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.
The ridiculous Mickey Mouse outfit calling itself the Church of Englang has now decided their Mickey Mouse priests can celebrate their Mickey Mouse services wearing appropriate casual dress. This is, obviously, to make the Mickey Mouse outfit “relevant”.
I will leave aside the irrelevance of the Anglican liturgy in itself as this is not what interests me. What is important here is that this senseless chase for “relevance” makes the Mickey Mouse outfit even more irrelevant. The desire of these people to be like the world is the best indication that the world does not need them. They are like a chameleon wishing not to be perceived as in contrast with his environment, and then surprised that he is not seen at all.
The Mickey Mouse sect is, basically, proclaiming she is surplus to requirement in the very wordly, earthly society she wants to be part of. A special role has always be denoted and underlined by a special dress. Ditching the latter is renouncing the former.
The Mickey Mouse personnel is probably not fazed by this at all. Their churches are shockingly empty anyway, and as long as they get paid by the extensive patrimony of the organisation they do not feel they should have any concern. Most of them clearly see themselves as no more than social justice and motivational speakers, hoping to keep the dozen or two people they see every week entertained.
You can do that in jeans and trainers, too.
Die soon, Mickey Mouse so-called Church of England. Your death will not even be noticed as your Mickey Mouse pastors have long become unrecognisable as such.
You will not be missed.
Read on Rorate the shocking story – even by Francis' standard – of when he forced Cardinal Müller to interrupt a Mass, and a Mass Francis new the Cardinal was celebrating – to have a meeting with him about some infinitely petty matter compared with the celebration of a Mass.
The man is just astonishing. This is even way beyond the realm of the atheist and is a sure movement into the realm of the satanical. Even an atheists, once Pope, would respect the decency and the basics.
But not if he hates Christ.
The Italian philosopher Marcello Pera has launched a rather fitting attack on the Evil Clown. Please follow the link and read all the details.
I thought this interesting, because Pera's words are very, very similar – and identical in context and harshness – to the ones used by your humble correspondent these last four years.
It is a matter of not little satisfaction, for someone insulted for so long and by so many, to discover that he, actually, got Francis right from the start, and drew the consequences from what Francis insisted in doing and saying much sooner than most others – I was in very, very small company years ago; but thankfully I wasn't the only one by any means – and using the same chosen words other use now.
Also for me speaks the fact that I gave the man the benefit of the doubt, and made a honest effort to find the good in him. Alas, the vulgarity and shameless demagoguery of the man soon forced me to decide that there wasn't much good to be found in him.
You read this little Italian blogger in 2014 and you find what Italian philosophers will say in 2017.
Three years in front of the mainstream.
Boy, this is what I call blogging 😉
The twelve things to know and share are here
The mind boggles.
The Monsignorina was so sure of impunity that he organised noisy nightly parties in a building with other (no doubt: splendid) apartments whose tenants were actually somewhat Catholic. He was also so confident that he could take massive amounts of cocaine. I notice here that all that cocaine for himself & homo friend must cost an awful lot of money, and I still haven’t read a word about where the money came from. It is not unreasonable to suspect that embezzlement on a vast case might have taken place.
Then we have the way CockLovingErio looks in the entire matter: your obviously homo Monsignor is so screwed on cocaine that he needed to be detoxified, and the cardinal wants us to believe he had noticed nothing? Why the luxury apartment, way above the rank of the Monsignorina? Why the luxury BMW with Vatican plates? How on earth can it be that all this happens and he did not notice or suspect, but actually worked actively to make the fag bishop?
Then we have the last point: Francis has done absolutely nothing to punish or demote Coccopalmerio. Sheesh! A person with such an acument shouldn’t be left responsible of the doghouse, much less a Vatican ministry!
One suspect that it is not only CocklovingErio that is, ahem, like the Monsignor.
Either Francis is exactly like the Monsignorina (that is: a homo); or he is taken hostage by them and does not dare to do anything against them; or, also likely, whether he is a homo or not he has no qualms with sodomites at all, and will not do anything against them provided they can be useful to him. They can be easily blackmailed, too.
Either way, the Venezuelisation of the Vatican proceeds at a steady pace. This is what you get when you elect a south american stupid, incompetent, petty dictator as Pope.
The sudden death of Cardinal Meisner led me – like, no doubt, many others – to think that every day can be the day of reckoning for the Evil Clown, too. I wish with all my heart, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, that this may be the case very soon, and this cancer expunged from the body of Holy Mother Church.
However, I reflect that even if Francis were to die today (please, Lord!) the situation of decay has now become such that, in the normal course of events, it cannot be reversed.
Whilst also ripe with the malignant tumor of Vatican II, the 2013 Conclave was certainly less poisoned with Modernism than this one; still, they were blind, stupid, or perverted enough to elect Bergoglio. If the Evil Clown were to do us the favour and kick the bucket, the probability of the Cardinals electing one willing to really backpedal is minuscule. Too many FrancisCardinals are already wearing red for a halfway sane choice – of, of course, a traitor who left Christ alone on the Cross as Francis spit on his face with Amoris Laetitia – to come out of a Conclave. In the normal course of event, we would be utterly done for.
But we have been promised that, at some point, the normal course of events will be disrupted by a supernatural intervention. As we realise how bad the situation has become, we brace for the full collision with Asteroid Faggot and do not expect any improvement to come out of it in our lifetime; but we keep praying that the unexpected may come as we are still here, and may allow us to live our last years in the serene consciousness that the worst is behind us, the bad council and the bad Mass have come and wreaked havoc but are now on the way to defeat, and a solidly Catholic Pope is filling the next Conclave with Crusaders.
If Francis died today, we would still be in huge trouble. But the Blessed Virgin will crush his heresies as all the others one day.
Rather predictably, it turns out father Milani, who was a star communist priest in the dark age of the Sixty-Eighter and later, was a homo and, likely, a pedophile.
As the song says, it’s the same old story. Scratch the dissenter, and you will find the pervert underneath.
Francis likes both. If a priest has both qualities, he will like him a lot. He will do all he can to keep the customer satisfied: the cohort of fags, atheists, heretics who have elected him and give him his power base, and whose thinking he completely shares.
What an unforgettable Pope the Cardinals have elected.
It is a very sad anniversary, this day that marks 10 years of Summorum Pontificum.
Ten years ago, I thought – albeit not yet introduced to Catholic blogging, much less with my own one – that Summorum Pontificum would one day be seen as the first meaningful step towards the recovery of sanity.
Today, I seem to notice that it was the pet project of a Pope not really interested in the recovery of the past, but rather more focused on giving a varnish of old to the new he was still promoting. This very man subsequently stunned the world with a resignation that I found, at the time, in perfect good faith and made in the confidence that his successor would more vigorously continue his program of very moderate conservatism; before two interviews gushing praise for Francis led me to suspect – the man not being gaga at all – that he is actually on board with everything that has happened after his abdication.
Ten years ago I saw a great offensive coming. Today I see us entrenched, albeit I must also say that the trenches have revealed and nurtured a fighting spirit that warms the heart.
Still, entrenched we are, and with the very sad prospective of going on this way for who knows how long, it being now clear that only the Blessed Virgin's intervention will save us from a spiral of decline made by obscene episcopal and cardinatial appointments,coupled with the most scandalous silence of the others.
Ten years after, we prepare ourselves for a half apocalypse.
When I think of all this, and reflect that some people are even happy with the faint meowing of the likes of Cardinal Meisner, I have no doubt at all why we are where we are.
As it is now known, the CDF has recently (that is: when still badly led by Cardinal Müller) sent a letter to the SSPX in which the Vatican states exactly the same conditions for the reconciliation with the SSPX that caused the last attempt to fail. Besides secundary matters, the crux of the question was the acceptance of V II from the part of the SSPX, an acceptance on which the Vatican now officially still insists.
Predictably, the SSPX has refused, and this is the end of that.
One would be tempted to think that the Vatican had no intention to allow an unconditioned reconciliation with the SSPX in the first place, and Francis may well have had this intention from day one. However, it would be naive to think that the SSPX embarked in the new negotiations without a reasonable hope of success.
What I think gas happened is that a not irrelevant franction of Vatican functionaries and dignitaries has been pushing for an unconditioned reconciliation with the SSPX, prospecting to the Unholy Father its advantages in terms of “diversity acceptance” and with the possible further benefit of the now “reconciled” SSPX avoiding calling Francis “Modernist through and through”. Francis has either weighted his options during this time or, more probably, told his people that he was doing so in order to enjoy a more prudent SSPX for as long as practicable. This is a Jesuit, which in modern parlance is synonymous with “atheist, possibly homosexual, church-hating devious liar”. It is, therefore, more reasonable to assume that Francis was lying all the time rather than to charitably imagine that he really gave the thought of unconditioned reconciliation a honest chance and the benefit of a long reflection.
So: what changes now? I don't know because I don't know to what extent the upper caeli said of the SSPX believe – at this point naively, if you ask me – that some small door could still be open.
In my eyes, however, something very important should change.
1) The SSPX should stop focusing on a reconciliation that will clearly not happen during this pontificate at the very least, and start firing from all cannons at the heretical work of subversion we are witnessing every day.
2) In a less immediate perspective, the SSPX should wonder whether the times do not call for a more aggressive leadership than the one of Bishop Fellay. I am not doubting the personal integrity of the Bishop, but one who states that a reconciled SSPX would avoid criticising too loud or too harshly (I have written about it) is just too much on the soft side, and in my eyes not good enough for the present time.
There is a time for peace and a time for war. This is a time for war.
I am not sure Bishop Fellay is the best man to lead it.
One of the many madnesses of this mad era is the … Mass Concelebration of the Mass.
I read today of a Mass concelebrated by more than 150 “celebrants”; last week I heard on the radio of another one of more than 100.
Like all the rest that has to do with Vatican II, this gesture takes the faithful away from God and directs it toward the faithful. Look at us, it says. We are such a joyous group we can barely believe how good we are.
Can't imagine for anything to do for all of them but three at the most. Unless, that is, they do stupid things like reading the Gospel in unison, one hundred of them.
Catholicism is being brought out of Catholicism. A creepy celebration of man is taking his place. This is just stupid. It is, in fact, even worse than the mega masses followed on a mega screen one Km away (and therefore actually seen on TV). It is a sort of mass self-celebration.
You may say that we have bigger fishes to fry, but… have we? The Liturgy is the beginning of all things. The state of the Liturgy also tells you the state of the Church.
We are clearly in very, very bad shape.
First things first: in your charity, say an “eternal rest” for the soul of Cardinal Meisner, one of the “Dubia” ones, who just died suddenly at the age of 83. Every soul has infinite value. His Guardian Angel must have suffered a lot.
After that, allow me to be, as always, brutally frank.
Either the confusion engendered by Amoris Laetitia is not a matter of great importance – and in that case the entire sanely Catholic world is obsessing in vain and Francis is right: these are just squabbles for theologians – or it is pretty much the gravest crisis in the history of the Church.
In the first case we are all idiots. In the second case, I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the late Cardinal Meisner. Because his day of reckoning has just arrived, and if he wasn't prepared I shudder to think where he is, very probably, now.
If you think that faint meowing is enough to save a Cardinal from the accusation of dereliction of duty and betrayal of the sheep entitled to him, Christ and Catholicism must be kindergarten trifles to you; matters of little importance, warranting some remarks perhaps, but never to the point of becoming loud or, quod Deus avertat, unkind.
If, however, you think that there is nothing more important than Truth; that this Truth has been trampled, insulted and disfigured for now seventeen months; and that no one, not even one of the very Princes of the Church had the nerve to denounce the document, then you understand in what danger of damnation the Cardinal has put himself, and what has very probably happened to him if he was not prepared. Which, for the avoidance of doubt, I wish him with all my heart no matter what a coward and traitor he was.
The fact that this little, afraid little kitten, who at 83 was more concerned with his earthly comfort for the short rest of his life than with his eternal salvation and the horrible judgment of posterity, might even be considered anything approaching a brave man or a defender of Catholicism really says it all about the state of extreme decay in which we have descended – and in which prelates like Meisner have plunged us with decades of cowardice and accommodation -. I do not say the first generation of Christians, but every generation of Catholics before ours would have considered such a man a great shame, a counterfeit of a Cardinal and utterly unworthy of the priestly habit.
Spare me your sanctimonious mercy. Have mercy, instead, for one billion Catholics abandoned by pampered hirelings like this one; living a life of privilege, comfort and prestige every day they betrayed our Lord in the most shameful way. And the greatest shame should be the one of those who wanted to be the heroes when they thought there was no danger in it, and caved in the most embarrassingly spectacular way when this turned out not to be the case.
There was only one Apostle at the foot of the cross. But all others died as martyrs in the end. Cardinal Meisner died on his holiday.
Say another “eternal rest” for the poor useful idiot of the Evil Clown.
I am utterly amused at reading around the usual, professional plate-lickers wannabe conservative journalists describe the new choice of the Evil Clown for the CDF (no idea whether the press will end up calling him Ladaria or Ferrer or both) as a “conservative” one. It cannot even be Pollyannism. It must be willed deception.
Look: Francis has been insistently, tirelessly insulting the “doctors of the law”; the “rigid”, “inflexible” clergy and laity and, in general, all those who do not support his heretical agenda. What on earth leads one to believe that he would choose exactly one of them to replace Müller?
If Francis' “rigidity” remarks had been only a very rare events one could, with a great effort, have had at least some hope that the man has interest in spreading nonsense himself whilst caring that a solid CDF chief keeps him out of trouble. But this is exactly what is not happening.
Firstly, Francis has stated on dozens of occasions what “qualities” a CDF chief should have. Secondly, the utter cowardice and complete silence of his Cadinals (even the meowing ones, of course) have persuaded him that… there is no need for prudence! Clearly, and bar some kind of miracle, he will not be challenged by his Cardinals; not now, and not ever.
After AL has remained unchallenged, there is nothing in his way to produce documents even less ambiguous in their heretical thinking. The downside is some more meowing at the most, and more than likely not even that (if the Four Cardinals dare to express more Dubia after the next encyclical I am afraid I will not be able to stop laughing for days).
It is utter nonsense to think that Francis may even consider the appointment of anyone but the most docile instrument of his destructive ideology. The evidence for this is overwhelming, utterly devastating.
To say that Ferrer is in any way, shape or form is pure nonsense, utter propaganda; it is Fake News, fake “c”atholic way.
And it came to pass the identity of the Monsignor who lived in the splendid apartment at the Vatican and hosted drug-fuelled homosexual orgies was revealed: the delicate flower is Monsignor Capozzi, very unfortunately Italian, from Salerno, and an unworthy priest for more than two decades.
I doubt he will be even defrocked, much less receive a hard jail sentence. He might, in fact, receive the “smell of sheep prize 2017” for his tireless work in defence of sodomy.
But who is the Cardinal who protected him? How can such a man defend himself from the accusation that he knew all of his Monsignor's activity and either supported him in that, or was forced to give the man the splendid apartment, the luxury car, and the closing of both eyes out of sheer terror of what the Gay Mafia would otherwise do to him?
You guessed it right: he is no other than Cardinal CockLovingErio; who, several days after the bomb exploded, is not even thinking of resigning, nor is there any rumour he might do so.
At this point it is almost secondary to know whether said Cardinal is a literar lover of cock or not. His total complicity with and subservience to the homo agenda makes the distinction prett irrelevant. It's like wondering whether Stalin believed in Communism. The practical result is exactly the same.
I can't wait for Father Martin or Father Rosica to be involved in a similar scandal. But then again, will it have any consequence for them? I doubt. They will win the “smell of sheep” prize 2018 and 2019 and nothing else will happen, the usual cockloving Cardinal who protects them will be easily found.
As Francis' papacy becomes a grotesque caricature of a Pontificate, you can be assured that they homo parties will go on at the Vatican, albeit in different premises.
Perhaps Monsignor Ricca will be asked to provide them?
So, will Cardinal Müller, now that he has been very unceremoniously been kicked out, be “unleashed”?
Come on. Be realistic here.
Firstly, the man has shut up when he had the greatest duty to speak. Any criticism of AL now will expose him to the very justified accusation of being a weathervane.
Secondly, the man has already given an interview downplaying his disagreements with the Evil Clown. Not only is this in accordance with the previous point, but once again shows that under that red cassocks no reproduction organs are to be found.
Thirdly, Müller could appear as conservative only when compared to Francis. His theological credentials when he was chosen for the job were horrible (I have written many times about this). This is not a man who can serve as the spearhead of seriously intended orthodoxy. By the way, he was appointed by Benedict for being the editor of his own books, another confirmation that career by incompetence and personal proximity has not started with Francis.
No, what the man will do is what all V II ominicchi do: shut up, promise allegiance, tell the world what a wonderful papacy this is, and hope in some other satisfying appointment. This is the behaviour that brought us to this situation in the first place, and Müller never gave any indication of being part of the solution rather than of the problem.
However, I can guarantee you this: that if he now sneezes when asked about Francis there will be no lack of people claiming that the sneeze is a clear, obvious criticism of Francis.
We are in trouble because the clergy is cowardly, and the laity asleep.
The news that, of all people, another damn Jesuit has been appointed at the head of the CDF is a call to all of us to be prepared to deal with the coming earthquake. Today I would like to mention an important point my readers should, I think, both heed and divulge as much as they can.
We don’t know when this is going to end. Too often I read people persuaded that it can’t be long now until the promised intervention of the Blessed Virgin happens. This is both dangerous and presumptuous.
It is dangerous because it exposes the person who so thinks to a big disappointment, and possibly loss of faith, when the present mess keeps going on, and getting worse, year after year. Make no mistake, the devil will do what he can to inoculate into the mind of those faithful the thought that the protracted chaos and failing of the promised heavenly intervention is evidence that the Church is not indefectible; therefore, we have been lied to; therefore, there is no God, &Co.
It is presumptuous because it is simply arrogant to think that one knows God’s plan, or when things have gone far enough, or when we have been punished long and hard enough for the madness of Vatican II.
We don’t know how bad this will become, and we don’t know when it is going to end. It’s as simple as that. What we can know, though, is that the events that are unfolding in front of us are God’s punishment for the rebellion bearing the name of Second Vatican Council. God is punishing us for our rebellion and arrogance, and it only shows more of that arrogance to think we can decide for Him when it is that we have been punished enough, and when the punishment will end.
Yes, we have vague indications. When all seems lost, the Blessed Virgin will intervene. But when is it, that “all seems lost?” It seems to me that there are a lot of people around for whom this seems to be happening again, and again, and again!
We don’t know, period. The future might give us atrocities not even realistically assumed today. What we must do is to strengthen our resolve that we will keep faithful to Christ and His Church no matter what. As things get worse and worse, this must be for us simply the way to understand how terrible the rebellion was, and how deserved the punishment that followed.
At some point, everything will seem lost. Can’t imagine that this means ambiguous encyclicals letters promoting heresies and sacrileges actually too easy to detect.
No; I fear it will be mind-blowing, truly earth-shattering.
Prepare yourself for a papacy openly, publicly, insistently “celebrating” all the work of the devil: euthanasia, abortion, fornication, sodomy, you name it. Now, that would be a scenario where “all seems lost”.
Prepare yourself for the nuclear catastrophe: a successor of Francis that is far more intelligent (not difficult) than, but just as evil (well possible) as Francis; one like Schoenborn, say, who will have all the damn Pollyannas screaming in girlish excitement that “we now have a conservative Pope!!!” as the man keeps destroying, but in a more subtle way; easily duping the idiots with a fake “conservatism” that is merely a facade after the antics of Francis.
Prepare yourself, perhaps, for even more shocking events than the ones above; like, say, a Pope declaring his “love” for a Cardinal, or a “change” of “gender”, or the like.
“But this is absurd, Mundabor! It will never happen!”
Says… who exactly? How many did, in 2012, predict “Amoris Laetitia” only four years later? How many did, after the Revolt Of The Kitten at the first Synod, predict such an obvious dereliction of duty from our entire body of bishops and cardinals?
It is exactly when the up to that point considered absurd happens, that “all will seem lost”. If you think that Amoris Laetitia is it, you just haven’t been paying attention to the dynamics at play, or to the extreme cowardice of our prelates, or to the immense scale of the rebellion of Vatican II.
Vatican II was an unprecedented rebellion. Something different in its very nature from the lust, greed, or ambition influencing Popes and clergy of the past. Vatican II is the Church’s pancreatic cancer. It is not for us to decide when the chemotherapy has become strong enough. We know that the Church will survive. But we also know that nothing will remain unpunished.
Be wise and do not think that you know the hour or the day. Rather, use the current events to better reflect on the enormity of the offence made to God by the madness of Vatican II. Use them to strengthen your faith rather than expose it to danger with a presumptuous attitude. Observe the decay of this corrupted, but still beloved earthly church, plagued by cancer, knowing that the cure will only come when the patient has become almost the ghost of himself: extremely thinned, horribly disfigured, given to delirium, and not recognisable but by the Elect.
Love the Church. Love the Church and believe in her even when she is disfigured, thinned, delirious, and barely recognisable. Pray that she may recover her health, but do not live under any illusion that you will see it in your lifetime. You have only been promised that she will not die.
About the extent of the disease, the disfiguration and delirium it would cause, and the time of recovery you have been given no promise at all.