Monthly Archives: May 2019
Pope Benedict’s resignation would be valid, then dubious, then value again, in a matter of hours. Says, apparently, the same theologian.
I wish we would focus on the real problem on the ground (hint: heretical Pope and cowardly shepherds) rather than wasting time on this absurd non-matter.
Benedict has clearly wanted to renounce his role as the man in charge. He has stated several times that Francis is Pope. He has actually even praised Francis, and may the Lord forgive him for it.
The man has quit. In darn Latin. As officially as can be. In front ov the entire planet. He has set up a schedule and a plan, and according to this schedule he has, again very publicly and symbolically, flown away in helicopter from the Vatican. Cameras followed him live, sending these highly symbolic footage all over the world.
But Benedict is a cerebral guy. He is, also, steeped in Italian culture, where even children know that Dante condemned (though Dante himself never mentions him by name) Celestino V for his abdication. Being the gregarious, too clever by half “intellectual” that he is, he uses a figure also well known in Italy, the one of the Emeritus. The Emeritus is the one that does not have the job anymore (because he has retired) but keeps the rank and honour (because it is deemed fitting that he should). Therefore, when a high ranking Government officer (say: a General) retires, it is said that he a “retired General”; but when a Professor retires he is not called a retired Professor, he is called Professor Emeritus. It’s the way it is, and Benedict did not want to be treated in a lesser way: both because of the profession, way more prestigious than the one of a Professor, and because he did not want to look like a Celestine.
Good Lord, is it difficult?
The fact that he keeps the title “Pope” is also not relevant. Besides the reasons just mentioned, in Italy every Prime Minister and every President of the Republic is called “Mr President” for the rest of his natural life. Again, this is an obvious tribute to the office once held. No-one would say that the fact that Mr Renzi is called Presidente means that there is something fishy with the appointment of his successors.
Where is Benedict reneging on his own abdication? Where is his official statement that Francis is not the legitimate Pope? Have we really sunk to such level of embarrassing childishness, that we try to deform every little hint, every little non-statement of Benedict as reason to doubt what the man himself has told the world?
When I talk about religion with my friends, none of whom obviously knows that I write this blog, I accurately avoid mentioning Bennyvacantists. The matter is so embarrassing to me, that I fear if would cast a shadow on all Catholics, besides causing a lot of laughter in the solidly down-to-earth Italian culture.
The guy who recites the Angelus in St Peter Square is the Pope.
It is time to stop with this embarrassment. Having a heretical Pope is bad enough, but it is neither new nor church-shattering. Francis is the fitting Pope for a very stupid, godless age. Let us put an end to the stupidity and godlesness of the age, and you will see God will grace us with proper Catholic Popes again!
On the day Benedict dies, I will be very curious to know who, according to Bennyvacatists, is now Pope, and why this is so. As the man is 92, I doubt I will stay curious for very long.
“What the Pope said about not knowing anything is a lie. […] He pretends not to remember what I told him about McCarrick, and he pretends that it wasn’t him who asked me about McCarrick in the first place.”
These are the words of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’ , immediately replying to the assertion of the Evil Clown that he did not know about the proclivities of Cardinal McCarrick.
It is, truly, rather amusing that a person notorious for his serial lies would change tack on the matter and, instead of just refusing to answer, would go on record officially contradicting the Archbishop. Does he think he will be believed?
Not happening. This is the price you pay when you go around lying like there is no tomorrow for six years. People laugh at everything you say. You would think the old scoundrel should know that by now; but in Francisland, facts are mere options.
Just as a snippet: it has been reported (search this blog, or the Internet) that this guy, in an interview to a Spanish language magazine, a) lied to his own mother (who was financing his studies) saying to her he was studying medicine when he was in the Jesuit seminary, and b) boasted about it, himself!
Imagine the guy! By the by, already this gives the lie to the “pious Bergoglio family” legend.
Back to our comedian: one is tempted to think that Francis calculates that his word, as the word of the Pope, must be taken in more consideration than the word of an Archbishop.
Sadly for the Evil Clown, this is not the Cuban Communist Party. Every person with a functioning brain knows the difference between an obvious mythomaniac and a man who is paying a heavy price for choosing to tell the truth, for the good of both his own soul and all of us.
It would have been better for the Evil Clown if he had continued to shut up about this.
By opening his lewd mouth and lying again, he has made his likely destination in hell just that tad darker and deeper.
In 300 years, when the Church has come back to normality, Francis will be, in all probability, nothing more than a little blip on the radar of the average Catholic, there with Pope Elton and Pope Dalai (who came after him) in a small parade of horrible Popes only remembered in proverbial expressions and after-dinner lore. Single men tend to be forgotten unless they are of the stature of a Julius Ceasar; epochs tend to impress themselves more firmly in the collective imagination.
What will, then, people remember in 300 years, when gathered around the table in the kitchen? Pope Francis? I doubt they will remember one single thing he did, though they will probably recall his name as one of the “bad Popes”. What they will remember from school, is the age of unprecedented Church corruption that marked the Age of Insanity. Will they blame the single evil Pope? Hardly. Not many people can, today, mention even a handful of the Renaissance Popes. They will blame the bishops and cardinals for allowing the decay to happen and the rot to set in.
They will be right.
As Francis becomes more than a passing disgrace, insists in not dying and appoints more Cardinals, it becomes more likely that these years will be seen as the onset of a disgraceful age. There is no way that the bishops and remaining halfway Catholic cardinals can be excused for their inaction, as this becomes way more than a wayward Pope whose problem will die with him ( as in Formosus’, or Honorius’ case), but a Pope who created a systemic disruption, one able to survive his own demise.
The time for action is now, not after Francis has died. No single bishop, not one, can hide anymore behind the lame excuse of waiting for the problem to solve itself. The evil plant is expanding, and will spawn a Pope Cupich or a Pope Tagle one day.
The bishops and cardinals must act now. They must be reminded constantly that they have no excuses. They are at the real root of the problem festering.
We need twenty more Open Letters, coming from all corners of Catholicism.
This crisis is a crisis of collective governance, not a crisis of mad individuals.
Let us make clear something at the start: you write a blog, you will be insulted. I have a fairly thick skin, and I have always been blessed with a sovereign contempt for the attacks of people of mediocre intelligence; therefore, most of the time I smile about it, and take it as a confirmation that I am doing something right.
What, however, strikes me as odd is the fact that those who choose to insult me do not have, on many occasions, any sense of proportions, or any respect for the language.
I object to be called hyper-trad, as there are around people with much, much stronger views about Traditionalism than me. One example: I do not advocate that people skip Mass if they do not have a Traditional Mass within reasonable distance. If I am hyper-trad, what are they: super-duper-hyper-mega Trads?
The expression hyper-polemic also leaves me quite perplexed: one does not need to go around the internet for long in order to find sites with much stronger expressions than the ones I use; but I assume that for some people, it is enough to smash “hyper” on their article and the job is done.
But the worst is to say that I have veered towards Sedevacantism. I can comfortably say that at least 80% of the insults I get (might be more) are, in actual fact, because I didn’t.
This indiscriminate use of hyperbole is a betrayal of the language, besides being factually wrong.
Insult me as much as you want, it’s (still) a free Internet. But please, take the time to read around a bit before you call me hyper-here, hyper-that, and even Sedevacantist!
Words have lost their meaning. Facts are irrelevant. Everything is digital nowadays.
Trump is a danger to women.
The Russians have decided the 2016 election.
Building walls is unChristian.
But heavens, making of me a Sedevacantist is as “fake news” as it gets.
Still, I was mildly bemused, and actually had to chuckle when I discovered that the person who insulted me in such a way proceeded, immediately thereafter, to take the pain to translate (approvingly!) an entire blog post of yours truly: the hyper-trad, hyper-polemic Sedevacantist!
When even those who insult you feel the need to invest a decent amount of time to let the world know what you think, one can be bemused indeed.
Matteo Salvini, the Home Office Minister, Vice Prime Minister and de facto strong man of the Italian Government, has seen a strong increase in support at the European Election.
This is relevant not only for the obvious political implications concerning the authoritarian project called “European Union”, but also because it gives a very clear idea of the power Francis has in Italy, that is: very little.
The background: during the electoral campaign, Salvini stressed the Christian and Catholic culture of the Country against the dangers of you-know-what. He was seen holding a Rosary. He even entrusted the Country to the Blessed Virgin. Not entirely unpredictably, he was savagely attacked by Francis’ hounds. Defending Catholicism is now seen an Uncatholic. There is no doubt on earth – and no one doubted in Italy – that Francis was, and is, openly against Salvini.
In a Country with still an awful lot of Catholics, you would think that Salvini would be punished at the ballot box. You would think so, because 1) Salvini’s electorate is just the one more likely to be linked to Catholic values, and 2) there was at least a perfectly valid alternative to Salvini, sending pretty much exactly the same message on the whole if you don’t like the EU in its present form.
Well, guess what: the good Italian people have, collectively speaking, told Francis what they think of him and of his one-world caricature of the Faith, deciding to support and make stronger the very same man the Vatican has so strongly attacked. And if you read the Italian newspapers (and know a bit about Italian politics) you know that this is not only an EU affair: as of this morning, the balance of power within the Government has clearly shifted, and Salvini is even more its numero uno. Well done, Frankie dear!
It gets worse.
God knows Salvini isn’t a model Catholic by any stretch of the imagination. In the presence of a Catholic Pope, he would be in an extremely difficult position. But the fact is this: correctly, the good people of Italy have recognised that even Salvini is way more Catholic than the Pope.
Francis is finished. He is finished as a Pope because no sane Catholic respects him, and he is finished as a figure of influence because even those only vaguely culturally Catholic just don’t care a straw about what he says.
The only ones who agree with Francis are those who don’t need him, and to whom he can be of no use: environuts, third-worldists, and assorted atheists and enemies of Christ.
Keep sinking, Evil Clown.
It will be a joy to watch.
I struggle to understand the criticism to the recent, “pro-life” Alabama law. Let me explain why.
This is not a law banning abortions. It merely restricts it to a strict standard. Nor is it meant as a one-off death blow to Roe vs Wade, because it still makes it possible to perform abortions if the life of the mother is “in danger” (cue thousands of girls saying they are thinking of committing suicide, et voila’….). What, I think, this and similar laws are meant to, is to chip away at abortion “rights” one bit at a time, paving the way for a decision of the Court that does not need a perfect law to be made: the decision, namely, that the US Constitution does not guarantee a right to abort.
The Supreme Court does not need a perfectly coherent law to discard Roe vs Wade more than it needed a perfectly coherent abortion legislation to issue Roe vs Wade. The issue is an issue of principles, not of technicalities. If the principle is coherently stated, there is nothing to prevent the Supreme Court to decide about its conformity to the Constitution. Actually, not even that is needed. Judge Roberts came out with the idea that Obamacare is a tax all of his own!
Certainly, everything can be made better. But give me ten or twelve sub-optimal laws knocking at the Supreme Court door than a perfect one.
The Supreme Court has, in the past, gone with the times. There is no doubt that an onslaught of abortion-limiting laws would create the social environment for a ground breaking decision. Laws like the Alabama one send in the sky a test balloon, and contribute to the societal changes the Supreme Court will, one day, ratify.
A better law still would be one that bans abortion qua abortion: that defends life from conception, does not make any exception for rape or incest, criminalises the mother for killing her baby, does not allow any health excuse* and, in everything else, gives the unborn the same degree of protection as the born baby.
But we are not there. Such a law would likely not be passed anywhere, not even Alabama. You chip away at abortion one piece at a time, and throw the Supreme Court a beautiful pitch.
It is for them to smash that ball out of the ballpark.
*mind, this excludes the case where a surgical intervention is necessary to save the life of the mother and, as an unwanted but inevitable result of the intervention, the child dies. This is, medically and technically, not an abortion.
In recent days, two Cardinals and one Bishops (actually, they are among the usual suspects when it is about trying to defend, albeit timidly, orthodoxy against a heretical Pope) have renewed calls for the Evil Clown to “clarify Church teaching” concerning his heresies.
Firstly, the men clearly have not received the memo, in form of the “no hay otra interpretacion” letter which, in fact, abundantly clarifies where the Evil Clown lies on the matter of communion for divorced and, by extension, on the matter of what he thinks of heresy. Therefore, it seems to me that the intervention of these prelates is a bit of a talking to the wind, or to the wall. They are clearly not talking to Francis, who obviously ignores them.
Secondly, it is almost fun – in a somewhat depressing way – that all three Orthodoxy Musketeers take stand against the open letter of the theologians inviting the bishop to take action against a heretical Pope.
This is like saying that it is good for bishops and cardinals to wet their lips; however, they should never whistle! How this follows any kind of logic is beyond me.
Words have a meaning if they are underpinned by facts. Words that are meant to remain only words are useless. Any bishop, any cardinal must know this. It is as if in their vision of things, Popes could go on for 70 years spreading heresies and it would be fine for a couple of bishops and cardinals to invite them to “clarify Church teaching” (which never happens) thinking that the request itself, not the clarification, is the answer to the problem.
One of the effects of Vatican II has been to create an awful lot of prelates who think they are journalists. They analyse and invite. They comment and reflect. They love to read their name in print. What they never do, what they think they have no duty to do, is, actually, act.
Words, without facts, are rather empty. You need to do what you say needs to be done. A Bishop or Cardinal is not called to give commentaries about the faith. He is called to actively defend it; in season and out of season, and with no respect for authority when this authority defies God.
He is not one who comments about those in power. He is one of those who actually have it.
You would think this simple concept would be clear after 2000 years of Christianity. Instead, prepare yourself for the next lame interview in which a prelate thinks that wetting his lips is the same as whistle.
The law recently passed in Alabama meant to restrict the legal right to abort – a law clearly meant for a test in the Supreme Court – has leftists of all shapes in a state of hysteria.
It is a bit, albeit on a smaller scale, like watching the movie of Trump election again: countless Libtards inordinately whining and screaming as a reaction to their impotence to stop the tide of common sense.
I have bad news for the poor, deranged feminists of both sexes: their evil struggle is doomed in the long term.
The advancements of technology make it more and more difficult to deny the personhood of a baby in the womb. The very vocabulary says it: I did not use the expression “a future baby in the womb”. The baby is here, as a baby, when he is in the womb.
“Baby on board”.
Compared to this, expressions like “reproductive rights” sound exactly what they are: a profoundly evil spin of the murder of a baby (see what I am doing here?), in the womb of his mother, with her consent.
It is sad that technology, not faith or common piety, should help people to discard their genocidal thinking. But in a world without faith, even a picture can do a lot. Let those who cannot think, see.
The fight of the abortionists (every supporter of abortion is an abortionist) against God’s children is doomed to fail at some point. God willing, this or next Presidency will see the SCOTUS overturn Roe vs Wade. At that point the dam will break, and in fifteen years at the most reason will have made big inroads in Europe, too. It is difficult to criticise America’s “imperialism”, commercial or otherwise, when you kill your own children.
Abortionist Libtards are on the wrong side of God. Not a good place to be.
You have probably seen them, the “prayer rooms” in airports and other institutions. I have been in one. Not to pray in it, but to see how it was done.
Naked walls. Not one crucifix in sight. Not even a cross. The people praying were all Muslims, easily recognisable from their rythmic allah chanting and being all in the same directions.
These multifaith prayer rooms are a fraud. They are mosques by another name. They comply with the standards of interior decoration for a mosque, but not with those for a church. They are clearly uninviting places for prayer for anyone but Muslims.
A Catholic does not pray together with people of other faiths. But apparently everybody else also finds it unappealing to pray in a naked room, with the rhythmic soundtrack of the Mohammedan religion.
These multiprayer stuff should be put to an end. In traditional Christian Countries, I would actually expect to see a chapel. But if this does not work, better have nothing than a mosque in disguise. It creates a position of privilege for a minority.
It is not for, say, an airport to provide for the prayer needs of the Mohammedans.
The SSPX has issued a statement on the letter, mentioned here many times, calling for the Bishops to invite Francis to recant his many heresies or depose him. The letter is very critical. I think it is, also, a big mistake.
The Society obviously points out to the many heresies of this Pontificate. They stress the point that Francis is the result of a movement, V II, that has been going on for decades. But then they condemn the letter based on the argument that the chances of success are non-existent, and the recipient Bishops not instructed enough and not willing to act anyway.
With this reasoning, my question to the SSPX is why they, themselves, think that they should exist in the first place. The probability of the College of Cardinals (much less the Bishops of the world) converting to Traditional Catholicism are even smaller than the probability of them accusing the Pope of heresy.
If it is enough to pray and do nothing, awaiting for God to change the situation, then the SSPX might as well disband and explain to all their followers that ” it is highly probable, even certain, that the vast majority of bishops will not react” to their invitation of throwing away Vatican II’ s innovations.
Not can the SSPX say, in their defence, that they act hoping that future generations will come back to sanity; because this is exactly what the signatories of the letter are doing.
The basic principle, that utterly escapes the authors of the letter, is that things are done because they are right. The probability of success is neither here nor there. I cannot imagine Athanasius, or the French Partisans fighting against Nazi occupation, or many fighters in many wars, physical and spiritual, thinking of the “probability of success” as the decisive element to decide whether to fight or not.
When Archbishop Lefebvre refused to shut down his seminary, or when he appointed his bishops, he did so because it was the right thing to do. This was the guiding light behind decisions that were, in a way, new in the history of the Church. But if we look at the world, though, we can’t certainly say that the SSPX has been ” a success”, as almost fifty years later the Church has become only more corrupt. Shall we, then, say, concerning the SSPX, that “the failure of such an initiative has ridiculed the author (Lefebvre) and his cause” ?
You do what you have to do. If the result is zero in this day and age, heaven will still notice the action. Besides, all these initiative are like a leaven that, by God’s grace, will bring results one day.
One day, history will record that courageous voices were raised to demand action for the astonishing spectacle of a heretical Pope. They will know that not everybody was silent, and not everybody was ready to accept the inaction of the Bishops as acceptable. They will know that the signatories of the letter, together with all their sympathizers, wanted to expose the shame of their bishops’ inaction for all future generations to see. They will know that such initiatives want to give a testimony that the Church is indefectible and, whatever the troubles, those staying true to the true faith will always be there.
This is, once again, the reasoning underpinning the very existence of the SSPX. That they criticise it, and even go as far as to say that this initiative “might ridicule the authors and their cause”, is deeply unfortunate and should, if you ask me, be cause for deep embarrassment inside the organistion.
The SSPX should not criticise this letter. They should have been the ones who issued it.
Not with any hope of “success”, of course. But in order to give testimony to future generations of the fight of the faithful, and the shame of the hirelings.
I have written this blog for almost nine years now. I have (obviously) not made a penny out of it, but I hope that the thousands of hours spent at the keyboard will, one day, help me – with God’s grace – to obtain the grace of all graces.
I can see the end of this blog on the horizon. I can see it in the fact that more and more conservative voices, big or small, are being silenced, even it if is the big ones who make the headlines.
I can also see it in the decision, made once and never changed, that I will blog anonymously or I will not blog. If you don’t get why, at this point I think you are too thick to even merit an explanation.
I also thought – until recently – that WordPress would protect my freedom of speech. Not so sure anymore. When manosphere blogs are shut down – it does not matter here whether you agree with them or not – conservative Catholics cannot be very far away. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that, at some point, WordPress will silence me; and at that point it will likely be the end of my blog experience, unless I find a way to make it work on another platform. I have thought of some short term measures, but this post is principally meant to investigate long term possibilities.
SHORT TERM MEASURES
I have downloaded on my anonymous email a complete backup of my site. Whilst I don’t know how to use it, in case of need I do not doubt that other people would.
However, I encourage my readers to do the same, archiving as much as they can of my site.
For example, if you receive my blog posts via email, you may think of not ever deleting them and potting them in a folder somewhere in the cloud, where it will not get destroyed next time your hard drive dies. Or, like me, you have an email provider that keeps the emails forever, which also helps if it really works that way. If the manure hits the ventilator, there will be people able to put many posts on the internet again, on platform that cannot be easily assailed.
If any of my readers is technically gifted and knows how to “mirror” my site (I do not even know what that means exactly), he should feel free to do so if this allows my site to be easily “recovered” in case of sudden and total censorship.
Basically the idea is this: that if my site is closed, the content will pop up in dozen of other sites around the Internet; all the thousands of posts in it and possibly the comments, too. It is a sort of preventative measure.
LONG TERM MEASURES
If my blogging activity is to continue after WordPress were to shut down this site, I would need to have a place that guarantees complete anonymity.
Complete means complete.
Therefore, and just to make an example, no credit cards whatsoever, or anything that traces a payment back to me. I might make a partial exception for Bitcoin or other virtual currencies, meaning that if I can buy a domain and make it work by paying only in virtual currency, I trust that this would be safe enough.
You all know how my WordPress site is organised and the way in which I use it.
I am grateful for any suggestion about alternative platforms which:
1) Are extremely serious about freedom of speech.
2) Allow me to set up my place, without technical knowledge (WordPress was excellent in this), either for free or paying in virtual currency. I would be glad to find sites that allow payment with vouchers and gift cards. Bear in mind, however, that a lot that is allowed in the US is not allowed here in Europe (e.g. anonymous credit cards, anonymous phone numbers). Already requiring a phone number kills the entire exercise (which is why my blog is on WordPress and not Blogger): a stupid SJW in the provider’s office and you are doxxed already. Yes, I am a mistrustful guy.
3) Have the same format as this blog: one blog post after the other and the possibility to read them in a series and order them by months etc, rather than a “Twitter” format where one only has a “window” were to write, but no proper blog organisation of the virtual space, or a discussion forum rather than a proper blog.
WordPress has tremendous advantages: totally free and totally anonymous, and with an easy to set up, convenient blog format. I am slowly starting to look for something like WordPress, but with a passion for freedom, for the case that WordPress shuts me down.
What alternatives are there?
Thanks to all that would like to contribute and add suggestions and alternative ways of doing this.
The time might come, in this generation or in the next one, when it is necessary to fight again for it, possibly on American soil.
Enjoy this emotional, beautiful reflection from a man that certainly (from what I know of him) is not one of those I would invite for dinner; but here he does it beautifully.
I have written yesterday some instructions for use, for those who want to navigate these incredible years and arrive at the shore of salvation without too much damage inflicted on their soul.
It might be good to add further steps for those who have already executed the little action plan outlined yesterday.
My personal suggestion would be to stay near three authors who have greatly helped to make Catholic theology accessible to the masses: Fulton Sheen, Ronald Knox and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.
A visit to any online store will reveal a wealth of publications from these authors. The first two are more colloquial and less difficult to follow, the third will generally be more suited to people with a grounding in philosophy or accustomed to more complex reasoning. You really can’t go wrong with any of those, but my suggestion would be to absolutely not miss the following:
Sheen: Life of Christ. He is the author of many other interesting books (I have read The World’s First Love, the Priest is not His Own and Mother of the Saviour, I think I am forgetting something), but I think that Life of Christ is a must. If I were to suggest a book about Christianity to a potential convert, this one would be it.
Knox, a convert from Anglicanism, was another one with a gift for making complex things easy. The Creed in Slow Motion and The Mass in Slow Motion are books I thoroughly enjoyed. Easy to read and difficult to forget, they are fare that can be easily tackled by adolescents.
Garrigou-Lagrange is a bit different from the other two. Of the books from him I have read, I would say that only Life Everlasting can be called “accessible”. This one is, I think, also a must-read. However, those inclined to more complex readings will enjoy “Providence” and “Predestination” immensely. If, then, they are willing to plunge again in the philosophy studies of their earlier years (or want to give it a bite), “Reality” will give him hours of high-level enjoyment. He also authored other books, ( I have read “Christian perfection and Contemplation” and “Our Saviour and his love for us”), but I’d say that the other two books make for more “essential” reading. Prepare yourself for frequent repetitions of the main concepts in the various books.
Note that all of these authors reflect the strictest Pre-Vatican II ideology, albeit I am told that Sheen was not as critical of V II as, I think, he should have been. Still, you will find his writings unimpeachable.
Before I close, I would like to also publish, with thanks, a link sent by a reader as a comment to my last post. The link has a useful, very extensive list of “safe” Catholic readings. You may want to browse the list and pick from there what you think most suited to your tastes and interests.
Dear reader, we may be living in disgraceful times, but the Good Lord in His Mercy has also given us a wealth of information, easily available and readily digestible, to guide us through life. No generation before us ever had the access, the money, and the time to profit from these sources as we do now.
Francis can make all the mess he wants. He will be no excuse for anyone who is lost. Never could a Pope inflict as little damage to his sheep as one living in the age of the Internet and mass literacy.
I have bad news for you. You live in times where the Pope goes around preaching heresy and not even his Bishops (let alone the Cardinals) have the courage to do anything, bar a couple of courageous, isolated voices that remain unheeded.
I have more bad news for you. The impending (be realistic now: he is 92) death of Benedict, the Pontiff Emeritus and Eternal Celestine, will cure absolutely nothing in this, not does his being alive (with all his pomp and circumstances; the white habit and the vain title, “Emeritus”, the “silent” interviews and the private archbishop secretary) do anything to remedy the situation now.
You are, realistically and bar a Divine Intervention, facing a long, long time of this. Just consider that, when the Evil Clown finally croaks, the Conclave will be composed by Cardinals nominated, in the majority, by him. Yes, you can dream that the Cardinals will wake up and refuse to allow those nominated by Francis to take part in the next conclave; but at this point this is, also, a pious fantasy: those not appointed by Francis would not only be the minority, but they would have the Tagles and (until 2022) the Maradiagas of the world among them.
Face it: you are likely going to live and die in the Time of Madness.
How do you react to it?
By being Catholic, no matter what. By trying to be what all the generations before you have tried to be. Of course, you will also push, as far as you can, for the restoration of sanity. But as far as your private redde rationem with God is concerned, you just use the manual that has been in use for two thousand years. Some useful steps in this direction.
- Pray the Rosary every day. Start today.
- Look for a Traditional Latin Mass. Try to attend there if this is reasonable. In both cases, go on Youtube and watch some recording. Imbibe yourself with the absolute superiority of the Tridentine Mass compared with the dumbed-down kindergarten spectacle you dutifully inflict on yourself every Sunday (I look at it as a penance now).
- Buy and read “Iota Unum”. It is not cheap, but it is worth every penny. This book will not only allow you to obtain, a contrario, a comprehensive picture of sound Catholicism. It will also allow you to give a historic perspective to the current madness, to see it as a satanic loaf that has been proofing for decades now.
- Read the SSPX publications (Angelus Press), and first of all “one hundred years of Modernism”. Again, this will give you a historic perspective of what is happening. It will allow you to see the current Pontificate as a point in time in the course of a long disease, not a sudden earthquake leaving you unable to understand how this could happen in the first place.
- Throw away your JP II Catechism. Do it now. No, I mean now. Read the rest of this post when it has gone in the rubbish bin.
- Buy one or more old Catechisms. The Penny Catechism is simple, but excellent. The four Baltimore Catechisms are also outstanding. There are several others (Council of Trent, Pius X), that you may find in English if you look around.
- Inform yourself, and follow as much as you can, old Catholic traditions and devotional practices: say, Friday abstinence, or the traditional prayer before the meals, or the days of fasting; or the Forty Hours, or the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
- Make an effort of memorisation, like in old times. Do you know the Commandments by heart? The works of mercy? The Gifts of the holy spirit? The deadly sins? It may seem a little thing, but you will see that it becomes useful both in your spiritual life and in your interactions with others. We live in times of great spiritual ignorance. A little can go a long way. Besides, and as Lucia in the Promessi Sposi says, “Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia!”, “God forgives many things for one work of mercy!”.
One could go on along this line, but I think I have outlined the fundamentals.
The bottom line is this: as much as you reasonably can, expunge Vatican II from your life without waiting that the Church does the same. Do not do it to the point of it being counterproductive (say: do not stop attending Mass just because a Tridentine Mass is not reasonably available), but, within the realm of reason and common sense, give V II the booth.
When you die, you will go to your judgement knowing that you have, sinful as you certainly are, and with God’s Grace, actively tried to give to Christ more than the disfigured Church of the XXI Century wanted you to.
Not a bad hand of cards, I would say.
And nothing that an evil Pope like Francis can do against it.
I write a good number of posts about the antics of the disgraceful Pope currently defacing the Church. A Leitmotiv of my reflections is the, in my eyes very obvious and banal, consideration that it is not for me to say who is the Pope. I tend to be a rather down-to-earth guy, not inclined to conspiracy theories and fantasy solutions to real problems.
The sun goes up in the East; water is wet; Francis is Pope.
Whatever Francis does, he is still Pope until something happens (he dies, hopefully soon, or he is deposed) that makes him stop being Pope. And yes, even the one whom some insist in considering the “true Pope” (an old man of 92, therefore condemning the position to total failure, and actually to sedevacantism, in a very short time) disagrees with them. It does not get more absurd than this. It is an escape from reality, that does not become less real if you make a 23 hours documentary about it.
It seems to me that these escapists are all linked by a common reasoning: this Pope is so atrocious that he cannot be Pope. Therefore, I must go finding a Pope whenever I can and hey, look, there is an old guy over there who still dresses in white! He thinks and says out loud that Francis is the one in charge, but why would I care? He gives me the balm I so urgently need. Screw reality and common sense. He is my guy.
If you ask me, what these escapist Catholics all fail to understand is the magnitude of the betrayal of Vatican II. When they realise the scale of the offence to God that the event (actually, the “movement”) represented, you will have no problem at all to understand why Francis is Pope! Francis is nothing more than the living warning, the poster boy of what happens when the clergy (and the faithful who have , in their greater number, accepted or embraced the “movement”) deforms and defaces the Church. From the monstrous, satanic behaviour of the Pope you understand the monstrous, satanic behaviour of the movement that caused him to become Pope.
Francis is, at the same time, punishment and medicine. He is punishment for the arrogance of both clergy and faithful (collectively intended). He is medicine, because every day he persuades some of the more reasonable member of the V II troops that the man is actual evidence that V II was rotten at its very core, and the work of the devil.
No, it is not for me to figure out who is Pope. I know who is Pope, as does all Christianity. But it is for me to reflect how things could come to the point that a man like this one was made Pope. There is only one answer: Vatican II, the most successful subversive movement within the Church in 2000 years, and the work of the devil through and through.
Do not worry for the Church: the Church can withstand fifty Francis. Even the most powerful heretic can only scratch at truth like a child would do with a block of granite. Truth is indestructible, and the Church will, however deformed, continue to preach this truth even if the Pope (and the next twenty Popes) are heretics. But rather, it is reasonable to think that when both clergy and faithful are fed up with heretical Pope, things will start to change.
We are being given a medicine.
Will be swallow and start a process of healing, or make of it Sedevacantist poison?
In another open show of Modernism, the Evil Clown has reiterated that the capital punishment was right in the past, but is wrong now.
Stupid old man is, very possibly, thinking that the first part will shield him from the rage of Catholics: “See? Both Pius XII and my ‘umbleness can be right at the same time!”
Very stupid position, as this is not the way the Church thinks. If Pius was right, Francis must be wrong. Pius, on the other hand, was right because he has stated what the Church has always believed. Case open and shut, then; actually, not even open.
It is refreshingly surprising how this man keeps not getting that, however perverted his ideology, he damages it himself by pushing it so hard all the time. In other words, even if you were just as bad as Francis, you would understand that it is better for your evil project to take a rest every now and then, and be Catholic for a short month or two. Not this guy, whose emotional intelligence reaches kindergarten age at best.
Thank you, Evil Clown, Unholy Father, for being such a childish, petty heretic. You help us in making people with a brain see your evil mind in all its ugliness.
We await eagerly the next shot in your own foot.
The armies of evil have used incrementalism to achieve their goals again and again.
“Give us civil partnerships and we will not touch your marriage”. After a few years, you are the Ku Klux Klan if you deny to every sort of inverted people their parody of a marriage.
Same with divorce. Difficult at first, then easier, then on demand.
We should work in the same way, eroding the enemy’s field a step at a time. This is why the “heartbeat bill” is a positive step.
Yes, I know: the unborn child born of rape, or incest, is no less innocent than all the others, and such laws obviously invite a flood of false rape accusations. But the idea here is to chip at abortion from every possible way, to have people talk about it, and to try to have this and other bills sent to the Supreme Court to, hopefully, overturn Roe vs Wade one day.
It would be wrong, I think, to insist on ideologically pure legislation that does not get approved. We should learn from the strategic stance of our enemies. Even if this law actually is a law about… abortion, it is clearly a law that will undermine it.
The same should be done on so-called homo marriages, civil partnerships, and the like.
Demolish the evil one little step at a time; chip away at it; make it part of the conversation; and when the time comes, strike the definitive blow.
I would like to say two words about the controversy raised by a Mr Akin’s answer to the letter, mentioned here many times, inviting the Bishops to declare Pope Francis a heretic and depose him, unless he recants from his many heresies.
The point that Mr Akin makes is that Pope Francis cannot really be called heretical, because the tenets of the faith he so manifestly denies are (merely!) infallible doctrines as opposed to dogmatic truths. AKA Catholic does, as always, an excellent and very charitable work of dissection of this point.
My point is, building on his reflection, a different one.
No other generation of Catholics (at least before V II) would have even dreamed of having such discussions when deciding what the appropriate course of action is. Nor would they have cared of what this or that canonical text says. They weren’t blind. Therefore, they could look at reality when reality was staring them in the face.
When Pope Marcellinus sacrificed on the altar of Roman gods, they did not wonder what canon law states should exactly happen in that exact case. They did not quibble about the fact that Marcellinus had not denied any formal dogma, “merely” contravened a commandment. They did not try to walk around, above, below and through reality trying to find a way allowing them not to call reality for what it is.
They had faith. They acted on it.
I have stated many times here, and repeat today, that I do not care a straw for the technical, canonical law definition of what a heresy is, because this is not what my salvation depends upon. Heretic is who heretic does, and in the common parlance and common sense (and in reality, which is so much broader than the quibbles of theologians) Francis is a heretic, because he goes head on against the truths of the Church.
On this, I think we all agree, Mr Akin included. It follows that the letter to the Bishops makes perfect sense, because it is a perfectly realistic reaction to a reality plainly in front of us.
The absurdity of the legalistic denial that Francis a heretic is easily demonstrated. Let us imagine that Francis would promulgate a modification of the canonical rules on heresy, stating that a Pope can only be proclaimed a formal heretic if he solemnly proclaims his heresy dressed in a Muslim garb, on a Friday, from the top of a Minaret, at least 100 feet high. Let us, further, imagine that Francis would proclaim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and he did so solemnly, dressed in a Muslim garb, from a Minaret, 90 feet high. Would then Mr Akin, and all the other FrancisQuibblers, say that Francis is, therefore, not a heretic according to this or any other definition?
Reality comes first. A heretical Pope is staring you in the face, with a middle finger raised against you. If you don’t see this you are part of the problem.
The first duty of the bishops is towards Christ and His Church. Even if the instruments of canon law did not allow (which AKA Catholic shows not to be the case) to act in case of manifest heresy, the obligation to act would exist anyway. The Church has always acted according to the principle that where the legal instruments at the disposal of the clergy are not sufficient to do what is necessary to do for the good of the Church, ecclesia supplet, as we have seen in the case of the SSPX or, more to the point, in the case of Marcellinus.
That such discussions take place in the first place is a grave indication of the degradation of the sensus catholicus all over the West.
We will be remembered as the people who allowed a clearly heretical Pope to be manifestly heretic day in and day out, for years, whilst discussing his intentions, his translators, his moods, the atmospheric conditions inside aeroplanes, the cultural differences with Argentina, his grasp of English, Italian, Latin, and Spanish, and his digestion.
Open your eyes, for heaven’s sake.
A heretical Pope is staring at you, his face full of hate for us and the Church, with his middle finger raised against you.
This is no time for quibbling.
I write often about the responsibility the faithful bear for the current situation. I think about this, in fact, every time I inflict a V II Mass on myself.
So many people on the Sanctuary, you could make a football team out of them. Uncaring chatting before the beginning of Mass, and the Church treated as if it were the village hall. Children allowed to behave as they please, spending their time with colouring pencils when they do not cry, or scream, or walk about, or talk to their parents, completely oblivious of being in a sacred space, and assisting to a sacred rite. In Summer, flip flops, sandals, and bermudas like there is no tomorrow. I could go on, but I think you all know what I am talking about.
The sense of the sacred has been put in the hearts of men by God Himself. Even the Heathen have it. Any person with a honest approach to his faith should, when attending a modern, typical V II Mass, instinctively know that there is something fundamentally wrong going on. These are people with no desire for the sacred in their life, and no desire to transmit anything of it to their children.
Similarly, the fact that there is a lot missing should be noticed very fast by everyone who ever cared to read the Gospels, and to compare their message with the insipid homilies he hears every week. There, a strong message about right and wrong, sin and obedience, hell and heaven. Here, “the joy of Christ” as the modern kool-aid meant to make you forget everything else.
No, it seems to me that the modern pewsitters are accomplices of their clergy in their unfaithfulness. They are fed rubbish, and want more of it. It is not that they don’t know any better. It is that they sense the obligations and inconvenience this better would create for them and prefer the Kindergarten-cum-village-hall, and the priest avoiding the real issues.
The laity has, globally speaking, no excuses. They are part and parcel of the current problem. Perhaps a tenth has a longing for the old time religion; the other nine tenths want the kindergarten. Their children will think that, once grown up, there is no reason to attend kindergarten, and the attendance will plummet again whilst the circus tries to become more entertaining and more of a kindergarten.
No generation like ours has had the opportunity to inform itself about sound Catholicism. People with a degree or superior education have no excuse for not investigating their religion when they themselves are experts about lawn mowing, souffle baking, or whatever requires them to actually get some specialist knowledge. There is simply no excuse for the perpetuation of an offensive Mass and of a watered-down religion. It is, for the most part, what the pewsitter want.
Were it not so, we would have seen change a long, long time ago.
Evil Clown travels to Bulgaria, and finds resistance in a Country known for being, erm, Christian (albeit of the Schismatic sort).
But this post is not about this. This post is to tell you that my adrenaline level got a sudden spike when this tool had the guts to remind his Bulgarian audience that they were persecuted for their Christian belief under Communism, and the reflections that such adrenaline spike prompted in this poor, but devout, intelligence.
Funny that Francis should say that: the very man who has condemned the Chinese Catholics to ferocious repression, out of hatred for the Church and desire to further every collectivist regime as much as he can!
I truly wonder what kind of parents gave birth to such monster; then it seems to me that it is difficult to come to such a level of hatred for the Church, unless this hatred has been nurtured from the early years in a deeply anti-clerical, anti-capitalist environment based on hatred for everything that is sacred and envy for those who have more, the two main ingredients of socialism and communism. I actually remember reading that Francis’ father (provided he really is) complained that he had to leave Italy because of his “antifascist” persuasion. Which, believe this Italian, would stink massively, if true, of a real anticlerical, communist or socialist refuse.
So what happens is this: Francis acts on his hatred for the Church every day God allows him to breathe. Then he travels around and reads speeches largely written for him by others. The contradictions do not bother him. This is a man not bothered by anything, a moral vacuum of astonishing depth, fuelled by his own hatred for everything that is good and holy; a hatred, not unlikely, fostered in him since childhood by his evil parents.
I also notice here, because at this point things start to add up rather neatly, that Francis boasted of lying to his mother about his seminary studies, which his mother financed thinking he was studying medicine. Now let us set aside for a moment the staggering admission of such lies, to one’s own widowed mother; let us reflect, instead, on why he would (besides the fact that he is a liar by nature) lie to his mother about his chosen path.
Would not every devoted mother be pleased, or at least very much at peace, with his son’s desire to give his life to Christ? Would she not gladly make sacrifices to allow him to reach his goal? Could it not be that Francis’ lies to her were due not only to the knowledge of the strong refusal that such a choice would have met with her anticlerical mother, but also to the obvious accusation of stunning hypocrisy and shameless scrounging of an entire existence that the mother would have levelled at her son? Is it not so, that more and more pieces of the satanic puzzle that is Jorge Bergoglio start to fall neatly into place and, whilst anecdotal and sketchy (once again: very little detail about the family. One wonders why?) give a fully logical, credible picture?
Truly, if the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons, this guy is the product of a seriously evil stock.
The Evil Clown has appeared in front of a Vatican assembly of clowns and has fertilised the ground like there is no tomorrow.
Let us try to explain at least part of the manure, though I am sure the stink in a way speaks for himself.
Firstly, the pandering to the UN as the supranational authority par excellence. The Pope, not the UN, is supposed to be the highest authority on earth. He does not bow to secular institutions. The only supranational authority the world needs is the Church. Once again, this is the continuation of the error Paul VI (that is: V II) started. Once again, Francis stretches the error to a grotesquely deformed show.
Francis wants that supranational authorities implement stuff like climate change policies. The contempt for democracy is barely veiled. Supranational organisations are there, as by now it is sufficiently clear, to prevent nations from deciding their destinies on their own and to subject them to the domination of a chaste of Nazi Nannies. Francis knows, approves of, and encourages the movement.
Francis states that the love for nation is misled when it begin to “exclude others”. For heaven’s sake, old nincompoop: by what is a nation defined, if not by the exclusion of those who are out of it? That a nation may decide to let some people become part of it is logical. That it should renounce to define those inside of it as separated from those outside of it is a negation of the term itself. The rhetoric is so stupid not because the listeners have an IQ of 12, but because they are clearly stating that they despise, and want to demolish, nationhood.
Francis deforms the principle of subsidiarity. Instead of thinking like a Catholic (that is: that governance starts from the smallest, the individual and the family, and gradually extends to bigger organisation for what the smaller ones cannot achieve), Francis puts the principle upside down and perverts it from a message of decentralised authority to one of total globalism: the UN and other organisations like the EU will decide for everybody. Resistance equates to “nationalism”.
Francis decries the danger that the rise of “nationalism” (let us say: the gradual waking up of Western Democracies) may compromise forms of international cooperation. Again, the prospective is deeply antidemocratic. If the nations decide that such goals (like the stupid Paris treaty) are not worth pursuing, then it means that they shouldn’t be. To think differently means to wish for a planetary dictatorship of the Nazi Nannies, telling the children what they have to do for their own good.
Then there are the obvious pitfall, which Francis surely sees but for which he does not care, of putting the destiny of the world in the hands of a bunch of Countries with no faith or the wrong ones.
The UN pushes abortion. Francis knows it and does not move an eyelid. If he did, he would expose the UN as the Naziest Organisation on Earth (which it undoubtedly is). But this goes against the aims of his social justice war, therefore he pushes the authority of the greatest abortion machine currently in existence.
I could go on, but I think you get the drift.
This man is completely sold to a globalist, socialist repressive regime. This is, in fact, the only religion he has. He will push for it, without caring for criticism and condemnations, for as long as he breathes.
May he stop breathing soon.
The Open Letter accusing Pope Francis of pertinacious heresy was released with only nineteen signatories.
Stop a moment to reflect that these brave men chose to publish the letter well knowing that the wrath of the Vatican would be focused on their little number, and that Francis would have a fit of vulgar rage including both several crude swear words and the demand that they are hit whenever the Vatican can, in every way it can.
In particular, but without in any way diminishing the courage of the others, think of Aidan Nichols. Nichols is likely the most prestigious theologian alive in the United Kingdom. He is a member of the Dominican Order. Francis will try to go after him with the wrath of one thousand very stupid suns.
Pray for the Nineteen Brave Men; that any measure taken against them may spectacularly fail and, if it is God’s will that they get to suffer for their testimony, their suffering may greatly increase their glory in Heaven.
The Open Letter is, thankfully, making waves. Secular media like Reuters reported on it (remember, reader: it does not matter much how much the message is distorted: every time the news is reported there are a lot of people who start to reflect that a Pope accused of being a heretic can’t be a good Pope), and Catholi ccommenters of every colour and stripe (even those who aren’t, actually, even Catholic in the proper sense) are going into the fray with all they have.
It is striking that almost no one (the only exception might be Father Fessio) seems to think that the next step might be what, in former times, would have been the most obvious one to expect: a total and complete reaffirmation of the faith, in unmistakable terms, on all points concerned, coming straight from the Pope, and putting an end to every talk of heresy.
The fact is, everyone knows this Pope is a pertinacious heretic. Everybody is so persuaded by it that the discussion is not about whether heresy has occurred, but whether the Pope os authorise to propagate is because he is the Pope, of because “chariteeee”, or the like.
Therefore, faced with a public accusation of pertinacious heresy, no one thinks that the Pope himself will react saying: “You are mistaken. I will now dispel any doubt and reaffirm, in the strongest terms, the Catholic Truths you have mentioned in order to dispel all doubt”.
It really is as bad as that.
This discussion is not about whether the Pope is a heretic. This discussion is between those who state an elementary truth and those who think that the new heresies are “Christ-like” in some perverted way, a way only they (having a perverted mind) can imagine.
The heretics’ is, in the long term, a self-defeating strategy. Every heresy claims to be a better interpretation of the truth, a position nearer to Christ. But this makes it just that: a heresy just for stating the claim! The game is up the moment the New Scribes and Pharisees stop defending the Pope by defending the Truth!
They have already lost. We have already won. They can enjoy their circus tool as much as they like. Everybody who cares for his salvation knows where the truth lies.
Oh well, this made my day.
The clergymen and scholars asking for the removal from office of Pope Francis are a welcome step in the unfolding drama of this Pontificate.
You can follow the link and read the two documents (one a synopsis for the benefit of leftist journalists) explaining the reasons for this step.
Note here that the document does not really attempt to examine the countless ways in which the Evil Clown has gone against Church teaching. As the signatories state:
“We limit ourselves to accusing him of heresy on occasions where he has publicly denied truths of the faith, and then consistently acted in a way that demonstrates that he disbelieves these truths that he has publicly denied”
In other words, the letter only focuses on those teachings for which Pope Francis has shown not only on single occasions, but with a constant effort of demolition, that he has them in contempt.
I am aware that, as always, the usual grumpy old men and professional losers will state that this is useless because nothing will happen anyway. As always, they are wrong.
What will happen is the loss of another piece of credibility of this incredibly scandalous papacy. Every time that Francis is publicly condemned, this has several highly beneficial effects:
- It puts the Bishops and Cardinals under more pressure to act and, if they don’t (which they won’t), makes their responsibility graver when the useless, spineless pussies finally croak.
- It gives further warning to the common pewsitters, so that the less intelligent among them avoid being lured by the prestige of the office into the pit of heresy.
- It makes it more difficult for the secular press to push the agenda of the modernising Pope; unless, that is, they shoot themselves in the foot explaining to their readers that the Pope is under attack from Catholics for not wanting to be a Catholic.
- It creates more pressure to pick a halfway Catholic guy by the next Conclave
- Last but not least, it is the fulfilment of the duty of all Catholics to defend the Catholic Truths in season and out of season, irrespective of final outcome.
Make no mistake, Francis will ignore the letter and, if asked about it (which is unlikely, seen the sycophancy of most journalists around him), will dismiss it with the usual bad joke. But this will hurt.
The man is collecting historic censures, not seen in many centuries of Church history, like they are model cars. He is now, for everyone with a functioning brain, a pathetic leftist clown unable to get out of the pit he has dug for himself. His loss of face is total. He is an embarrassment for the devil himself. His stupidity clearly surpasses the deviousness of his mind, which is vast anyway.
Francis will react like he always does: more heresies, more insults, more embarrassing, openly socialist statements. He will do it, as always, out of spite, because he is a petty, stupid old man.
This open letter is another public sign of the grand failure of this papacy, of the moral bankruptcy of an arrogant cretin who thought he could remake the church in his own lewd image. We welcome it as we welcome every attack on this man, who deserves to be insulted and taken as an example of evil behaviour for millennia to come.
No, nothing will happen, in a way. The Bishops will not wake up, and Francis will not be deposed.
Still, a lot is happening, day by day, as this Pontificate goes down in flames for all the world, and all the future generations, to see.