Monthly Archives: July 2017
“There is nothing we can do” is one of those expressions which, when referred to the current crisis of the Church, lets me understand how merited the crisis is.
“There is nothing we can do” is the battlecry of the lazy, the losers and the cowardly. Unless you live in a desert island there is always something you can do. If you have relatives, friends, colleagues and acquaintances there is always something you can do. As long as you breath there is something you can do.
Notice this: in democratic systems everyone accepts that his vote only counts for one and is, certainly, not changing anything on its own. However, everyone is aware that his vote counts together with many others; and this, even if this vote and the others are sure to remain in the minority for the foreseeable future.
With the Church it isn't really different. Your vote does not decide about the governance of the Church, but – together with many others – it shapes its perception. The many articles you read around about Francis not being liked by basically anyone who is not a Commie in the making are the result of very many priests and laymen who, actually, know what they can do and do it.
When we die we won't be asked whether we have changed the destiny of Countries. We will be asked whether we have done what was in our power to do. “There was nothing I could do” is not likely to help anyone much.
Fight the good fight as you can, for as long as you can, as a foot soldier of Christ, and die knowing that you have done – with God's grace – what was in your power. Never succumb to the desire of throwing the towel in, or to think you don't count. You count for one, and you count for Christ, so don't think you can call yourself out.
Fight your fight to the end and, when the Lord calls you,you will be able to proudly say:
God knows the Evil Clown grates me in a number of ways.
But when he grates me most is when he tries to abuse of great Saibts of the past, and tries to enlist them as soldiers of his communist army.
Today it was, sad as it is to say it, Padre Pio's turn. Even sadder, it was not the first time.
Let me go on record and say that if Jorge Bergoglio had been a civilian in the time of Padre Puo, the great Saint would have slapped him in the face without any hesitation for countless of the impious, heretical, or outright blasphemous statements this disgusting man keeps spouting around as if he were a new oracle instead of a dumb South-American wannabe Caudillo with more power than sense and more arrogance than both.
Francis is eighty, and – after slapping him very hard in the face – Padre Pio would have reminded Jorge Bergoglio that he hasn't much time left to see the error of his ways.
Sadly, some people can ditch the priestly habit for the papal one.
But in the end they still remain bouncers.
Charlie Gard died today. His death really gives you the measure of how advanced Nazism is in this Country.
A Country demanding the right to decide who lives and who dies, and even demanding the right to decide who must die even if other possibilities are allowed, is clearly dominated by a Nazi thinking that would have been unthinkable only a few decades ago.
The obvious conclusion that must be drawn by every thinking person in the UK is this: Nazi Nanny will decide what is good for you, whether you are worth the money your illness will cost and – most shockingly of all – whether you have the right to live, or must be forced to die, even if you have all the possibility to seek treatment abroad, at no cost to the public at large.
Nazi Nanny cannot allow this, as it would put an end to the principle that Nazi Nanny is the only one who decides when you live and when you die. Nazi Nanny would not even allow the poor boy to die at home, because nothing must be allowed that would put Nazi Nanny's omnipotence into question.
But do you think that Charlie's controversy awoke this Country? Forget it. The media coverage is the usual sirupy, sugary, stupidly retarded fare this Country is fed every day: the poor boy, please feel good thinking of him for some seconds, and don't care about Nazi Nanny's sovereignty over your time to die.
Go to hell, Atheist Britain. Go to hell, National Health Service. Go to hell, Nazi Nannyism.
And go to hell, unless you repent, you countless legislators, activists, journalists, judges and assorted minions of Satan who made this Nazi nightmare a reality.
I don't know you, but I am tired of hearing the garden variety V II priest talk of the “joy of the Gospel”, and invite his parishioners to “spread” said “joy”. It seems to me that the message is fundamentally off, and that it gives an extremely distorted view of Catholicism.
Yes, the concept has been around for 2,000 years now. But that joy was solidly grounded in the fear of the Lord and the ever present danger of damnation.
What happens now is that salvation is more or less a given, no one of the pewsitter wanting to be so unkind as to think that his sign-of-peace-giving pew neighbour, or even his pot-smoking nephew, could actually go to hell. How can anyone so rude and uncharitable to even entertain that possibility?
When hell is out of the equation, the “joy” is completely derailed, deformed, even betrayed. It becomes a sort of announcement that it is party time, without any mention of the conditions for admission and, in fact, without any real party in sight.
This is also why it does not work. An agnostic being told to rejoice because of the Good News will simply answer to you that his daily routine is just as boring today as it was yesterday. A youth thinking of his pleasure and advantage wil ask you whether this good news comes with, at the very least, music and beer. A single mother living in sin with lover number seventeen will think that the good news means she does not need to change anything in her life. A heathen believing in strange gods will think of you as his insurance just in case his own religion should fail him when he – as he still plans to do – dies in it. All of them will have no interest in something that is at the same time useless and already given to them for free.
This is not how our forefathers saw the entire matter. Their belief was grounded in a very solid fear of a very concrete danger of damnation. And the possibility and reasonable hope to, by fighting the battle to the end, reach one day an eternal state of unimaginable happiness was, and is cause of much joy. But it is joy grounded in a solid knowledge of the basis for it.
The V II “joy” talk has nothing of it. It is, in the end, inane talking, because it refuses to be rooted in truth.
When I speak to heathens or atheists about Christianity I do not even mention the “joy of the Gospel”. I actually start with the very actual, very real threat of hell that the Gospel represents for him. You do it in the right way – playful, but serious; we aren't Protestants bashing bibles, but we aren't V II wussies, either – and you will see how it sits.
Get that sting in the brain. It will not go away so soon, as the message has far more serious consequences for the recipient than a “joy” pretty much free for the asking, or without even the asking. It might bear great fruit one day. You will, of course, be more or less friendly mocked, or worse. But this is a small price to pay for a chance of conversion, perhaps – and with God's grace – many years down the line.
The joy of the gospel is soon forgotten. The Threat of the Gospel works a lot better.
It has been announced today that President Trump has put an end to the madness of trannies in the army. Not only, mind, in combat roles, but in any capacity whatsoever.
Every sane person cannot but be pleased at the slow recovery of sanity the USA are attempting under President Trump. Not that the event in itself is anything world shattering. A functioning brain should be enough to prevent the situation that Trump he today corrected in the first place.
What is remarkable is the willingness to go against a madness now accepted as normality by vast swathes of the once Christian West.
Another day, another baby step toward ps normality under President Trump. No thanks to all the BeverTrumpers and the fake conservative Judases who would have accepted Mad Dyke Hillary at the White House.
Keep winning, President Trump. And please do not forget all those, like Jeff Sessions, who are your real strength.
Cardinal Sarah's rosewater conservative intervention about the mutual enrichment of the two masses (the wrong one and the right one) is in part based on the claim that there is no doubt that the Lectionary of the NO is superior to the Tridentine one.
This is wrong on many levels. Let me explain why.
Firstly, and as already written, the Tridentine Lectionary is the fruit of a long process of slow development, and the Lectionary of the NO is the fruit of a short process of fast subversion. It is not that before the Sixties the Liturgists didn't realise you can have a three-year, massive scripture-reading program. It is that in their wisdom, they chose to do otherwise. This is argument enough for me, and is the most important one. Tradition. Get it?
Secondly, whoever is acquainted with the Tridentine Lectionary notices a trend in particularly (but not only) the Gospel readings: it is pithy, concentrated wisdom. At times it strikes one like a whip. It is chosen as to be a flash to be remembered, rather than a story to be told. It works.
Thirdly, and as pointed out by more learned bloggers than yours truly, the Lectionary of the Tridentine has a muscular, masculine, politically incorrect, unapologetic quality that Bugnini & Co. thought well to neuter, to emasculate. Fifty years later, many (bad) churchgoers and even more (worse) non-churchgoers think that Jesus was a pacifist vegan of sort. The NO Jesus is one-sided, and therefore distorted.
Fourthly, the Mass is not there to make you listen to the Scriptures. The scriptures are learned and interiorised as you learn and interiorise Catholic doctrine: at catechism and with private, devotional reading. Tellingly, the generation who was exposed to more Gospel reading at Mass than any generation before them is also the most ignorant of both doctrine and scripture, and the most incapable of making sense of the little they learn. In contrast, past generations of illiterate peasants knew way more of Catholicism than the arrogant, vapid degree-holders full of themselves crowding (not so much, really) the churches today.
Therefore, the Lectionary of the Tridentine is superior to the one of the NO in its logic, in its impact, in its truthfulness and in its pedagogic scope.
The V II crowd, Cardinals not excluded, do not get any of these arguments. To them, he who has more words wins.
Then we are surprised that we are in the state in which we find ourselves these days.
The United Kingdom is a heathenish, Christless Country. People's concerns are largely material. When they call themselves “spiritual”, they usually mean how beautiful and profound they feel they are. There are exceptions, but what I have described is the norm.
This heathenish thinking extends to the time before death. Every now and then you read of “brave” people who, once told they are going to prematurely kick the bucket, decide to “do something”. Normally, this something is linked with “fun” (the Paris alcohol binge), or with something “they wanted to do” (the exotic travel) or with someone “they wanted to meet” (a spiritual giant of our time like, say, an actor).
It is as if their spiritual (and otherwise) dumbness would want to cling to them until death, not even the announcement of the end to come being enough for a much-needed realignment of priorities. It is, in fact, fair to say that in an age in which fun and self-centredness are a religion, people who focus on those on their last stretch are considered examples worthy of following, as if they were the pious faithful of our time. A great waste of immortal souls, sadly, as the announcement of his impending demise is the last massive opportunity for, say, an atheist to send his brains into overdrive and (with God's grace) start working on his salvation until there's time.
Nor is there any warning, anywhere, of the judgment to come. People who die positively unable to think – and to publicly say they do – about their judgment are called “courageous”, when all generations before ours would have called them foolish. But hey, they launched a hashtag that made an awful lot of people of every conceivable degree of stupidity feel good with themselves. Isn't it wonderful?
And by the way: is it surprising? Nowadays even the Pope tries to make you march to your death without thinking of judgment; unless he suggest that you become a member of the Communist Party perhaps, because Jesus was kinda lika sorta Lenin, no?
The way we die is a very good indication of the rest of our – infinitely long – existence.
In a heathenish time, you see these indications all the time, whilst the press applauds.
It surprises me that there should be such confusion about what to do with Pope Francis. The past has already shown what to do, and it does not seem to me that there should be any uncertainty at all.
When Pope Marcellinus violated the First Commandment, the “council” that could be put together (the Church was heavily persecuted then, and transport slow and difficult anyway; therefore, allowances were certainly made) was summoned and, in fact, stood judge on Marcellinus' actions with the famous “judge thyself”: yes, the Pope can't be judged by his bishops, but his actions can create a situation in which he himself will have to admit his guilt (Marcellinus did) or else. There can be no reasonable doubt that, if Marcellinus has refused to judge himself, the bishops would have gotten rid of him by declaring that, with his acts, he had judged himself anyway.
We know from history that another council condemned , though several years after his death, Honorius. We also know that John XXII was obviously threatened with the same fate, but whilst living (meaning for him: the stake).
What should be difficult in this is beyond me.
Pope starts to flip out, Bishops get rid of him. Easy as pie.
Notice here that there is no guarantee that all this succeeds, or succeeds during the Pope's reign. Marcellinus could have been surrounded by cowardly bishops. John XXII could have managed to force his bishops to obedience. Honorius even managed to die a Pope in good standing! Had God abandoned the Church during the pontificate of an obvious heretic? Certainly not! Was the See vacant? Certainly not! Again: was the Pope a Heretic? Most certainly he was!
Shit, Francis, and heretical Popes just happen.
What is there to do, then? Heavens, do you really need to ask? The laity have the duty to denounce the Pope as heretic and the clergy (most of all the Bishops, and firstly among them the Cardinals) have the duty to do the same. In this way, everyone is put in front of his responsibility in front of God.
The Dubia Cardinals have the sacred duty to denounce Amoris Laetitia as heretical and demand from Francis that he puts an end to the confusion. Failing which, they must declare Pope Francis a heretic and call for a convocation of an ecumenical Council that does to him what was done to Marcellinus. This will destroy his credibility by all sincere Catholics, put an end to confusion and draw clear battle lines between those who are right and those who are wrong. This will nuke his papacy whatever happens next.
However, what happens next is fully irrelevant from the point of view of what is to do. You fight Hitler without asking whether you will win. You denounce atrocities irrespective of whether your denunciation will put an end to them or not. You do what is right because it is right, without assurance of the desired outcome.
Francis must be forced to retract his heretical work or be declared a heretic himself so that his pontificate may be officially condemned as heretical for the benefit and admonishment of all present and future generations of Catholics. Whether Francis is then successfully deposed or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that Truth be upheld and heresy condemned.
The Church is indefectible and will survive a trannie Francis II or an incestuous Francis III. You don't have to be worried about that. You have to be worried about what you – and everyone else – will say when asked what you (and they) have done to resist abomination and heresy.
Pope Francis will most likely die in his bed, as the Pope. It is not unlikely that his successors will be every bit as bad as him, and perhaps even smart, which will make things worse.
But your duty, and the duty of the Bishops and Cardinals, is not to act only if assured of victory, but to act because it is the thing to do.
Not difficult, is it?
Cardinal Sarah has once again shown his V II credentials by advocating an end of the controversy between the supporters of the Tridentine Mass and the fans of the Novus Ordo Mess.
Like every V II supporter, Cardinal Sarah completely misses the point.
The Tridentine Mass was not born at the time of the Council of Trent. It is the result of an organic development which at the Council of Trent was more rigidly normed to avoid abuses and local accretions or missing parts. The Tridentine Mass is, therefore, the real McCoy, no discussion needed.
The Novus Ordo Mess, on the contrary, is the product of the desire to disrupt the Tridentine Mass by forcibly introducing elements clearly extraneous to it and aiming at protestantising it.
Therefore, in no way the two can be said to be equal. Whilst both are valid, one is subversive.
Cardinal Sarah's proposal is akin to the one of the cook which, after noticing poison in the new way of baking cakes, suggests that a new way of baking be introduced, which decreases the amount of poison so that the fans of both cakes can be satisfied.
This is pure V II thinking as it refuses to acknowledge the disruptive and subversive nature of the changes introduced with the NO and treats it as some “fruit of the Holy Spirit” in pure V II delusion.
There can be no middle way between right and wrong. The controversy between the supporters of the two masses will only end, one day, with the abolition of the “bad mass” produced by the “bad council”, and the repudiation of both.
We wait for that day and work for its arrival. We most certainly do not support contamination of truths with elements of error in order to please people deluded enough to think that the Holy Ghost wanted to change the Mass.m
Beware rose water conservatives, even those in good faith. They just don't get what's happening.
Georg Ratzinger, the so-to-speak Brother Emeritus, might be implicated in matters of physical and/or sexual violence against the (in Germany very famous) Regensburger Domspatzen, a bit the equivalent in the German popular imagination of the boys' choir of King's College in Cambridge.
One might think that the man was forced to resign, or decided to resign, against the promise that the scandal would not be made public; or else, when faced with open blackmail.
I don't buy it. Let me explain why.
Firstly, the Emeritus is smart enough to know that scandals like this do not remain uncovered forever. The truth will out. If this was the case he must have known that the shame would have been posthumous at best, and for both of them.
Secondly, the theory is extremely insulting to the Emeritus, depicted as such a puppy that he would resign for personal reasons (avoiding a scandal for his family and, by association, himself) rather than doing what every Pope with some fear of the Lord would have done (keep working as the Pope; heck, no one has ever said a Pope answers for his brother. Reagan's father was a not-too-functional alcoholic, either). There can be nothing noble in dereliction of duty, nor can it ever be said that the immense evil and damage to the Church of a Pope resigning whilst yielding to blackmail can ever be compensated by one or two very old men, and be one of them the Pope, not be besmirched. (Note to those allergic to History: Popes have been besmirched for many centuries; often with very valid reasons to do so).
Thirdly, two men in their Eighties will be more worried about their own final destination than about some discomfort here on earth for, predictably, not very long.
No, I am not a fan of the man, but I seriously struggle to believe that he would be able of such unspeakable, selfish cowardice. And such a stupid cowardice, too.
Therefore, my working option will remain, as always, the one nearest to the reality we can observe and furthest from conspiracy theories of all sorts: a man terrified of the parable he had seen in JP II, aware of the homo Mafia but not strong enough to deal with it, and deciding to resign in order to allow a new and stronger man to tackle the issues at hand. A man, I add, whom he though would be a “heretic light” like Scola, not an atheist madman like Bergoglio. Albeit I am pretty sure Ratzinger still prefers a Bergoglio as Pope to a Fellay.
The man is bad, I know.
But heavens: so bad? I cannot believe it.
I never thought I would write this but yes: I side with Schoenborn on the Emeritus matter.
How anyone can believe that the Emeritus is not deeply, deeply embedded in the V II tragedy just because he preferred a slightly more conservative version of it is beyond me. Ratzinger/Benedict has always been V II through and through.
Now, it is impossible to a sound Catholic to see the Church as a boat nearing capsizing without understanding that V II is at the root of the problem. But the followers of V II are not sound Catholics. They believe, to a bigger or lesser extent, that the Holy Ghost guided the Church to a change. They only differ in the estimation of the extent of it. Benedict is no exception at all.
The Emeritus refused to reconcile with the SSPX unless they accept the principles of V II. Therefore, the Emeritus thinks that V II with its novelties is an indispensable part of what the Church is. As a consequence, the man is squarely on the side of the “innovators”, and – as his recent interviews also show – correctly recognises that the gulf between traditionalists and Modernists is far bigger than any difference of degree in Modernism.
People must start to understand that not only Benedict is part of the problem, but he is deeply committed to it.
He will only throw a hint of criticism here and there, every now and then, in order to get an easy applause from not very attentive “conservative” Catholics.
And once again, the allegedly oh so silent Emeritus has said half a word, possibly only relating the words of another, which might be interpreted as a criticism of the Evil Clown, and the all-forgiving troops of Naive Army canonise him in life and elect him to Dux Maximus of the critics of this disgraceful pontificate.
Oh, ye of little understanding!
Benedict isn't a critic of Francis more than Khrushchev was a critic of Stalin. Not only they have the same cancer, but they like it above all else.
Benedict has gushed praise on Benedict in two interviews (yours truly reported) and there is no way in hell he can smuggle himself as the silent critic and after going on record as a public supporter. Open words are what count, and these sideways remarks are nothing more than the usual way Benedict uses to try to be a hero of conservatives on the cheap.
He has done the same his entire life. His alleged conservatism was nothing more than a less aggressive form of cancer. His position as “moderate heretic” always allowed him to be part of the V II establishment and thrive in it, whilst selling himself as a stalwart of rose water conservatism with rose water Catholics.
As a theologian he pushed – and published – heretical statements, only more moderately than others. As a Cardinal he played with JP II's novelties and innovations – from the belittling of the Capital Punishment to the Assisi gatherings – without a word of open condemnation. As a Pope he applied a varnish of conservatism to the Church (with Summorum Pontificum) whilst keeping the JP II's tradition of appointment of V II pussycats (or worse) as bishops and Cardinals, even having his own Assisi gathering lest the leftists begin to think he is Catholic. He saw the problem of the homo Mafia and did nothing against it but order that an awful lot of words be produced, then he thought he would resign and have the new guy do that for which he did not have the guts. Trust the Pollyannas to think that he is a spotless hero who committed every single act of cowardice to save the Church from some greater evil no one has ever seen.
I am frankly fed up with the way this man seeks the applause of good hearted Catholics after betraying them all his life. By the bye, I am still awaiting for his condemnation of Amoris Laetitia, and I am most certainly not holding my breath.
I do not want to finish this without two words about the “capsizing” itself. Please realise that Bishop Ratzinger spoke of the crisis of the Church several decades ago, but then did almost nothing to work against it. It is fairly obvious that to him the crisis of the Church is something that simply happens, like flu or cancer. That he may be one of the main carcinogen elements of the same disease in the least four decades does not even register with him. He is perfectly happy with gushing praise on Francis whilst lamenting a crisis that, to him, must be like hail: regrettable, unavoidable, and nothing to do with him.
Have pity for the man. His own boat is about to capsize big time, unless he comes to his senses in the short time that has remained to him.
The disgraceful Pontificate of the Evil Clown can be summarised with the following points:
Dethronement of Christ, and substitution for a Weltanschauung in which earthly cares and problems are the only focus. Francis says we should kneel in front of the poor, but he does not kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament. He is a South American agit-prop in White.
Aggressive pushing of a strongly socialist agenda of the sort that has repeatedly put on its knees the economy of several Central and South American Countries. Pushed by a person every bit as arrogant, incompetent and outright stupid.
War on Christianity wherever possible, with a strong desire to Muslimise Europe as much as he can. Also, downplaying of specific Christian beliefs in favour of an “everything goes” mentality asking Muslims to “hold on to their Korans”.
The war on everything that is specifically Catholic: the hate for the Sacraments (say: marriage, communion) and every Catholic institution (canonisations, beatifications), the stunning affirmation that God is not Catholic (well in a sense He isn't; in another He cannot be anything else), the denial of fundamental tenets of the faith like the proclaimed belief that it is impossible to live a chaste life; the hate for the Mass, which he wants interrupted whenever he wants to bully one of his men; the hatred for every small Catholic gesture, like the infamous video of the man separating the hands, joint in prayer, of the poor boy (who promptly joined them again, his Catholicism naturally and promptly shaming the impiety of the very Pope); the mocking of the “rosary counters”; the insults to the Blessed Virgin, belittled as a poor naive girl who might have felt duped at the foot of the cross. The list could go on for very long.
To all this we must, for the sake of completeness, add another very unique trait of this Pontificate: the arrogance, the boorishness, the outright vulgarity exhibited by the man at every step: from the chair left empty at the Beethoven concert to the treatment of the FFI, to the way people inside (Müller, Burke) and outside of the Curia (Knights of Malta) are routinely humiliated.
Summa summarum, the man is at war with everything the West holds dear: from the Christian civilisation to our wonderful Catholic traditions, from Capitalism to the Sacraments, and from decency to common sense.
The fact that such a tool was allowed to become Pope is, once again, a glaring indication of how much the Lord is punishing us.
One of the moments of serenity afforded by this Pontificate is when the Evil Clown makes a clown of himself. He manages to do that regularly, so I don't complain in this respect.
This time, we are informed by horrible magazines allied with him that he man has put a “vietato lamentarsi” (“complaining not allowed”) outside of his room in Casa Santa Marta.
The mind, once again, boggles.
The most mean-spirited, whining, grumpy, acidic old git that ever became I do not say a Pope, but probably a bishop dares to put such a sign on his door, blessedly oblivious of the way it makes him look exactly like the insufferable, hypocritical ass he is.
It truly is hilarious. The stupidity of this man does not know boundaries.
If only he were not Pope, he could be an excellent parody of a priest.
The new criterium for beatification opens the way for interesting developments: if the oblatio vitae is added to the traditional two, we will have an awful lot of potential candidates used to further demolish every single Catholic institution.
From what I have read, the new discipline is the usual Jesuit piece of
shit deception: it can be read in a fairly orthodox way – and I would question the innovation in that case, too – or it can be used to disrupt the institution of beatification. Say hello to Blessed Proddie, and after a while Blessed Muslim and Blessed Hindu. In time, the oblatio vitae will include those deemed, by their extremely unchristian life, to have lived a Christian life because they fought for communism social justice: Che Guevara comes to mind.
My cat is, actually, already walking around with a strong expectation of beatification. He lives a very virtuous life according to the lights of a cat, and social justice is – of course, the cat's way – very strong in him: how much food, fun, and girl cats he is due is a matter of the greatest social importance to him. There is no doubt he will – not being neutered – fight all his life for social justice. Heck, if he were to die in a desperate jump from one roof to the other, striving for his fair share of female cats, he has no doubt whatsoever this would be a clear giving up his own life for the benefit of humanity as he perceives it.
I don't blame my cat. He is told that the Church should be building bridges to him, and that the Church's language towards socially conscious cats striving for social justice has been too harsh in the past.
I actually blame Francis: who, once again, shows his barely believable hatred for Catholicism by attacking every single Catholic institution as much as he can.