposed by an ecumenical council in the end. But it matters that all faithful of this and all future generations know that when the going got tough, tough bishops and cardinals got going.

Today, we cannot mention Liberius without remembering Athanasius. Athanasius stands tall as the man who exposed error not forty years later, but whilst it was happening. As the heresy reared its ugly head, the hero arose to challenge it. But we have no Athanasius for the time of Honorius. Honorius lived three years after his letter, and I have no knowledge of any Athanasius. What a shame.

We are now repeating the situation in the times of Honorius: a Pope (at least materially) promotes heretical positions and we have no more than rumblings, rumblings which must certainly have existed also in the time of Honorius because they aren't dangerous. But those willing to stand up and openly proclaim the faith against papal sponsored heresy, we do not have them.

Cardinal Burke & Co. are in front of a choice: to be the Athanasius of our time or to remain silent in a time of heresy openly proclaimed and shamelessly spread. They have failed all of us up to now. They actually give the impression that they would have liked to be like Athanasius if it could have been done without risk, but have decided to revert to the behaviour of Honorius' bishops when it became clear they do not have the support they thought they had. Paper tigers, the four of them.

Athanasius did not wonder how many would follow him. His famous contra mundum statement is the most glorious example of faith defended no matter what the consequences. Athanasius was a giant.

Do we live in times of Giants or Dwarves?

I fear I know the answer, but I would love to be proved wrong.

M


 

 

You Will Not Believe This

You will not believe this.

Turns out white collar natives are responsible for almost all of the violent crimes in Sweden.

Mainly accountants, bankers and lawyers. The percentage of crimes committed by dentist and medical doctors is also clearly on the rise.

The figures back up veteran Swedish police officer Peter Springare’s assertion that crimes he processed, which include rape, assault, violence against police, drug trafficking and murder, were almost exclusively committed by someone named “Bjorn” or a variation of that name and the culprits were invariably from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Danemark or Iceland.

If you don't believe me, click the link above and check for yourself.

I really think that we should do something against these people.

M

This Time, They Are 22 (For Now)

The attack in Manchester does have an element of novelty: that the Manchester Arena terrorists targeted children and teenagers. The Religion of Peace never ceases to surprise.

All the rest is identical: a tidal wave of sugary common places, always the same phrases, always the same official statements, always the same nonsense. As I write here, an idiot on Sky states “it does not matter who did it”. Go figure.

The root cause of the problem is not being addressed. Therefore, the problem will remain.

This time the dead are (for now) 22, and this is not only stolen lives, but broken families. Who knows how many they will be next time. That there will be a next time, there can be no doubt.

I look at all this not only with sadness, but with a clear perception of the historical processes that are happening: our Western institution have invited this cancer within themselves, and this cancer is now developing as it is designed to do.

Meanwhile, the praise of the multicultural society goes on unabated on all the major UK channels. It truly beggars belief.

M

 

SSPX: What Is Going Horribly Wrong

Please follow this link and, among the documents therein contained, isolate and read (at least) these:

1. The one dated 7 April 2012 (Three Bishops to General Council).

2. The one dated 14 April 2012( General Council to Three Bishops) .

I have – not for the first time – read both documents and found myself – not for the first time – in full agreement with Fellay & Co.

However, I point out to the following. I will present this as a series of short points in an effort to make my thought linear and easy to digest in short pills. What I lose in prose I hope to gain in clarity and brevity.

1. You could have said that Ratzinger was sincerely interested in healing the riff with the SSPX. You cannot say that Bergoglio is sincerely interested in anything Catholic, at all.

2. This being the situation, mistrust toward any ouverture from the Vatican is more justified, and must be taken more seriously, than this was the case in 2012.

3. There can be no doubt that every agreement, every agreement at all which leads to a big fracture within the SSPX is not worth pursuing, as it is far more important that the SSPX remains a visible instrument of help to faithful Catholics in a time of crisis; a crisis which we see becoming deeper and deeper.

4. From what I can see up to now, the Vatican has laid no obvious traps. The independence of the Order is not threatened. The Order will maintain its own autonomy. The agreement seems to be no – legal – Trojan Horse.

5. However, Bishop Fellay's interview (about which I have written yesterday) indicates that a different price is being requested: the softening of tones against the Conciliar Church. This is extremely grave in light of the fact that this is most certainly not the time to soften any tone.

6. In turn, this softer attitude – now officially proclaimed by Bishop Fellay – reinforces the suspicion, certainly present inside the Society, that this embrace will prove deadly, albeit in several instalments. The recent removal of the eight French SSPX priests, though obviously connected to other controversies, does nothing to assuage the fear that some bullying not from Francis, but from the inside of the Society, in order to make it more agreeable to Francis and thus “deserving” of reconciliation, is in fact happening.

7. This is a destructive way to go at things. Archbishop Fellay should never put the reconciliation with the Vatican in front of the danger of a division within the SSPX. If he did so he would allow the enemies of Tradition to celebrate the tearing in two of the Society. Any reconciliation that causes such a bad outcome can most certainly wait for better times, when more orthodox Popes will allow a rapprochement in a different spirit and with far less divisions. No serious Catholic considers the SSPX one iota less Catholic without reconciliation. The reconciliation in itself is a lesser good than the continuation of the work of the SSPX in favour of tradition, her prestige and powerful voice speaking for orthodox Catholic in a time of heretical Popes.

8. Alternatively – and as others and myself have suggested in the past – a much better way is open to Bishop Fellay: a brutal defence of Catholic Truth, against the Pope and his minions, day in and day out. This would assuage fears that the SSPX is “going native”, which is the most important result. From this position of strength, every proposal of reconciliation – without any do ut des – could be discussed within the Society in a completely different atmosphere. And if, in consequence of this vigorous defence of Truth, no offer of reconciliation comes, so be it. This would be the obvious evidence that the reconciliation had only one aim: emasculate the SSPX and make of it a shark without teeth.

——-

Bishop Fellay undermines the very mission of the SSPX when he states that, in consideration of the process of reconciliation, the SSPX will get softer. He is doing the work of Francis. This attitude can only have as a result a self-imposed obligation to be either silent or very hushed in the denunciation of the thousand evils of the Church. Even if the authority and autonomy of the SSPX should remain complete and unchallenged, this attitude would still be tantamount to a half self-castration for the sake of… what exactly? The approval of the biggest rascal ever elected Pope?

Fellay 2017 seems much different to me from Fellay 2012. I do not trust the motives of anyone who, in the face of unprecedented attack on Christ, invites to be less incisive in its condemnation. The SSPX must go to war full scale against Francis and his heresies, and leave Francis with the choices of whether to play the “inclusive card” for his own motives (which he has, as he could claim a non-judgmental attitude towards both extremes of the spectrum) or go wherever he pleases, sharpish.

What is happening is, if you ask me, very wrong. I hope that this line does not prevail. It would cause immense damage to the cause of Traditionalism exactly in a time of emergency. I would prefer for Bishop Fellay to be made to go first.

M




 

What Is Wrong With Bishop Fellay?

Astonishing words from an unrecognisable Bishop Fellay reported by Gloria TV.

“We may be a little less controversial in attacking the persons”, the man said. He also added, in purest V II style, that “sometimes” ones get more with “a simple argument” than “by barking”.

When Bishop Fellay's “simple argument” leads to the Vatican reneging on Amoris Laetitia and substituting it with a document Archbishop Lefebvre would have approved in toto I will agree with him.

As it is, I cannot but be very alarmed at reading that the head of the only major ecclesiastical bastion against heresy starts talking like a damn V II sellout.

I cannot avoid wondering whether the danger for the SSPX does not come from the heretics outside, but from the careerists inside.

In this moment of extreme gravity in the history of the Church we must all bark more, not less; and we must bark like very angry mastiffs.

I never thought I'd see the day when I read Fellay spout such nonsense. This is very, very alarming and it behooves every good Catholic to denounce appeasement wherever it comes from.

Good Lord, if even the SSPX is devoured from the cancer of promises of appointments (a red hat for Fellay perhaps?) the only one remained will be honest laymen and isolated priests in micro-SSPX organisations. A real blow.

What is wrong with this man? Does he not realise that if he says “there is no trap” and in the same interview says “but we will go soft on the enemies of Truth”, then most certainly he is the trap?

M

 

Cardinal Burke Has A New Pet Project, But He Has Not Completed The First One

The Catholic Blogosphere seems very excited about Cardinal Burke now (suddenly) advocating for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

If memory serves, this is the same Cardinal who announced a correction of Amoris Laetitia (or of Pope Francis directly) now around eight months ago, for the case that the Pope does not answer the Dubia posed to him.

You can make a baby in eight months. In the same time frame, Cardinal Burke has not managed – together with his paper tiger colleagues – to write three or four well-written sentences of condemnation of, at the very least, Amoris Laetitia and in fact, logically, of Francis' own pontificate and mindset.

I can't say I am impressed by this man. The entire planet is waiting for him to show some balls, and he reacts by doing nothing on the matter and… opening another front instead.

If he thinks we will forget what he has to do, he is sadly mistaken.

Cardinal Burke's dereliction of duty is ongoing. It becomes more scandalous every day that passes. No amount of deflections will let us forget that this here is one who can (almost) bark, but can't bite at all.

And please spare me the elaborate excuses for this man's and his confreres' utter lack of action. This is not the XVI Century anymore. In the age of Twitter, eight months are the equivalent of a geological era of the past. Also, it is clear that the four Cardinals were told in no uncertain terms that Francis will not answer the Dubia. There is no reason at all to wait one minute longer. Actually, at this point there would not be even if Francis had stated he intends to answer.

The man should just do his job, instead of trying to invent more ways to get an easy approval for his sheer dereliction of duty.

M

Not So “Callista”, This Callista

good cause

 

Callista Gingrich is slated to be appointed ambassador of the US to the Holy Sea.

From the linked article we know that she is active in the usual charitable activities, authors books about rediscovering God and writes stories for children. I am moved to tears, I tell you. 

We also know she was in an adulterous relationship with Gingrich for years, so I wonder what the children would think about that. I have never run a chariteee, but I have never run an adulterous relationship for years, either, so this makes me too boring to write a book called Rediscovering God In Other Men’s Marital Beds.  Actually, in my experience a lot of these charitee people are either appeasing their conscience, of they are managing to look good with other people’s money, or they use their activity to network and make a lot of extremely useful contacts.

Callista means, in old Greek, “the most beautiful” or “extremely beautiful”. In this case, nomen non est omen.  

So no, we are not in front of a role model here. However, this post is not about this. This post is about the role of the Catholic Callista Gingrich as the wife of the Catholic Newt Gingrich. 

The wife should stay at the side of her husband and be submissive to him. By marrying Newt Gingrich this is the role she, a Catholic woman, chose for herself. Instead, we have another case of “emancipated” aged Catholic who sends the message that it is fine to leave her husband one ocean behind, because feminism. If this is Catholicism, I am an elephant.   

This is wrong. The place of the wife is at the side of her husband, and the place of a prominent Catholic wife is at the side of her husband whilst she proclaims that it it should be so. Who does she think she is, Nancy “Botox” Pelosi? 

Don’t tell me that Newt has certainly approved. It does only make two wrong, but the wife who goes away from her husband the more so. However, this makes Newt a cuck, too. A man who does not even have her wife under control should not be allowed to run for President.  

This is another example of modern secular culture running counter to our traditional values, amidst the applause of the more or less Catholic press. Catholic values are defended by having wives in public positions publicly espousing and defending their Catholic role, not running the rat race.

Callista Gingrich should have publicly stated that, as a Catholic wife, her role is at the side of her husband. This would have sent a beautiful message and would have contributed to have her less than exemplary past seen in the light of a reformed woman. But what I see here is not this; what I see here is arrivism, power grab, and feminist attitude. This is, in fact, the same attitude that leads a woman in the bed of a married man and reach a position of prestige and eminence through this adulterous relationship. 

Callista Gingrich reminds me of Nilde Iotti. A smart woman for sure, she was a collaborator of Palmiro Togliatti, the head of the Italian Communist Party, and his mistress before Togliatti publicly ditched his wife for her. Nilde Iotti managed to make a prestigious political career for herself, but smart people always remembered what stood at the beginning of it all: the marital bed of a powerful man. But she was a Communist at least.  

One day, Callista Gingrich will run for senator.

I wonder if we will, then, get another book about “rediscovering God in Italy”.

M       

Peer Review In The Age Of Madness

equal opportunities

 

Breitbart has a very funny (though tragic at the same time) story about a hoax study passing peer review with flying colours.

The story just shows to what extremes madness is carried in the world of “social science”. There is, of course, nothing scientific in any of that. There is a rabid hate of everything that is traditional morality, pushed by people either living in very strong opposition to this morality of too afraid to oppose it in any way. In this particular case, the “peers” who reviewed the bogus document managed to dig themselves into an even deeper hole and make themselves even more ridiculous in the process.  

Will the “peers” lose their job because of manifest incompetence, pathological bias and congenital stupidity? Don’t bet your pint. In a world that revels in its fanaticism there is no point at which fanaticism become excessive, or sanity and competence required. 

Still, this little episode will contribute to opening the eyes of a number of people. The same, by the way, can be said for the other sectors in which bogus science is peddled everywhere: from global warming to the destruction of the forest, to the imminent death of the polar bear.

Enjoy the article.

%d bloggers like this: