Monthly Archives: August 2017
Why did God make you?
God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and be happy with Him forever in the next.
There, Jorge; you stupid, old, lewd, godless ass.
In these few words from the Penny Catechism is contained all the “meaning of life”. Those who waste their time seeking for the purpose or aim of their existence aren't “youthful”, they are confused. They have, in fact, an outlook on life that does not put God front and centre , that does not make of salvation the pivotal point of their existence, that does not consider a life in love of and obedience to God the only possible calling for their existence.
There, in those few words, is all the “purpose and meaning of life” they will ever need to know. It is, exactly, the job of a Pope to confirm them in this knowledge; not to lead them away from it, even praising their ignorance and confusion.
This man is so unbelievably arrogant, ignorant, and stupid that every well-instructed eight years old could humiliate him, day in and day out.
Heavens, what an embarrassment.
Die soon, Pope Stupid.
We have had enough of your third-rate, godless blabber.
Imagine this: you have the parish priest visiting your home (I know, I know; but humour me here…). You ask Father to bless your home and family. Father then proceeds to say a blessing prayer, asking God to bless all the world's families and their homes.
I don't think you would be very happy. Actually, I do not think that you would say that the priest has asked the Lord to bless your home and your family. I note here that, once upon a time, most Italian families had a small frame hanging on the wall, with the words: “Signore, benedici questa casa”.
Questa casa, this home. Not ogni casa, every home. You want the Lord to bless you and yours, because you and yours are, to you, justifiably special.
Now, I have never seen a frame on the wall saying: “Lord, bless every home”. Nor have I ever seen a Catholic priest who, upon being asked to say a blessing upon one home and family, proceeds to ask the Lord to bless every home and every family.
Do I make sense here? Is this not the most obvious common sense?
Why, then, it should be said that, once the Blessed Birgin asked to consecrate Russia to her, the consecration of the entire world should be considered the fulfilment of that request?
Words mean what they say.
This home means this home.
Russia means Russia.
All the rest is Jesuitism.
And it came to pass I was informed from the Remnant about the real nature of the savage rants of the papal men (and, in some cases, women; though apparently they prefer not to speak about their own sexuality) against conservative Catholics.
No, it's not the rumbling people in the pews, at least not directly. It's not even the conservatively oriented priests, as much as a V II priest can call himself “conservative”. Let us read:
“But certainly, we see the multiplication of websites, blogs, and Twitter accounts that tend to move public opinion and react in lively and often in a violent and fundamentalist way. These realities create a bubble within themselves…It is found everywhere. I do not say it is a majority phenomenon, but it is something that is present in the life of the People of God today.”
No. It's all those pesky bloggers, the Blessed Virgin's warrior ants, assaulting heresy one blog post at a time, no matter how little read. You put all the warrior ants together, and they are enough to easily peeve our already easily peeved Jorge “Che” Bergoglio.
As I have written many times, every warrior ants on its own is utterly insignificant; but together, they can be rather formidable. Whilst not millions, they will shape the impressions of millions; because every confused Catholic who goes around on the net seeking for information about the latest Communist papal rant will find… us.
He will find the thousands of utterly insignificant, but absolutely angry Mundabors opening the guy's eyes about the times in which he is living. The guy will possibly not become an observant Catholic after that (but hey, perhaps he will!), but he will go to dinner without any more doubts about who is Catholic, the commie Pope who wants to Muslimise Europe or the angry warrior ants who oppose him.
And still, still…
As it becomes clear that our work is getting more and more effective, I invite you not to look at numbers.
The Blessed Virgin does not care about how many readers you have. She cares about how much will and energy to fight for Christ you have.
But to know that, together with many others, you are peeving Jorge “Che” Bergoglio is also a satisfaction.
It was very kind of Barbara Simpson to say that, with his astonishing requests on behalf of illegal immigrants and fake refugees, Pope Francis put his foot in his mouth again.
I am not so kind and will, therefore, succinctly give you my version of what is happening.
1. Pope Francis' statements are not unintentional gaffes. They are willed political statements.
2. Francis' political position is somewhere between Peron and Chavez/ Maduro.
3. He is fully aware of the disconcert he will cause among Catholics. He just doesn't care.
4. He does so because he hates and despises all of them.
5. As Francis wants the end of the Church in Europe as we know it, he works as he can to deChristianise and Muslimise it.
The points above may be shocking for some. But the facts on the ground have been confirming them for years now, and this keeps happening day in and day out.
This Pope hates the Church, he hates Catholics, and he hates you. He wants your world and system of values gone and will do as much as he can for all the time he still has.
Look at his continuing statements, and shameless attacks to the Christian West. There is no other explanation. It's happening in front of our eyes and he is even not shy in telling you so, then the man is even less subtle than he is intelligent.
This is the fitting punishment for the Second Vatican Council. A rebellious earthly Church will be punished with a rebellious Pope, so that all but the completely blind may see what rebellion leads to.
Francis is the way the Lord is using to put the error of our ways in front of us. The remedy is recognising the mistakes, correctly identify their root cause, vow to atone for them and go back to sanity.
No, Francis is not attacking you unintentionally. He does so aggressively, like the peasant and boor he is, certain of the impunity his role gives him.
I wonder if it would be a grave sin to throw foul tomatoes and sundry rotten vegetables at him, ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
Let us try to be logical, shall we?
There cannot be two Truths, or two Churches. It cannot be that the Tridentine Mass, proclaimed good for all times – with anathema attached against its enemies – by the Tridentine Council, was good once and it is not good now. It can never, ever be, because if this were the case it would mean that Truth changes and, therefore, Catholicism is a fraud and a joke. Heavens, this is so easy to understand even Francis must get it!
To be even clearer : if an extremely orthodox, “Pius XIII” type Pope were, after years of ruthless orthodoxy, to declare “authoritatively” that going away from the Tridentine Mass is irreversible, even then such a Pope would immediately lose all credibility and every half-instructed Catholic would be obliged to recognise the obvious falsity and error of his statements.
But a nincompoop like Francis, does he really think he will put an end to the controversy by throwing his non-existent prestige – nay: the despise of and laughter about him of all sane Catholics – behind the question?
The statement itself is too stupid for words. It attempts to put the Pope’s authority behind a process of continuing change: this is firstly the contrary of everything the Church believes and, to make things more absurd, a blank check towards every kind of future change.
It is, in fact, a call to a permanent revolution (which, if it is liturgical, must perforce involve all the rest: lex orandi, lex credendi) which is as absurd from a Catholic point of view as it is indetermined and vague, though clearly heretical, from a factual one.
The ass has brayed, and he now wants for his bray to be taken seriously.
Keep dreaming, Unholy Father.
We will keep being Catholics.
Father Martin truly does not want to stop. Like a girl whose sister has just stolen her best handbag, our indefatigable Father Liberace truly loses it.
Let us correct some of the rubbish the man spouts.
1. No, there is no “spectrum” in term of sexuality, as his clearly homosexual friends have told him. People can be more or less masculine, more or less feminine, but in the end they are either normal people or perverts. Tertium non datur. This is not only obvious to any sane person, but is, crucially, what the Church has always taught. There is no “spectrum” in Saint Paul, you damn girl. “Complicated sexuality” means “faggotry”.
2. The man (because he still has a Pimmel) stoops so low as to use the old, abused excuse employed by every homosexual on the planet: if my perversion disgusts you, you must be a latent homosexual yourself. Strangely, they never use the non-argument with paedophilia. However, if they use the argument with others concerning homosexuality they must accept that others use it with them concerning paedophilia.
The question is therefore: does paedophilia disgust Father Martin?
If not, he has obvious, open pedophile tendencies of his own admission.
If yes, he has obvious, latent pedophile tendencies of his own admission.
And please let us stop taking such stupid arguments as if they were worth one dog shit. Leave them to homo psychologists, and ask everyone who tries to use this rubbish with you, very straight, if he is disgusted of paedophilia (or incest, or bestiality; if you are talking to Francis you may throw in coprophagia as he appears to be quite the expert). See what face he makes. Be hard. Don't walk back.
The rest of the article is also rubbish, but there is a moment of involuntary comedy when he states he does not want to change church doctrine, and the evidence would be that a Jesuit approved his book.
Comedy gold. You couldn't make it up.
This man should be defrocked and, I think, one day he will be unless he dies or commits suicide beforehand. Too much he has (literally) exposed himself. He is like Saint-Just, one of those revolutionaries who don't get that they may get to ride a dangerous tiger for a while, but will be in the shooting list as soon as their own kind of revolution goes out of fashion.
Enjoy your moment of notoriety, Father Liberace.
At some point, your arrogance will catch up with you.
Possibly whilst you are still alive.
At times I struggle to see whether the Evil Clown is using figures of speech of his native Country, is talking the first nonsense that comes to his mind, or is just drunk.
The latest comparison between the people of Spring and the people of Autums is such an occasion. The stupid comparisons the – possibly drunken – man makes to insult us all mean the same thing: adulterers, infidels, perverts, and misfits of all sorts are the good guys. We, who try to live a Christian life and condemn those who give scandal (and even want to be right in doing that), are the bad guys, the (this is another one) chillies in vinegar or such like nonsensical comparison.
I love aceto balsamico, by the way, and make frequent use of it. For everything there is a season, even vinegar, and the season might actually be Autumn.
Someone should take the grappa bottle out of the man's hands.
Pope or no Pope, this one is now way past the point everyone else would deserve to be bitch slapped, big time.
Almost twenty years ago the Royal Slut, who had been giving scandal all summer – for the joy of the rubbish press – merely to show a very long finger to Queen and Country (particularly the former) died in an accident which was, in itself, the epitome of the arrogance of these people, thinking they can do without punishment what would cause me and you to go to jail very, very fast.
Make no mistake: during all the Summer of 1997 the woman had been treated by every sensible brain for what she was: a trollop slutting it around in wanton abandon of family, children, morality, conventions, and her role as still bearing the title (even after the divorce) of “Royal Highness”. The biggest Italian newspaper for women had made a famous reader survey, whose result famously was: she is a slut.
There you have it. From woman to woman. Pretty blinding obvious, too.
However, when she died something utterly knew to me happened: the sudden rise of a fishwives' religion.
Overnight, the woman became the object of what can only be called a cult; a cult feeding on the desire of what was already a large number of godless wordlings to feel good with themselves as the metre of what is right or wrong.
I realise now that this was the first phenomenon I witnessed of post-Christian mass hysteria, with an army of people without any moral compass instantly ditching obvious morality instances in order to make their own religion, for their own selfish enjoyment.
We saw the mass hysteria at work in other issues (global warming is a prime example), but I think the Royal Slut was the first of such astonishing magnitude. It was the horrible birth cry of a new generation of people, screaming their right to declare good what makes them feel good.
All this would have been impossible in former times. No generation before ours ever dared to proclaim the right to overlook moral instances formerly impossible to ignore. No generations before ours dared to excuse the slutting of the wife with the infidelities of the husband. Heck, you see Harry's photos and compare them with one of Diana's former lovers (I think it was the photographer, but it may have been the bedyguard?) and it gives you the creeps.
The tragic, highly illegal death of the Royal Slut was the first instance of a religion of self that has only been growing since. Twenty years later, many more Christians have died and many more “make me feel good with myself” cultists have started to vote.
Not good at all.
This is all you need to know about the “born that way” urban legend that has been going around for some time now, and was never believed by our far smarter progenitors.
God puts in every soul the right instincts and the right inclinations. At times, single individual decide to pervert these inclinations by repeatedly giving assent to, and persevering in, disgusting thoughts and desires. With the repeated assent to the perverted inclination, it becomes stronger. The pervert then starts to identify with it, and the “born that way” rubbish is born.
No one is ever innocent of his own perversion. It does not matter how bad the environment is, one is no less justified in being a homosexual than in being a sadist. Every homosexual is guilty of his own disorder, and he must pray and do all he can to recover the normality that lies in him, buried below thick strata of perverted excrement.
This is what the Church has always stated and not only it is in tune with the rest of Church teaching, but it also makes sense from a pragmatic, obvious, common sense approach to things.
And please don't come to me with the damn penguins, or dolphins, or whatever the heck that is with true or imagined homosexual animals. Penguins and dolphins are beasts. Humans have an eternal soul.
Cats screw their relatives. Can't wait for the “penguin faction” celebrating incest.
As to Father James Martin, some good investigative journalist could do some old-fashioned investigative journalism here. Not only it is as clear as the sun that the man is homosexual himself (he quacks like a fag, thinks like a fag and talks like a fag, so there…), a state of things incompatible with being a priest, but I am fairly confident that it would not be difficult to find evidence that the man actually engages in sodomitical acts, it being improbable that such impious, blasphemous arrogance stops at words.
This Father Martin isn't smart. He may have his field day now, but he is young enough to make it well possible that the tide turns in his lifetime, and he is exposed and defrocked. To get rid of the Sister Martin of this world we don't need Pius XIII; a Benedict XVII who is fed up with the guy will be more than enough.
Beware of fake priests.
Particularly when they have such a shrill voice.
The Remnant and the Jihad Watch have been the target of an attack from uber-Leftist, Nazi hate groups affiliated to George Soros and his net of satanical warfare on God. The minions of Satan tried to bully Paypal into closing the accounts of the two organisations.
It is extremely concerning that the account of the Gateway Pundit was, in fact, closed before the storm that followed “inspired” PayPal to think again. Still, this kind of event tells you without any doubt the kind of tactics these bile-filled Hate Groups are ready to employ. Also not surprising is the tactic of fake “journalism” employed to do so, a tactic perfectly in line with the Fake News dominating our media environment.
ProPublica clearly is an organisation meant to suppress every opinion different from their own with whatever means, legal or illegal. This sort of intimidation should attract the attention of some smart prosecutor in the US and lead to the banning of the hate group and the arrest of the people responsible for its intimidation tactics.
Fr Aidan Nichols has, for the first time, publicly criticised Amoris Laetitia, and the attack was devastating. Nichols, a well-known name in England, not only points his finger on the many errors and heresies in the notorious documents, but he also states a very obvious, yet certainly one to be said, fact: it cannot be said that the Pope was negligent or unguarded in his language, because the CDF warned him about the dangers and he simply chose to ignore the warning.
This, I add, in addition to the relentless work made by the Evil Clown in officially promoting the heresies; with the letter to the Argentinian Bishops probably the most blatant, official among them.
Father Nichols will now, sadly, be persecuted, and he will not even have the protection normally afforded to a Bishop. Please pray for him.
It is very sad to see that priests feel the need to publicly criticise the Pope and undergo certain persecution when not one of the bishops besides Schneider, and no darn Cardinal at all, dares to openly confront and condemn this evil man and the damage he is causing.
Father Nichols also theorised a procedure, sanctioned by Canon Law, to discourage heretical statements of future Popes; but I frankly find the endeavour futile, as a heretical Pope would block such ordinary ways. By definition, a heretical Pope can only be an extraordinary event; which will, then, require extraordinary measures outside of the usual legal ways and channels.
The Extraordinary Council generally seen as the remedy for such actions is just this: a counter-revolution for Christ against a revolutionary Pope. There can be no manual for such things, which makes it wise for such situations never having been regulated by Canon Law.
But this is just side news. That even the Catholic Herald publishes such a scathing condemnation is rather more relevant.
Pray for Father Nichols. And for Bishops and Cardinals willing to do their job already.
And it came to pass that yours truly was, some time ago, driving through a part of the Country that shall remain unnamed. At some point, the following sign appears: “red squirrels crossing the road”.
The writer of the official sign (put there by some local authority) did not come so far as to say “brake abruptly and disrupt traffic, or run the risk of being rear-ended, for a red squirrel”. However, it was clear he/she/whatever wished you to drive differently because of the possibility of the oh so precious red squirrel crossing the road. Now, we all know of the plight of the red squirrel (chased away from his habitat from the far bigger, and far more aggressive, grey squirrel). However, really, come on….
And then it dawned on me that the same Country in which you can read such passionate, and quite official, defence of the red squirrel allows 150,000 babies to be killed in the womb, quite legally, by their own mothers.
Does, I reflected, the author of the quite official street sign have a problem with the 150,000 killed babies? The statistically most probable answer is no, she hasn't, nor have their colleagues in the office for local roads and the protection of the red squirrel.
Long live the Red Squirrel. Alas, the baby will have to be disposed of.
We live in time of astonishing stupidity, that will be remembered in centuries to come as the epitome of moral suicide and logic's bankruptcy, whilst we were so proud of our smartphones, drones and communication systems.
The FrancisGame is very simple. It can be played by everyone no matter how stupid.
Actually, being stupid helps a lot.
First, you look good and oh so sensitive by encouraging and calling for a Muslim invasion of the Continent. When your own policy causes poor innocents to be slaughtered you look good and oh so sensitive by giving your solidarity to the victims of your own senseless enmity with the Christian West.
You look good before the massacre and after the massacre. Actually, there's no way not to look good and oh so sensitive.
The game is also future-proof, as the continued importation of Mohammedans will make the first phase more obvious and the second phase far more frequent.
Gotta love the FrancisGame.
The only ones who lose at it are the victims, their families and those who still care for our Christian heritage and civilisation.
Look at how many headlines mention Islam!
One would think the attackers were just nervous because of the heat
I am somewhat perplexed at the behaviour of otherwise excellent news outlets like, say, Breitbart. In their desire to expose the fanaticism of the Liberals, they end up publishing endless articles containing their antics. Basically, they give them a huge resonance box.
Does it help?
My first instinct is to say “it doesn't”: the space and energy should be better used to publish articles of those who say the right things, rather than endlessly giving a stage to the bad guys. I must say I am at times so put off by that that I instantly leave the page, and go reading somewhere else.
However, and for the sake of honesty, I must admit that Trump won the election, and this tactic of constantly rubbing liberal thinking under the nose of sanely thinking voters might, actually, have had the desired effect in the end, mobilising many who would perhaps have stayed home without the constant aggravation.
Still, aggravation it is. It also engenders the impression that the world out there be full of liberals, almost monopolising both the public discourse and the individual thinking. I would say that the exact contrary is the truth, with the liberal nutcases a very tiny minority of the population, but gaining traction because their ideas are endlessly spread from both friend and foe.
I personally do not react well to this kind of journalism. When some Liberal states something retarded I want to read the reasoned criticism and condemnation of it, not only the liberal madness in itself. This way I am both informed and nurtured. But I have no desire to be subject to an endless litany of liberal nonsense and a long list of dumb tweets every day, merely to be told for the millionth time that these people are dumb.
What do you think?
What effect does the tactic of Drudge or Breitbart have on you?
Wannabe hero without the battle Cardinal Burke is having a whale of a time.
After the most scandalous dereliction of duty for now sixteen months and – which makes it even worse – orthodox posturing without even acting on it, Cardinal Burke seems intentioned to sit on this fence ad infinitum, certainly counting on all the rosewater Catholics and Pollyanna resisters dumb enough to believe, without any evidence to back their belief, that this man is every bit part of the solution rather than of the problem.
Now, the Cardinal has once again ventilated that – at some point, in future, no one knows when – a formal correction could come; and that – mirabile dictu! – this correction might contain some faint meowing of criticism of the Evil Clown for failing to defend Truth; which is exactly what the Cardinal himself is doing even as he criticises others for it.
One must appreciate the game: eternal posturing without ever acting; paper tiger extraordinaire; professional fence sitter.
Cardinal Burke is literally having his cake and eating it; courtesy of the dumbness of too many lukewarm faithful, desperately on the look for a hero whilst Our Lord is spitted in the face every day. He should be ashamed of himself.
Make no mistake: if Cardinal Burke were to proceed to a formal condemnation of Francis and his heresies tomorrow, his delay would still be gravely sinful. However, the correction itself would still be the desired, and expected, outcome. But what is happening now is truly ludicrous, and such that the Cardinal deserves open condemnation and mockery until he man up, rather than approval.
By the bye, we are now past the Assumption and I distinctly remember the Cardinal stating that after the Epiphany any time could be right for the correction, implying January, February at the latest.
Beware of the paper tigers. They are not your friends, or Christ's.
Homosexuality is not a sin. Why? Because it is not an action. It is not something that you do or omit to do.
Homosexuality is something one is. One is homosexual, paedophile, incestuous, attracted to animals, etc. But the tendency in itself is not a sin.
The tendency in itself is a perversion. The tendency is perverted (Latin: per, which often means “wrong”, as in the English, Latin-derived word perjury, and versio, “direction”.
A pervert has his inclinations and desires going in the wrong direction: towards people of the same sex, relatives, children, animals.
So no, homosexuality is not a sin in itself. Homosexuality is a perversion in itself.
The perversion will then predispose to the sin, and will do so in a very violent way. When the devil has taken hold of a soul to the extent that the perversion has festered, has consolidated its presence within the person, then it is obvious that the devil has taken a strong bridgehead. This will create a very strong tendency to commit acts – with the mere thoughts, to which the pervert assents, or with physical action like sodomy – which are sins.
How strong this is can be observed continuously, when the pervert declares that he is that way, or was born that way. What the man is saying is that his assent to the perverted thoughts has become so strong that he is even unable or unwilling to dissociate it from the essence of what he is, from the way he defines himself.
This is a very strong sign of Reprobation, as it shows that the man is, so to speak, Satan's occupied territory and only God's grace will be able to motivate him to get out from the path to hell very clearly laid before him.
Therefore, Bishop Kohlgraf of (soon) Mainz is deceiving and betraying his flock when he simply states that homosexuality is not a sin without saying what it is and what it does to a soul.
The Evil Clown has expressed the desire to meet the mother of the Italian homo murdered by another homo because of his – real or alleged – relationship with a Trannie.
There is enough material here to vomit for a quarter of an hour. Still, this cretin has it known that he wants to meet the mother of the victim.
Notice here that there is nowhere any trace of condemnation of sexual perversion: not from Francis and not from the mother. Therefore, Francis does not want to meet her as a heroine of the fight for mental sanity, but far more likely as a part of the normalisation of sexual aberration this non-judging nincompoop seems to be pushing all the time.
There is something extremely disquieting and decidedly creepy in the attitude of this man towards perverts. It is as if he would surround with as many of him as he can (besides Ricca we can easily mention Martin, Rosica, Paglia and “Tucho” Fernandez as very easy suspects; I leave it to you if you want to add Coccopalmerio, too) and, when he cannot, he would try to be as near as he can to them by proxy, like the young man in love who likes to chat with the mother of the beloved one.
This man is truly creepy, and it might be even creepier that not many seem to notice anymore.
We live in times in which a Pope seeking the vicinity of perverts is not even news anymore.
And His Mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
These words, from the Magnificat, never fail to fill me with a great sense of consolation and hope.
Wretched sinner as I am, I too can hope to be, one day, not left out, but unworthily – and after a, no doubt, long purgatory – admitted to eternal joy beyond human comprehension.
There is something in Catholicism that atheists and assorted anticlericals are utterly unable to get. What they see as uncompromising harshness hides, in fact, infinite sweetness. They cannot see the sweetness, because the acceptance of the harshness is necessary to appreciate it in the first place. They are like a son rebelling against his rigid mother, who will never know how tenderly she loves him.
Fear of the Lord truly is the beginning of wisdom. Its absence is a major indication of foolishness on a vast scale.
I will keep my fear of the Lord and my very harsh religion; and will thoroughly enjoy the tears of consolation and hope that it gives me. May I – and you, my dear readers – never lose it, drowning in the stupidity of the Age of Francis.
Whenever some adherent of the “religion of peace” blows up himself in the air or does something just as stupid, UK Muslim leaders are not slow in condemning, in very generic term, “violence”. The mention of “Muslim violence” is not really there. It's a very generic condemnation of bad behaviour “whenever it may come from”.
Neither the BBC nor the mainstream press have a problem with it.
It is, therefore, strange that when a death occurs in the course of incidents which saw violence on both sides, Trump should condemn one side exclusively.
Actually, Trump is far more justified than the above mentioned Muslim leaders, because in the latter's case the violence is undoubtedly all on our side, and in Trump's case this is not the case.
Trump is right also in the “terrorism” quarrel. The death in Charlottesburg is a mixture of heated spirits and road rage. Never in my life have I seen such an episode called “terrorism”, and I have seen a lot of it in several Countries. The fake news machine just does not want to stop.
And please leave poor General Lee alone. A wonderful soldier and patriot that every Nation would be proud to call his own, and an Abolitionist to boot.
One thing you can safely say of these liberals and assorted leftists is that, besides not being born geniuses, they are ignorant of their own history.
I have already written a couple of times about how tiring it is to have to write the same things about the same idiot again and again. However – I reflected every time – the idiot does not get tired to spread his idiocy; therefore, I will not get tired to fight it.
Nor can it be said that scandal is addictive. Scandal is scandal. No priest or layman worth his salt would tell you, after seeing a persistent scandal in his village, that at some point it is better not to denounce it anymore.
Blogging can be tiring or repetitive. It's life. What we do is soldier on with the lights that God have given us, asking him for the energy and resolve to never give up the fight.
Countless martyrs have died for the faith; shall I get tired of some blogging?
If an 83 years old heretic can go on and on and on I can do the same, too. God willing, I will see him in his grave. When the situation improves and we have a Catholic hierarchy doing their darn job I will reconsider whether I want to spend the time blogging. But that time is, sadly, a very distant fantasy and now we clearly live an “all hands on deck” situation.
When the Clergy betrays their flock and Christ calls the laymen to the fight, I do not say “it's boring”, much less “dear Lord, scandal is addictive; shouldn't we rather pray?”.
No. I shout “presente!” loud and clear. Well I pray, too, but honestly I think blogging comes close as it helps others to live a life of Catholic sanity in an age of utter and complete insanity.
Of course, blogging is not only about that. I write a number of blog posts that are not about the scandal of the day, trusting that my readers will not forget that we live in horrible times if I don't remind them of the fact three times a week. However, the fundamental point remain: when it is time to fight you don't get tired, or even say that fighting heresy is making the work of the devil. This would be one of the most extraordinary inversions of truth ever stated by anyone, Catholic or not.
Yes be prayerful. Yes be in good spirit. Yes pray for your enemies (as you pound on them with your keyboard). But for heaven's sake, never think that it be bad to defy heresy and heterodoxy, no matter for how long you have to do it.
In the end, you know what?
You turn if you want to.
Mundabor is not for turning.
However, one who seems less bad than many others.
If he runs, trust him to cave in in the matter of sodomarriage. However, if there is one who, in time, might reverse the tide, it is this one.
Here in the UK some call him “the honourable member for the XVIII Century”. There are other versions around. A practicing Catholic to boot.
I must say I like it.
By the bye, the man is a Brexit Fascist.
My kind of guy in this, too.
In the last blog post I have touched upon the merely superficial effect of a bad papacy in bringing about the evil, as the only one accepting the novelties will be the ones who were embracing them anyway. However, this does not make a Pope, or a Papacy, irrelevant. A good Pope would have a huge influence within and without the Catholic world.
The values of today help shape the morality of tomorrow. A great, uncompromising, staunch warrior for Catholic values like an hypothetical Pius XIII would not cause a mass conversion in the likes of Francis. However, his vigorous campaign would send ripple effects through the press, the television and radio, and the Internet-driven social media channels. A new narrative would start impacting collective thinking and feeling. The Catholic trumpet would resound loud and clear. In time, this narrative would start to impact on local elections and local power structures, making its further resurgence easier.
It would not be a fast process, but it would be a massive one. An entire generation would start to grow in a substantially different environment than the present one. When the political power finds it convenient to follow religious instances, the atheist narrative and its consequences (abortion, euthanasia, perversion, disgregation of the family etc.) can only be toppled.
Imagine a Pope Pius XIII during a Trump Presidency: it would be a double whammy of global proportions, changing the narrative even in those Countries (like the UK) where the most practised religion will soon be Islam. It would be the recovery of Christian values as the basis of traditional Western culture. It would be a mutual strengthening in time of peace as well as in time of (just, or sacrosanct) war. It would be the end of PC rubbish in all but, say, the Nordic Countries.
And this is the biggest problem with a wrong Papacy: not much the evil that it cannot do, but the good that it does not want to do.
With Trump as President and Pence as Vice President, we are missing a wonderful occasion.
I am often led to reflect about the impact that a bad Papacy has on our Western culture, and I would like to spend two words on my reflections.
Like everyone working in the UK, I have a good deal of heathens under my colleagues and acquaintances, and it is perfectly evident to me that Francis is irrelevant to them: they barely know who he is and they do not care about what he says.
Then there are the atheists; who, coming from a Western background rather than from Sri Lanka of Pakistan, very well know who Francis is and in what he differs for his predecessors. However, they do not care about him, either. They think of him and his antics as an evidence that the Pope thinks like them, but even they know all too well that this is not what the Church teaches. They dismiss both as false, and the thing ends there.
The instructed Catholics are horrified by the man. They do not drink that kool-aid at all. They only differ in the degree of public criticism of the Evil Clown: very timid or even cowardly for most, assertive and combative in some. But the horror is the same.
Last, the tepid, wannabe, thin-varnished, hearsay Catholics. They certainly use Francis as an excuse for their becoming even more tepid and even more wannabe than they already are, but this seems to me more the willed acceleration of an erosion process that would be underway anyway, than a change of direction of any sort. Yes, the weakness of the Church may one day cause the disappearance of Catholicism from Countries like Italy of France; however, this would happen not directly because the Pope orchestrated it, but rather very indirectly because the dechristianised people of Europe want it that way in the first place, and being dechristianised don’t even care whether the Pope agrees with them or not.
In short, it seems to me that a bad papacy creates a sort of chameleon effect: it disappears in the background of the atheist, perverted Western world, and exactly in virtue of this disappearance it has little effect on the world at large. The largest impact of a bad papacy is, if you ask me, rather in this: the dismissal and refusal of the role of the Church, of her mission to be an enemy of the world.
Francis is hugely damaging in that he prevents the Church from being a strong force for Catholic truth. But as for actual, active damage, leading people who wish to be good towards a bad life, it seems to me that he does not have this power.
Catholicism stands like a huge block of granite against this idiot, continuously scratching at it with a fork as he shouts “look at me, comrades!”. Only people who hate the granite will ever be impressed, and not even many among them.
If you become like the world you disappear in it. Irrelevance is the price of acquiescence.
Pope Francis has stated he is “saddened” by “perfect Catholics” who criticise others.
This is a typical straw man argument. There are no perfect Catholics who say that whoever is not perfect must be criticised. The object of the criticism simply does not exist, and is chosen to make people who do exist look bad.
What does exist is Catholics who, whilst sinners, strive to live a Catholic life and justly criticise overt and covert attacks to it. Francis cannot put it that way, however, because it would reveal the fundamental soundness of the criticism.
This very mediocre, very emotional, completely unintelligent line of attack is perfectly in line with this Pope: a stupid, ignorant, arrogant man who hates Catholicism and all who love it.
It is a blessing that our heretical Pope is at least a dumb one. I start to fear what might happen if his successor were one like him, but with a better brain.
Please, Lord, save us from an evil worse scourge than an ass as Pope.
My post about the thankfully now deceased Cardinal Tettamanzi prompted a nice comment about the fact that those who have lived their lives in rebellion to God will not find it easy to manage that perfect contrition that would save them from hell when they die. This is all true but, lest the wrong interpretation is given, I would like to see things from the other side: God's grace.
We, on our own, can do absolutely nothing, much less save ourselves. God's will is the only variable in this. We are wretched sinners who, on our own, could never achieve anything at all.
All we do that is good is because of God's grace, given gratuitously to us without us meriting it. Whilst the common parlance states that one merits salvation, the matter is more complex: God allows him the immense grace of final repentance, and he merely collaborates with it; and he does so only and exclusively because God gave him the grace (that is: the unmerited gift) to do so.
This is an aspect of Catholic teaching that is, if you ask me, too often neglected, engendering in some the idea that, in the end, my salvation is in my hands. No it isn't. To believe in this is, in fact, a heresy.
Without God we are perfect nothings who can do perfectly nothing. All we do that is good is due to God giving us the unmerited grace to act in the right way.
This helps us to put episodes like the sudden death of Cardinal Meisner, or the recent demise of “communion for adulterers” Tettamanzi, in the right perspective.
Meisner might have been reading the breviary when he died, but then again Luther might (hypothetically) have been reading the Bible. The question about their salvation is: after they have gravely failed against Our Lord (in different ways) all their lives, how likely it is that Our Lord would give them this gratuitous, infinitely important gift of the grace of final repentance?
Well the simple answer to that is that – whilst God only judges and He has perfect plans we don't comprehend – it's just pretty unlikely. Again: a heretic or traitor does not save himself by doing things that sound right: if you are in mortal sin, nothing you do is conducive to salvation. If you are in mortal sin you can recite thirty rosaries a day, you are still in mortal sin. A heretic or traitor only saves himself if Our Lord decides to give him this great, unmerited gift, moving him to collaborate with Him and behave in a way that – leading him to the state of grace again – is conducive to salvation.
The grace of final repentance is the grace of all graces. With it, everything is achieved. Without it, everything is lost. None of us, nobody, and be him Padre Pio, can merit salvation out of his own actions and volition. It is always God's grace that allowed those actions in the first place, and gently pushed the soul to perform them.
Therefore, when some lifelong Quisling or outright rascal dies, the thought of how likely it is that he would have received this immense gift is more pertinent than the question about what the man was doing when he kicked the bucket.
Yes. This is exactly the way it should be.
Breitbart has the news and I had to make a very fast mental check to be sure this is not an April's Fish: Hillary Clinton is allegedly thinking of becoming a Methodist preacher, which excites some members of the sect.
In favour of abortion and sexual perversion, with huge questions about her personal integrity, a half drunkard and a part time lesbian herself, the woman is, in fact, a very likely Methodist preacher. I am not surprised at all that some would like her for the job. However, she might have been drunk. You never know.
But this story also tells us something more about her: that her desire of an audience and of public approval does not know boundaries, and needs to find an outlet after the brutal end of her presidential dreams, shattered in a night of drunken violence and recrimination as the glass ceiling of the Javits Center remained very firmly in its place.
Poor Hillary: after managing to lose against a candidate most of her friends and supporters considered too weak and ridiculous to even be taken seriously, the only thing left to her would actually be to pray. Only, I doubt Methidists even do such a thing.
In the meantime, Trump does not think of becoming a preacher at all, being too busy with making America great again.
Boy, what a great grace to be allowed to see Hillary in meltdown mode as we witness the return of Sanity.
Cardinal Tettamanzi is not among us anymore. Where he is, God knows. However, there is something that even we can know.
If Catholicism is true, everyone who dies unrepentant of wilful grave sin goes to hell. The metre for what is sin does not reside in his own conscience, but in the Truth that God established. Therefore, believing ourselves the most ardent followers of the Lord will be of no avail to us, if our actions and our entire ideology go against this Truth and, therefore, against Our Lord. Methinks, Luther might have died believing himself the greatest Christian since St Paul. You know where he is now if he did.
Cardinal Tettamanzi is a prominent (both because a Cardinal, and because of his own particular sins) representative of the generation that betrayed the faithful in the most cynical way since the Church was founded. Whether he considered himself “charitable” is neither here nor there now. Whether he adhered to and defended the Truth is – unless he seriously repented before death – everything that counts.
You could put it in a more cynical way and say that if God allows a generation of traitors, opportunists, cowards and outright sellouts to save themselves en masse, then Francis is not far from the Truth; he is, in fact, much nearer to it than all those generations of Catholics warning us of Hell since time immemorial. If even the greatest generation of traitors ever to sell their faithful leads to almost general salvation, we as normal pewsitter are really, really safe and hell does not need to bother anyone whose nickname is not “Stalin”.
However, we know from the teaching of time immemorial that we, the normal pewsitter, are not safe at all. Therefore, the likes of Tettamanzi must be in the greatest danger of eternal damnation, all of them, to the last slimy traitor.
Even among the bad, Tettamanzi was one of the worst. The successor of Martini in Milan, he was the more cautious version of his predecessor, a bit like a strong poison diluted in water. His leftist leanings were so obvious that Comunione e Liberazione (a then powerful, wannabe Conservative organisation) could not stand the man. He was invited to the Sham Synods even if above the standard age of 80, and punctually leant his support to sacrilegious communion for adulterers. The picture is clear then: another sellout and Judas of the worst sort.
Do I wish him salvation? Individually, poor bastard, I do. But he belongs to a group at very great risk of salvation, so we only need to switch our brains on to know that the probability of damnation of the likes of him is very high.
Unless, that is, Catholicism has lied to us for 2,000 years…
and Francis is right.
Once again, Pope Francis has given us an example of how he abuses of everything that is Catholic to promote his own socialist, completely earthly agenda.
As reported in the website of Radio Vaticana, there is nothing in Francis' speech that reminds one that Salvation is not a given, not for Catholics and much less for everyone else.
His thinking clearly follows social justice warrior's lines: we are, in a way, “transfigured” by the Transfiguration in that we increase our social work effort and blabber to people about it is not really clear what, but something that closely resembled automatic salvation about which pretty much no one has to worry.
This Pope resembles an angry version of an Anglican; in him, their mixture of social worries and unconditional salvation has a further element: the obvious hate for the wealthy, and the social envy whose poison he has certainly carried inside himself since his young years and all the way through his disgraceful ecclesiastical career.
Say a prayer for the poor bugger, thinking of what pit in hell will be reserved for him if he dies in his current state of openly proclaimed heresy and betrayal – nay: hate! – of Catholicism at every step.