Monthly Archives: March 2018
The Annihilation Reblog
The umpteenth interview of the Evil Clown with Eugenio Scalfari is another scandal not only for the obviously heretical statements allegedly made by Francis (statements which the Evil Clown will not, as happened in the past, deny or recant, thus assuming full responsibility for them) but also for the unbelievably arrogant, and ignorant, language used by Scalfari himself.
It is stupid beyond belief to say that Francis has “abolished” hell, or purgatory, or whatever God has created. Francis cannot change one iota of truth. Christ, the King, will make sure he becomes aware of that. Scalfari, who does not believe in God, is mocking Christian belief in the breath as he propagates Francis’ heresies, and the two seem quite fine with the whole exercise.
Apart from the often mentioned heretical statement of Francis about the non existence of souls in hell (which, let me be clear about this, show that he…
View original post 101 more words
I come somewhat late to this party, but I want to add my two cents to it as it seems that shaming the Evil Clown is a fitting way to honor Our Lord on Good Friday.
This unbelievable nincompoop has managed to shoot himself in the Marxist genitals once again, and this time promptly for the Triduum, by chatting with his godless friends, Eugenio Scalfari, about heaven and hell; or rather, the fact that the souls of the damned would be annihilated.
Now, in itself this is nothing new: the Francisfantasy about the annihilation of the damned has already been reported by Scalfari and was not denied by Francis in the past. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Scalfari is lying. In fact, Scalfari’s credibility – not only on this occasion, but on all the preceding ones – is also made unassailable by the incontrovertible fact that Francis keeps talking to him, thus giving him a clean bill of health concerning his integrity. No sane person can have any doubt that Scalfari does not misrepresent Francis, and this is the reason why the latter keeps “chatting” to him.
What is new this time is that, after a huge earthquake erupted, the Vatican was forced to deny that this is what Francis told Scalfari.
Now yours truly wonders: as this is not the first time (from memory, at least the second) that Scalfari publishes something like this, why all the ruckus now and not then?
My answer is: firstly, because this time it happened during Holy Week; and secondly, because Francis is now seen as “fair game” by headline-chasing newspapers; newspapers who do not care anymore whether what they publish damages their narrative of the “modern Pope”, simply because the man is a joke anyway.
Therefore, this time the heretical statements of the Evil Clown have caused an atomic mushroom, and those crusaders for truth, the Vatican Press Machine, had to try to limit the damage.
Sorry, Father Rosica & the other girls: the damage is done.
The entire world laughs at the spectacle of a Pope so stupid, so vain, and so embarrassingly incompetent that he must be corrected in front of all the world in order to try to stem the tsunami of laughter heading towards the Vatican.
Keep going, Francis dear. Be your own warning against yourself, for all faithful Catholics to see.
We salute your immense stupidity as the best antidote against your heresies.
The Pope who, first after the middle Ages and Renaissance, uses methods of open intimidation and condones – nay: promotes – corruption is the one who dares to call us “mafiosi”.
If you think that Francis is not actually calling faithful Catholics like that, you haven’t been attention in the last five years. Francis uses his many public utterances for the relentless smearing and insulting of all those who criticise him.
In the latest months this has obviously included a wider public than us – as the guy has managed to even be implicated in the cover-up of the responsibility of bishops abetting paedophilia -, but generally, it is fair to say that we remain his first and favourite shooting target.
As is often the case, Francis forgets in today’s rant what he has said yesterday. Only some days ago he was waxing
lyrical effeminate about this strange god who just can’t avoid forgiving everything to us no matter what our sins; but those who are today’s targets of Francis’ bile will “end badly”, which can only be a reference to the lack of said forgiveness, i.e.: hell. The old, lewd guy is clearly looking for new ways to insult us, and he has now escalated to “mafiosi”, probably because he felt that way on the day. I consider it a promotion, and an insult to wear with honest pride (the good, not the perverted or the presumptuous one). To be called a “mafioso” by Lewd Francis is like to be called “deplorable” by Crooked Hillary.
Francis lives in a contradiction-indifferent space. He does not show any interest today in what he has said yesterday. He does not seem to understand that after the age of, say, seven, a boy is expected to show some coherence in what he says. He seems to see the Vatican as a huge pram, out of which he can throw toys with almost daily frequency in the presence of journalists.
I make an easy predictions: many mafiosi, even among those who are in hell, will suffer less than this disgraceful caricature of a Pope if he does not repent.
And I will not even call him “pope mafioso”. The man is such dirt that it would almost look like a compliment.
The Homo Mafia Reblog
One of the assertions that leave one most speechless is the strange idea according to which when things are dirty they cannot be cleaned because… they are dirty.
“How can Pope Francis get rid of the homosexual clergy? There are so many of them!”, some people say. If there were any truth in such statements, nothing would even improve and nothing would be ever done to remedy wrong situations. In this perspective wrong situations can’t be righted, because they’re wrong. Another of my favourite ones is “How can Pope Francis get rid of the homosexual clergy? They do not go around saying they are homosexual!”. Ah, blessed ignorance! Terrorists didn’t go around saying they’re terrorist, either, and the mafia being extremely secretive hasn’t prevented countless mafiosi to be put in jail.
I answer to this that when there’s a will there’s a way, and in my experience a rotten situation…
View original post 801 more words
A stupid wannabe catholic site has an article where the author has consulted a “theologian” about hell. No link. You are welcome.
The problem the author had is whether blessed souls suffer because some whom they loved on earth are in hell. Well, Sherlock, they are called “blessed souls”, so you have the answer right there. Apparently, what I knew in Kindergarten is now beyond the pale for these people.
The “theologian” answers the author with the usual stuff about the blessed being, you know, blessed. However, he drops a bomb immediately later stating that hey, we don’t even know whether there are any people in hell at all.
OK, Einstein. So Jesus has lied to us, and several thousand years of Judeo-Christian tradition have been all a misunderstanding. Mama Jesus could hardly suffer anyone being in hell, because there is no happeeeee endiiiing for them, you see.
What satanic rubbish.
I have not finished the article as it seemed to me that I was wilfully covering myself with dirt, so I have spared myself – and you – the imposition of reading more rubbish with all the related medical implication (like the adrenaline surge). I should by now be accustomed to the idea that there are so-called “catholic” sites out there making the work of Satan; but hey, it drives me mad every time.
One cannot avoid thinking that, unless they repent, both the author of the “article” and the “catholic” theologian will meet one day in a very hot place, and will tell each other “damn, there is a hell”….
I do not know what the Divine Plan for these rubbish sites is. It can be that Satan is just allowed to seek whom he may devour through them, and there can be little doubt that the way of such “experimental catholicism” is the way to hell. In other cases, one can hope that distracted or agnostic readers will stumble on these sites and, in time, will discover the existence of the real Catholics on the Internet; after which, the original, accidental gateway will be remember with embarrassment, as a painful encounter.
The Spring Reblog
It’s Spring, and this year it is a somewhat different Spring.
After four years of devastation, in the next months things might come to a head. This year we might finally have meowing Cardinal kitten, or even – if we are extremely lucky and the Lord assists us – the one or other kitten producing himself in somewhat vaguely resembling a roar. Come on, it’s Spring! Let me daydream a bit…
Getting a bit of distance from the daily business, however, we can see this: kitten or no kitten, this Papacy is unraveling like the South American corrupt, incompetent, boorish, actually stupid dictatorship that it is. This is clear enough with or without meowing kitten.
The Cardinals may speak, or more probably won’t. The devastation may continue, or not. The next Pope could a tragedy like Tagle or someone more Conservative like Piacenza, probably among the best or least worst…
View original post 48 more words
I am thinking what will happen to all those practicing Benedictolatry after the man goes to his judgment.
I can think of the following:
- They declare that Benedict is still alive, but has been shipped to some village in Eastern Bavaria, near the Czech Border, with instructions to his jailers to never let him see the light again.
- They declare that Benedict is still alive, and is happily drinking beer in Kloster Andechs (as every German knows, they brew wonderful beers over there…). However, he has decided to let the world believe that he is dead for the greater good of the Church.
- They declare that Benedict is still alive, but is being kept prisoner in a coffin.
Discussion and further hypotheses welcome.
As to me, I am a simple guy and my take is very simple:
- Benedict has resigned. Francis is Pope. Benedict said as much.
- He kept title and white cassock because he did not want to be called a Celestine V.
- he will be called a Benedict XVI. Which, history will say, is much worse.
Pope Marcellin(i)us was famously asked to sacrifice to Pagan gods or die, and decided for the former. He was accused of blatant violation of the First Commandment, and his own bishops put him on trial, famously asking him to “judge thyself “.
To my knowledge, no one went to analyse the subtle dealings of the man. No one looked for expressions of irony as he was making his sacrifice, and then said “good old Marcellinus! As always, in his very intelligent and sophisticated way he let us know how much he disapproves of pagan gods “. Similarly, no one said “Marcellinus had to do it. He was held prisoner!” This even if, in fact, his accusers knew for a fact, and not out of their fantasies that in case of refusal Marcellinus would have been executed alright. Moreover, there were no strange theories alleging that Marcellinus sacrificed to Pagan gods in order to protect the Church, or to avoid schism.
As you can see, people were not blabbering around their conspiracy theories back then, nor were they willing to fabricate excuses out of, basically, thin air just in order to avoid admitting that a Pope has betrayed. Nor did they care that the man would have died. A Pope or bishop is required to die for Christ more than anyone else, end of story.
Fast forward some seventeen centuries, and the bar previously requiring to die has been lowered below a Pope’s ankle. It is not only that an awful lot of people are ready to even consider justifying a Pope who, they think, was forced to resign, and consider absolutely idiotic excuses – like the ones mentioned above – reason to exculpate the man for what they themselves say he has done. It is much worse than that.
The effort to protect Benedict from his many sins and open betrayals has now degenerated into pure fantasy thinking. I have read around that Benedict would not have endorsed Francis because… he criticised a theologian who criticised him because of his interpretation of a Papal document. Seriously, it does not get more deluded than this, and we are at a level of fanatic blindness that would cause the bishops who indicted Marcellinus to wonder whether any notion of Christianity – or, indeed, of sanity – has remained in us.
Benedict has endorsed Francis’ pontificate with his own clear words, multiple times. This is the end of it. His private peeves against theologians worse than him are neither here nor there. His defence of Catholic orthodoxy in one single matter fades into virtual non-existence when compared with the monstrous public endorsement o a monstrous Pope, and who believes that Marcellinus was not extremely orthodox – way more than Enedict, in fact – himself?
This is fantasyland. Turbocharged Pollyannism. Benedictolatry.
Benedict is required to die rather than saying one single syllable in favour of Francis. Actually, he is required to openly denounce Francis no matter whether this costs him, how much, 40 months of life?
We need to call a spade a spade and a Quisling a Quisling.
Enough with making excuses for endorsement of heresy.
Toys R Us has now announced the business is definitively going to close down and put an end to its miserable existence.
We, the happy few still keeping our sanity in this Age of Madness, welcome the news and wish all other companies like Toys R Us the same destiny.
A company for many years at the forefront of aggressive liberal social engineering, Toys R Us had officially stopped donating to Planned Parenthood some years ago, possibly – you know yours truly is a cynical chap – as the business sky started to show some rather dark clouds, and the libtards activism was becoming increasingly more risky. However, they kept directing donations to organisations supporting Planned Parenthood, because libtards will be libtards.
It is a tragically amusing indication of the mad times we live in, that a company selling toys would promote and finance the killing and shrinking of its ultimate client base. It’s a bit like Starbucks promoting a ban on coffee, or General Motors advocating the end of private car transport. By this level of stupidity, it is no surprise that more mistakes were made, and that ultimately the company ended up six feet under.
The end of Toys R Us should be a cautionary tale for the likes of Target, Starbucks, Walgreens, and all the others who think they can indulge in their activist fantasies at the expense of their shareholders. As the markets become more dynamic and established brands are more in danger of being harmed by disrupting new competitors, it becomes more important to avoid being on boycott lists of sane, pro-life organisations influencing the buying decisions of millions.
Employees also have something to learn from this. Given the choice, do you really want to work for a company that is endangering itself with its stupid social activism? I don’t mean here necessarily the high-turnover temps or low skilled workforce, but the management levels and all those who relied on this company to pay the mortgage and are now facing an uncertain search for jobs that don’t grow up on trees, or might be forced to move their families to a new location.
Truly, Toys R Us has aborted himself.
Frankly, this is the kind of abortion I like.
The beautiful statements of Father Edward Staniek, a brave Polish priest who publicly wished that Francis converts to Catholicism or dies in the state of grace (showing a Catholic heart both towards the sheep and the enemy shepherd) has been picked up by the CNN.
Predictably, CNN uses the information to imply with his readers how very bad the priest is, and informing us that his bishop has condemned his words. The piece is, as everything with the CNN, left -leaning.
As I read, with no little amusement, the leftist journo piece, I could not avoid thinking of the “Trump effect”. The man the media could not stay away from slandering ended up profiting from the pulpit his enemies unwittingly gave him, thinking in their liberal madness that their audience would abhor the man rather than, in many cases, embrace him.
The very same phenomenon must be at work when the CNN publishes his little hack-piece against Father Staniek. Little they know, the poor libtards, that very many of those who read the piece will stop one short moment and immediately realise, whatever their religious persuasion, what an obscene Pope this guy must be.
A Pope making world headlines because orthodox priests wish him six feet under is a Pope that redefines the very concept of “failure”, propelling himself into the stratosphere of catastrophe and ensuring for himself an ignominy so stubborn that it may well go on until Judgment Day, whenever that is.
In fact, it is not improbable that such an atomic jackass will be remembered with horror by the entire Christian world when even cruel bastards like Stalin, Mao and Hitler are already forgotten by all but history buffs and students. Many have been the genocidal bastards already forgotten by history. But an astonishingly heretical Pope is stuff for the millennia.
CNN is working for us. Every criticism of the modern madness is working for us. Every time such an article is written, some people start to open their eyes and see reality for what it is.
Keep libtard-ing, CNN.
We will use you to Make Catholicism Great Again.
Five years later, there can be no doubt that Francis’ papacy is drowning in its own excrement. It is not only that the continued heresy has now reached the mainstream, in such a way that whatever new “innovation” Francis tries to introduce is now doomed to failure from the start. It is not even the astonishing incompetence of the people Francis has around him – as the very recent “lettergate” abundantly shows -. It is, finally, not necessarily the scandal of the 25 million USD (boy, this is a heck if a lot of black shoes…) Francis wanted to rob from the Papal Foundation in order to give them to a shady institution with a criminal past.
The best indication that Francis’ Papacy is drowning in its own excrement is the tacit admission of the fact from the Vatican press office.
What kind of Pope needs external validation from other senior clergy? When has a Pope ever felt it necessary to support his reputation on the (true or assumed) integrity and prestige of other members of the Church hierarchy? Who does he think he is, the Prime Minister of TinPotLandia?
Certainly, the head of government of a small European State will draw prestige from being received at the White House, because the receiving institution is so much more prestigious and powerful than the received one. But a Pope has no earthly equivalent. If his reputation is in tatters, he is completely screwed. Not even a former or emeritus Pontiff can save him, because when a Pope is drowning the vortex is so strong that it will swallow even a pontiff emeritus!
It must be so, because Popes don’t become as impresentable as Francis is merely because they lack sense of humour, or are not photogenic, or are not good at making little children smile. They can only become so hated because they are heretics, and at that point there is no emeritus on earth that can save their papacy.
Francis is exactly there: to the point where his papacy has become a pretty vulgar joke, and the panic is clearly – if, again, tacitly – admitted by the same Vatican office that should protect his reputation.
For those, like me, who have been observing the public perception of this Pontificate as a direct indication of the harm it can cause, the latest implosions of these multiple-catastrophe pontificate are a source of great satisfaction and a moderate source of hope for the future: then the more this pontificate drowns in its own excrement, the more probable it is that the Cardinals in the next conclave, cowardly and corrupt as they all are, gather all together and shout , as loud as they can:
It seems like every two days we get a different version of the famous letter, and every two days the Vatican PR people look more like miserable lying amateurs.
However, this does not mean that Benedict gets out of the matter one bit better than before.
It appears now clear that Benedict was being Benedict once again: in the same letter he gives the highest praise that can be given to the pontificate of an archheretic (insulting, well, us and calling us foolish), and this is truly the most damage he can do to Catholicism. Then, and in a matter that is utterly peripheral to Francis’ orthodoxy, he makes clear a couple of things: he has no intention of reading the booklets, he resents that one of them was written by a theologian unfriendly to him, and will therefore not write any kind of endorsement for the work.
Benedict’s letter can be summarised in this way: thanks for the booklets, obviously meant to show what we already know: that Francis is not a boorish heretic as those pesky, foolish Traditionalists think, and his Pontificate is in continuity to mine. However, I won’t read them. Other things to do, you know, and age, and my eyesight, and all that. However, next time kindly avoid provoking me with a theologian with whom I have had a controversy and I might actually deliver for you , verstanden?
How Benedict would get any better out of the final text of the letter is beyond me. Who is criticised in the unpublished part is most certainly not Francis. Those who look bad are the authors of the booklets and the Vatican guys who keep picking heretical theologians.
And please, please, please let us stop trying to find hidden ironies and subtle disapproval in what is an open endorsement of Pope Francis’ disgraceful papacy. Benedict has been reading Francis’ antics on the newspaper for five years, like everyone of us. Like everyone of us, he does not need the stupid booklets to decide whether Francis is a disgrace or not. Therefore, the fact that he refused to read the booklets is completely irrelevant. He endorsed the Pontificate of that scoundrel Francis. May God forgive him for his insolence.
I don’t need to say here that the duty of every bishop and cardinal, but particularly of one who calls himself Pontiff Emeritus, is to denounce heresy. Alleged ironies that aren’t even there will not wash.
So let us think the Benedict Conspiracy to its end.
The man is 91, but he is afraid of being killed.
Or, the man is 91, but he is more afraid of his reputation than of his salvation.
Or, the man is 91, but he thinks that protecting the Church from some sexual scandal is more important than letting her drift on the path of sacrilege and heresy.
All three hypotheses (and the Benedict Conspiracy revolves around variations of those) make of Benedict not only a very dumb man (all three) but also a very self-centred and actually pretty vain one.
All of them, also, go against what the man has kept saying from 2013: that he abdicated of his own accord and without pressure, that Francis is a great guy, and that there is continuity between his Pontificate and Francis’. Therefore, the Conspiracy Theorists also say that Benedict is a big, big liar.
The truth is, in fact, pretty easy to detect if only one looks at the facts.
Yes, Benedict abdicated of his own volition. Yes, he naively thought his predecessor would be one in his mould, setting an agenda of V II mild heresy compared to Francis’ antics. No, he did not expect the wreckage that came later or he would have conducted his Pontificate in the same way. Yes, to Benedict V II comes before orthodoxy; and yes, to Benedict not rocking the boat is more important than his eternal salvation, of which he has also, in pure Francis style, stated he is pretty sure anyway. And yes, yes, yes: the man is a follower, a water carrier, an order taker. There is nothing in him, nor was it ever, of the great, or even mediocre, leader of men.
This is the tragedy of this life explained in a blog post. A fitting punishment for A man who, since the Early Sixties, has thought that there could be a form of acceptable “heresy light”, and has always remained of his opinion; obeying to the wolves whenever told to, and trying to do thing a bit in his own way, every now and then, when he was at the top. But even then he never was a leader, and together with Summorum Pontificum he gave us a number of horrid episcopal and cardinalatian appointments.
What a weak, tragic life.
And he keeps working a it, and at his own likely damnation, at the ripe age of 91.
I remember the old times, when people had the fear of the Lord and knew a thing or three about Christianity. They were more modest and intelligent than today, too.
In the old times, people did good and did not tell anyone. It was considered something in extremely bad taste, and stupid to boot, to advertise your own “goodness”. Besides, the Church was the main channel of charitable activities, as in those times even atheists esteemed her work bith on the local and international level.
This has completely changed. In the Age of “Me”, fear of the Lord has disappeared, and the consciousness of one’s Unique Awesomeness informs most individual decision. Therefore, the New Snowflake is not only not ashamed at all, but even proud to let you know how wonderfully good he is. This, of course, in the case that he is not actually scrounging, what a lot of nowadays’ “chariteees ” actually do full time.
Let’s say I love jogging and want to take part to, say, the New York Marathon. I can set up my own “chariteee” and then invite everyone to “help my chariteee”, which “raises awareness about breadt cancer”. I can, obviously, deduct the costs of my “charitable” activity from the donations I get. As I will, likely, never even cover my costs, the net sumac the exercise is that I have scrounged from friends, acquaintances, colleagues and everyone I was shameless enough to approach (which is: absolutely everyone, because I am so persuaded of my Unique Awesomeness) a part of the costs I would have paid anyway, signalling virtue like there is no tomorrow in the process. The people say I want to help will see nothing or (if I decide to advertise some payment “of my own pocket”) almost nothing, but hey, look at how Utterly Bloody Awesome I am!
There are many variations of this, and a frequent one is the young scrounger (or I should say: XXI Century Beggar) smiling at me in the most hypocritical way as he tries to “connect” and start touching me for his good cause; obviously without telling me that he will get a very big chunk of my standing order, and that the chariteee does not care to divulge the scandal because It’s all extra money in their coffins anyway. All this would not exist without the Age of “Me”, or at least the phenomenon would be much reduced. In fact, when I was a child the street chariteee scroungers did not exist, at all.
And now excuse me, I need to go establish a “chariteee” to raise awareness about prostate cancer, after which I hope there will be enough idiots around to pay a part of the costs of my favourite hobby.
Among the many platitudes heard today about the death of the Atheist National Glory, Stephen Hawking, there was a diabetes-inducing statement from him I heard on the radio, maintaining somethjng along the lines that the world is a good place because in it there are the people we love, or such like cheesy stuff. Alas, no text, but I am sure if you duck duck go around you will find the exact words after a while.
As so often, atheists do not grasp their own lack of basic logical thinking.
If there is a God (as we know there is) love between humans is a pale reflection and a derivate of God’s love for us. But obviously, this tiny love can only be understood in the light of the greater one. We know that we love each other with what is nothing but a sparkle of a divine fire, and it is exactly this divine fire that gives to our love – even only the human one – its dignity, beauty and meaning and, at the same time, allows us to fathom God’s love for us in a very imperfect way.
If there is no God, however, all this changes. If there is no God, “love” cannot but be a reproduction mechanism used by our DNA, who runs us all and dominates the planet, in order to maximise its probability of survival. The atheist man, who prides himself of his rationality, must see that in his perspectivdvall his feelings are merely a trick, a joke played by his chromosomes on him to fool him into doing all sort of things and undergo all sorts of sacrifices so that they – the chromosomes- may get their way. Also, the same rational man must understand that there is, in this mechanism, no difference between a man dying for his fatherland and a termite dying for its own termite house; nor is there any special meaning in a mother sacrificing herself for her children, something every hen does without a second thought out of pure animal spirit.
If there is (absurdly) no God, everything is an immense, cruel, senseless joke without rhyme or reason, dominated purely by the same survival mechanisms that rule the behaviour of insects and spiders, and ending in complete annihilation after, hopefully, doing the bidding of the Master Of The Universe, DNA. Our “lurv” is, then, nothing more than the same mechanism at work in the spider and the hen, and more sophisticated merely because, being more intelligent than hens, we need to be tricked into reproduction by our DNA in a more sophisticated way. And everything, from the Troubadours to the Dolce Stil Novo, from Dante and Petrarca to Manzoni and Leopardi, is just that: the way sophisticated intellects keep themselves occupied so that they keep doing, hoping, aspiring, loving, laughing, crying and, at the end, reproducing instead of doing the only rational thing that should be done in such an (absurd) circumstance: refuse to obey the cruel cycle of short , meaningless existence for the sake of our DNA and dispose of ourselves in a painless way, choosing the nothingness that awaits us anyway without all the stupid activities born of a huge deception.
Astonishingly, atheists do not seem to get this simple logic, and even atheists who are reputed intelligent prefer to deceive themselves about this – if, absurdly enough, there is no God – giant deception called “love”.
The giant, satanical deception is, obviously, atheism. But atheists don’t recognise this, because they are too busy with the religion of themselves.
I have never been interested in atheists ‘ speculations and researches about the beginning of the world, as all I need to know that is really important concerning this I have been taught as a child. Some others might find the subject interesting. However, as Christians they are also aware that if science wants to persuade you of something contrary to Church teaching it is bogus science.
What I am more concerned for is how Christian the world is and thinks. There is no doubt that Mr Hawking was an enemy of God, and this is what concerns me today.
One’s more or less permanent merits in the field of research utterly pale and disappear completely in comparison to the Last Four Things. It is extremely probable that Mr Hawking carried his enmity with God straight to his grave. If he did so, his life was an utter failure and an infinite tragedy. If he repented in His last moments, his repentance has more value that an entire life collecting scientific prizes and accolades. In both cases, a peasant’s simple faith is infinitely more worthy than the scientific hypotheses of an atheist. The modern world struggles to understand this, because the modern world has lost contact with the ultimate Reality, God, and goes around chasing ghosts.
I have said my eternal rest for the poor bugger; but – bar an exceptional Grace for which there is no sign up to now – there is very little doubt that he is now in hell, surrounded by angry demons as angry at him as he I angry at everyone.
Stephen Hawking’s death should be a cautionary tale. Today, it will become an atheist fest.
I invite all Christian bloggers to consider writing, on this day, about the Four Last Things Mr Hawking has just faced, so that some words of wisdom may counteract the atheist cacophony we will hear today.
I have written a couple of times about the betrayal of Pope Benedict; a betrayal that cannot in any way be justified with senility or naivete, but is to be explained with the gregarious nature and V II worship of a man never known for being a leader of armies.
Pope Benedict has now really touched the bottom of his rather tragic existence, and one wonders how the chances of this one stand to avoid a very deep pit in hell. No, it does not matter at this point how much one used to like him. No, it does not matter that he still makes on one a better impression than the Evil Clown. Benedict has chosen to be an accomplice of Francis. May he repent or pay the price of his insolence.
I can’t wait, now, for the excuse factory: the letter is fake, he does not know, they have closed him in the bathroom, they have told him to drink more beer, they have given him 11 books of orthodox theologians and they have told him they explain Francis theology, and so on.
The man must either denounce the letter as a fake, or accept the responsibility for it. Tertium non datur.
This is very, very sad, but then isn’t new. On at least other two occasions he had done the same. This is no coincidence, and unless he denounces the letter it is also no fake news. It does not even matter whether he has really written it. Unless he condemns it, he owns it.
The man has just lost the faith, and hd does what so many Germans do so instinctively: follow the herd.
There can be no excuses. He bears full responsibility for this (renewed) betrayal of Catholicism. He is just further evidence that V II is rotten to the core, and there is nothing in it that can or should be saved. Incinerate all of it, say I, together with the memory of all its Popes – yes, the Not-So-great too – and without forgetting Benedict.
What happened today isn’t really new. It’s merely more help given by God to understand what unspeakably evil, saranical machine V II is.
When I was in Kindergarten and grade school, there was no one who did not have a common first name. In fact, first names were, by their very definition, common. They were generally names of saints, or names with a reference to Christianity. They were also, very obviously, the name given to the child on occasion of a ceremony (and Sacrament) called Baptism. None of them was unique to the person.
The rapid de-Christianisation of the European Continent did not fail to show its pervert effects on this, too. Whilst a common name with a Christian root is a link to many others like us, showing our belonging to a common Christian body, the wonderful snowflakes of the Age of Me need a name reflecting their own unique awesomeness, which will results in concoctions that would have been considered hilariously stupid in every age past, but which no one dares to say one word against now.
This, also, because many of these children are, nowadays, the sons of “single mothers” (that is to say, and I am sorry for them but facts are facts, bastards), with no father around telling the young woman to stop emoting already because the child will have to live with that infamy of name all his life; a fact made worse by the circumstance that being single mothers they will be inclined to make their own morality and religion; which, in turn, means that the child will not be baptised; which, again, will remove another obstacle to a young boy being called LeBron, or DeShawn, or Pale Moon, or even something making no sense at all to a normal person.
Hilariously, these children will grow up with names no one knows how to pronounce and nobody can remember, with the result that, as adults, they will have to repeat countless times the exact pronunciation and spelling of their names, lest their Unique Awesomeness be offended. Plus, they will have to repeat all their life that say, ahuatacua is an old Inca word meaning “luminous summer morning without a cloud in sight”. But they are Wonderful Snowflakes, so they will probably not resent the effort.
If you grew in a Christian environment you immediately perceive, at some level, that those names are… unchristian, because they go against the Christian traditions of the West. But when those cases become endemic you know that Christianity is rapidly going under all over the West, leaving a thin varnish at the best. The decision to call your child Jedi, or Sandokan, or Catnip already shows how little you value Christianity, and a couple of questions will generally reveal that your Christianity is very strange indeed.
All this will be less apparent, perhaps, in Countries where this phenomenon started one generation earlier. But for everyone who grew up in a Country where everyone was given normal names it is shockingly obvious evidence of the devil at work.
Five Years tomorrow, and even the professional pessimists could hardly have imagined such an aggressively anti-Catholic Pontificate from one who is, hands down, the most disgraceful, heretical, clearly atheist, church-hater Pope in History.
However, the dominant trait of this Pontificate is, if you ask me, the stupidity of the man.
Atheist he may be. A Church-hater, too (Many Jesuits, possibly almost all of them, very probably are). Perhaps a closeted homo. Certainly a hard line socialist. But what remains, in my eyes, as the most dominant trait of this Pontificate is the explosive mixture of ignorance, arrogance and stupidity that became its mark from the start.
This (initially) shocking aspect of this Pontificate is also the most encouraging one for those who care for Catholicism.
Too arrogant to admit he is doing all wrong, too ignorant to grasp the historic resilience of Catholicism, and far too stupid to go about his work of destruction with any subtlety, Francis has long been the worst enemy of his War on Catholicism. Five Years later you must be a homo, a commie or an atheist to like him. Francis has “six-pound-note” written so large on his forehead, that he is now an embarrassment for the most hardened Pollyannas.
Five years of unspeakable arrogance, ignorance and stupidity later, the game is up. The sheep understand that this is a wolf, not a shepherd. Francis’ project has utterly and completely failed, in that he will “lead astray” only those who were determined to get lost anyway. No-one with some Catholic goodness in his heart will ever by deceived by this old, lewd nincompoop.
This is the only silver lining of the present situation: a jackass is, undoubtedly, Pope.
But at least all the world can see it.
I remember as a child your typical Italian home. There were in those times pictures of loved ones in entrances and bedrooms, and they were of small, normal dimensions. It is not only that it would have been very expensive to have bigger ones, rather that it would have been considered wrong and excessively self-centred to put oneself so much on the spot.
Things are changing rapidly now. The availability of new technologies and the disappearance of religious feeling and practice leads to people literally staging their own overweight self, for their visitors to admire what wonderful snowflakes they are. I have seen places with life size pictures of the owner and their daughter (yes, I am thinking what you are thinking), and the same faces were on mugs in the kitchen and on cushions in the living room. Digital Photo technology is the nirvana of the “Me”-society.
Not one book in sight, of course. Nowadays, people educate themselves on Instagram.
What is initially surprising is that the owners of such places would think that their narcissism would be exposed by their very own home decoration. This is obviously not the case. My take is that this kind of thinking, (the old putting a human being in its place in the context of things), is foreign to the Atheist Society. For the “Me”- generation, every individual is a luminous pagan god, and it is only normal that others would worship him when their enter the temple where he resides.
The difference with what I was accustomed to see some, say, 50 years ago is staggering. It is not a “regional culture” phenomenon. I would say it is an epochal movement, a tectonic shift away from Christianity and into a society deprived of religious sentiment and going down slowly – or rapidly, depending on your historical perspective – as it celebrates the cult of itself.
Life-size portraits dominate the room. Not a book or crucifix in sight.
This will be more and more the standard of European homes in this rapidly decaying XXI Century.
There was a time when Christian imagery dominated (at least in Catholic housholds) the decoration of average homes. A cross or crucifix would often adorn the entrance, and the year of construction of the house was, on the outside, preceded by AD. Inside, you would find portraits of Popes old and new, and the favourite Saint of the household was also a frequent appearance. The bedroom would often be adorned with the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Many families still had their own stoop for the holy water, and crossed themselves with it before going out. We also don’t want to forget the tablets on the lines of “Lord, bless this home” that were so frequent.
Fast forward 50 years, actually even less.
You may still find a cross in the one or other household, but today this would smell of eccentricity rather than normality. New buildings are very rarely adorned with the Anno Domini (” in the year of the Lord”) inscription. Few homes have portraits of Popes, and you must litterally explain to people what the Sacred Heart devotion is. Forget the holy water, which today many “c”atholics would even find “unhygienic “.
Catholic (and, in lesser measure because less diffused, Protestant) imagery has gone out of sight, because it has gone out of mind first. And the way the most intimate of places – the home – is decorated merely reflects the shift in attitude that happened before.
In the age of “me” any show of domestic Christian piety is considered stuffy and utterly uncool, even by many who still call themselves Christians. But you see Buddha statues pretty much everywhere, and particularly in luxury homes, because apparently it is someway “cool”. It’s not unlikely that such statues adorn the houses of many who call the Church ” homophobic”.
The new religion of “me” in visible from the very basic: the almost disappearance of Christian symbolism within the home.
Some would say that the greatest threat to Western freedom are rogue nuclear powers like North Korea and, one day (God forbid!) Iran. Other would say that the threat number one is rather Mr Putin ( may the Lord give him a long and happy life in power).
If you ask me, however, three names come to mind:
I notice with increasing frequency that Google searches are either doctored, or factually redirected, or both. Left wing sites and opinions tend to appear after right wing ones, without any obvious reason due to their perceived popularity. More overtly, Google often inserts “news” under your search, which smash leftist pages just in front of your eyes whilst conservative pages are ignored. Typically, you would find links to sites like the failing New York Times and the clownesque fake-news, ” Hillary Clinton has 9x% probability of winning” Huffington Post, but never the hugely popular Breitbart. This manipulation is quite open, and works automatically in favour of liberal sites without or before you making any tweak about how you want the site to look. The position of market dominance of Google makes such operations a threat of almost Goebbels-like proportions.
Facebook is another point in case, particularly after they tweaked their “focus” in favour of private pages, greatly damaging conservative outlets who had been “cleaning up” whilst the leftists tried to manipulate the public with the traditional media. Trump page’s views decrease of 45% is a chilling reminder of what is at stake.
Lastly, Twitter; which, whilst in my eyes less important than the first two, is still an extremely powerful vehicle for the dissemination of alternative (that is: truthful and ptopaganda-free) news.
Those three together are the greatest threat to modern freedoms, not only in the US but everywhere in the West.
The solution, as I see it, does not lie in bureaucratic regulation of giant news monopolies ( a regulation easily; nay, unavoidably abused by the powers that be), but in the demolition and dismemberment of those very monopolies or quasi monopolies, creating true competition in the market and thus making it impossible for a single dominant provider to exploit its position of dominance for political purposes.
The moment to start this process is now, and the process should be helped by the traditional media, themselves feeling threatened by the new communication gateways.
No Democratic POTUS will ever drive such legislative initiatives; on the contrary, any such is likely to drive an illiberal process of truth suppression and information control.
I hope that President Trump is slowly realising the danger to democracy of these three quasi-monopolies and will, in time, lead the drive to legislative reforms breaking these dangerous cancers in the body of Western freedom.
Today is the day that feminists the world over use to push their agenda.
If you ask me, we have allowed this to go on for too long, and we should start responding to the fire from the enemy line.
I suggest you wish your friends and colleagues a good “international day of femininity” or, where appropriate, a good “international day of the wife and mother”.
Who can, after all, be against mothers?
You are not wifephobic, surely?
Hey, don’t look at me that way. In a world were the most miserable people on the Planet call themselves “gay” I can call the 8 March the “International Day Of Devout And Submissive Women” all day long.
In case you had any doubts about the inclinations and attitude of Father James Martin, Society Of Homos, this blog post should remove it fast.
Father Martin goes full all-wheel-drive, twin-turbo, twelve-cylinder sodomy here. The (always fake) pretence that the Church be “open” to sodomites becomes a clear, open call for sodomitic sex and even sodomitic “marriage”.
Has a worse priest than this disgusting individual ever existed? Possibly not.
Every day in which this minion of Satan is not defrocked is a shame for the Church.
I don’t know who the bishop in charge of him is, but I dread to think of what must go on in that depraved soul.
The Humble Shitter Reblog
How I love those pictures that say everything without a single word!
Shabby Pope is here pictured in the act of going out of a Porta Potty in Milan, whilst the present (including, no doubt, professional photographers) are snapping like there is no tomorrow.
This would make for a couple of nice headlines: “Porta Pope”, “The Humble Shitter” and “Pope Humbly Piddles In Front Of Cameras” come to mind.
After which, the Humble Shitter was flown back to his entire floor of a quite nice Hotel.
The hypocrisy is so strong in this one that he does not see the contradiction between these empty gestures of “humbleness” and his splendid life.
Almost as strong as the hypocrisy is the vanity: the old lewd man is so eager to make a headline that he does not hesitate to literally piddle (or faking a piddle) in front of the cameras. This…
View original post 50 more words
How can, it might be asked in these disgraceful times, the Church be true and Francis the Pope?
My answer is another question:
How can the Church be true and allow us to choose who is Pope?
Bad as this crisis is, one thing is sure: we cannot put an end to it with our own private decisions. Not only is this fully un-Catholic, it also leads to absurd consequences.
So I and several thousands Mundaborists decide that Francis is an illegitimate Pope. Three weeks later he proceeds to appoint nine Cardinals. Are they legitimate Cardinals? Obviously not. Then other seven Cardinals are appointed, and after that eleven more. In the meantime, hundreds of dioceses, including a dozen of major world capitals, have illegitimate bishops.
A Conclave follows: how can anyone who questioned Benedict’s abdication, much less anyone who denied Francis’ legitimacy, accept the new Pope as legitimately elected, and be he Pius XIII? And at this point, what happens? This Pope will elect new Cardinals, and the problem will become inextricable.
Now, if we had a formally heretical Pope the matter would be simpler: with God’s grace, the See would be declared vacant and however many Bishops and Cardinals are available to side with Christ would proceed to convocate an imperfect Council, declare the Pope self-deposed, and elect a legitimate one. But again it would be them, not us, who do it. It would be up to them, not to us, to decide that the Pope has deposed himself. There is simply no mechanism within the Church based on which laymen decide who is Pope. If it were so, we would be all Protestants.
The reality is sad, but part of the sadness is this: that we will have to live with obscenely bad Popes for as long as the Lord decides that it is fitting for us to be punished with them. And when the Lord in His Goodness has decided that it is time to put an end to this, then he will let us know through signs that are in conformity with what the Church teaches: for example, the SSPX declaring the Pope a formal heretic and calling for an Imperfect council, which then – by God’s grace – also happens and leads to the Pope’s deposition.
To decide that the Pope is not legitimate and then unavoidably deny legitimacy to everything that happens later is like stabbing the Church in the heart to cure Her (admittedly, very bad) fever. It is, as I have written already, Sedevacantism on instalments. It is just not the way the Catholic Church and the Catholic mind work.
Take Francis as a penance and use this time to pray the Lord that He may, in His Goodness, pave a way out of it; a way which, as we all know as Catholics, will invariably be a Catholic one.
Courtesy of Vox Cantoris, this appalling video of a clearly homosexual priest “dancing” in the church as he goes around caressing people (a lot of them, men). The thing is so revolting I could not stand it to the end, but I still want this horror to be posted on my blog as a further testimony against this damn faggot, and his enablers, the day he dies.
The stink of reprobation is so strong one can not even stand the spectacle. The church itself is so deprived of Catholic ornaments you would think it is a Methodist prayer hall. The stupid people applaud at the end.
No one slaps the fag in the face, either, as he approaches to “caress” him; another clear sign the public of this shameful “spectacle” was carefully selected among a collection of unrepentant fornicators, adulterers, perverts, and their “supportive” relatives.
Dies irae, dies illa.
View original post 82 more words
There is no doubt a sword can kill one or two dozen people in a very short time. You lock yourself in a school class with 30 people and a sword, and you can butcher pretty much all of them, pulp fiction-style, before the police arrives to despatch you. In fact, you would need an awful lot of ammunition to obtain the same results. There is no doubt whatsoever that swords are suitable instruments for a massacre.
Still, it is clear from reading the Gospel that not only Jesus surrounded himself with “Second Amendment Guys”, but that he took care to have (if not all) several of them armed at any given time. I wonder what names Nancy Pelosi would have called him, and I can’t think of any complimentary one.
The reality of the life of the Apostles was one of every day carry. There is no way to ever deny it. Similarly, it is obvious to the most retarded enemy of freedom that all this concealed carrying happened with the knowledge and by the instruction of Our Lord.
Once again, notice this: It’s not that Our Lord wasn’t aware that – to say it in the stupid liberal way – “swords kill”. He knew of their tremendous efficacy for self-defence, which is exactly why the Apostles carried them.
Jesus and the Apostles were obviously in favour of carrying, and it is difficult to think that this carrying was not, on several occasions, open carrying as the Apostles needed to show potential aggressors that they would not hesitate in taking the life of any of them.
It is quite indicative of the times we are living that the leftists (some of them masquerading as Catholics) not only do not understand anything of freedom, but are unable to see the God-given right to self defence so obviously described in the Gospel.