Author Archives: Mundabor

SSPX: What Is Going Horribly Wrong

Please follow this link and, among the documents therein contained, isolate and read (at least) these:

1. The one dated 7 April 2012 (Three Bishops to General Council).

2. The one dated 14 April 2012( General Council to Three Bishops) .

I have – not for the first time – read both documents and found myself – not for the first time – in full agreement with Fellay & Co.

However, I point out to the following. I will present this as a series of short points in an effort to make my thought linear and easy to digest in short pills. What I lose in prose I hope to gain in clarity and brevity.

1. You could have said that Ratzinger was sincerely interested in healing the riff with the SSPX. You cannot say that Bergoglio is sincerely interested in anything Catholic, at all.

2. This being the situation, mistrust toward any ouverture from the Vatican is more justified, and must be taken more seriously, than this was the case in 2012.

3. There can be no doubt that every agreement, every agreement at all which leads to a big fracture within the SSPX is not worth pursuing, as it is far more important that the SSPX remains a visible instrument of help to faithful Catholics in a time of crisis; a crisis which we see becoming deeper and deeper.

4. From what I can see up to now, the Vatican has laid no obvious traps. The independence of the Order is not threatened. The Order will maintain its own autonomy. The agreement seems to be no – legal – Trojan Horse.

5. However, Bishop Fellay's interview (about which I have written yesterday) indicates that a different price is being requested: the softening of tones against the Conciliar Church. This is extremely grave in light of the fact that this is most certainly not the time to soften any tone.

6. In turn, this softer attitude – now officially proclaimed by Bishop Fellay – reinforces the suspicion, certainly present inside the Society, that this embrace will prove deadly, albeit in several instalments. The recent removal of the eight French SSPX priests, though obviously connected to other controversies, does nothing to assuage the fear that some bullying not from Francis, but from the inside of the Society, in order to make it more agreeable to Francis and thus “deserving” of reconciliation, is in fact happening.

7. This is a destructive way to go at things. Archbishop Fellay should never put the reconciliation with the Vatican in front of the danger of a division within the SSPX. If he did so he would allow the enemies of Tradition to celebrate the tearing in two of the Society. Any reconciliation that causes such a bad outcome can most certainly wait for better times, when more orthodox Popes will allow a rapprochement in a different spirit and with far less divisions. No serious Catholic considers the SSPX one iota less Catholic without reconciliation. The reconciliation in itself is a lesser good than the continuation of the work of the SSPX in favour of tradition, her prestige and powerful voice speaking for orthodox Catholic in a time of heretical Popes.

8. Alternatively – and as others and myself have suggested in the past – a much better way is open to Bishop Fellay: a brutal defence of Catholic Truth, against the Pope and his minions, day in and day out. This would assuage fears that the SSPX is “going native”, which is the most important result. From this position of strength, every proposal of reconciliation – without any do ut des – could be discussed within the Society in a completely different atmosphere. And if, in consequence of this vigorous defence of Truth, no offer of reconciliation comes, so be it. This would be the obvious evidence that the reconciliation had only one aim: emasculate the SSPX and make of it a shark without teeth.

——-

Bishop Fellay undermines the very mission of the SSPX when he states that, in consideration of the process of reconciliation, the SSPX will get softer. He is doing the work of Francis. This attitude can only have as a result a self-imposed obligation to be either silent or very hushed in the denunciation of the thousand evils of the Church. Even if the authority and autonomy of the SSPX should remain complete and unchallenged, this attitude would still be tantamount to a half self-castration for the sake of… what exactly? The approval of the biggest rascal ever elected Pope?

Fellay 2017 seems much different to me from Fellay 2012. I do not trust the motives of anyone who, in the face of unprecedented attack on Christ, invites to be less incisive in its condemnation. The SSPX must go to war full scale against Francis and his heresies, and leave Francis with the choices of whether to play the “inclusive card” for his own motives (which he has, as he could claim a non-judgmental attitude towards both extremes of the spectrum) or go wherever he pleases, sharpish.

What is happening is, if you ask me, very wrong. I hope that this line does not prevail. It would cause immense damage to the cause of Traditionalism exactly in a time of emergency. I would prefer for Bishop Fellay to be made to go first.

M




 

What Is Wrong With Bishop Fellay?

Astonishing words from an unrecognisable Bishop Fellay reported by Gloria TV.

“We may be a little less controversial in attacking the persons”, the man said. He also added, in purest V II style, that “sometimes” ones get more with “a simple argument” than “by barking”.

When Bishop Fellay's “simple argument” leads to the Vatican reneging on Amoris Laetitia and substituting it with a document Archbishop Lefebvre would have approved in toto I will agree with him.

As it is, I cannot but be very alarmed at reading that the head of the only major ecclesiastical bastion against heresy starts talking like a damn V II sellout.

I cannot avoid wondering whether the danger for the SSPX does not come from the heretics outside, but from the careerists inside.

In this moment of extreme gravity in the history of the Church we must all bark more, not less; and we must bark like very angry mastiffs.

I never thought I'd see the day when I read Fellay spout such nonsense. This is very, very alarming and it behooves every good Catholic to denounce appeasement wherever it comes from.

Good Lord, if even the SSPX is devoured from the cancer of promises of appointments (a red bar for Fellay perhaps?) the only one remained will be honest laymen and isolated priests in micro-SSPX organisations. A real blow.

What is wrong with this man? Does he not realise that if he says “there is no trap” and in the same interview says “but we will go soft on the enemies of Truth”, then most certainly he is the trap?

M

Cardinal Burke Has A New Pet Project, But He Has Not Completed The First One

The Catholic Blogosphere seems very excited about Cardinal Burke now (suddenly) advocating for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

If memory serves, this is the same Cardinal who announced a correction of Amoris Laetitia (or of Pope Francis directly) now around eight months ago, for the case that the Pope does not answer the Dubia posed to him.

You can make a baby in eight months. In the same time frame, Cardinal Burke has not managed – together with his paper tiger colleagues – to write three or four well-written sentences of condemnation of, at the very least, Amoris Laetitia and in fact, logically, of Francis' own pontificate and mindset.

I can't say I am impressed by this man. The entire planet is waiting for him to show some balls, and he reacts by doing nothing on the matter and… opening another front instead.

If he thinks we will forget what he has to do, he is sadly mistaken.

Cardinal Burke's dereliction of duty is ongoing. It becomes more scandalous every day that passes. No amount of deflections will let us forget that this here is one who can (almost) bark, but can't bite at all.

And please spare me the elaborate excuses for this man's and his confreres' utter lack of action. This is not the XVI Century anymore. In the age of Twitter, eight months are the equivalent of a geological era of the past. Also, it is clear that the four Cardinals were told in no uncertain terms that Francis will not answer the Dubia. There is no reason at all to wait one minute longer. Actually, at this point there would not be even if Francis had stated he intends to answer.

The man should just do his job, instead of trying to invent more ways to get an easy approval for his sheer dereliction of duty.

M

Not So “Callista”, This Callista

good cause

 

Callista Gingrich is slated to be appointed ambassador of the US to the Holy Sea.

From the linked article we know that she is active in the usual charitable activities, authors books about rediscovering God and writes stories for children. I am moved to tears, I tell you. 

We also know she was in an adulterous relationship with Gingrich for years, so I wonder what the children would think about that. I have never run a chariteee, but I have never run an adulterous relationship for years, either, so this makes me too boring to write a book called Rediscovering God In Other Men’s Marital Beds.  Actually, in my experience a lot of these charitee people are either appeasing their conscience, of they are managing to look good with other people’s money, or they use their activity to network and make a lot of extremely useful contacts.

Callista means, in old Greek, “the most beautiful” or “extremely beautiful”. In this case, nomen non est omen.  

So no, we are not in front of a role model here. However, this post is not about this. This post is about the role of the Catholic Callista Gingrich as the wife of the Catholic Newt Gingrich. 

The wife should stay at the side of her husband and be submissive to him. By marrying Newt Gingrich this is the role she, a Catholic woman, chose for herself. Instead, we have another case of “emancipated” aged Catholic who sends the message that it is fine to leave her husband one ocean behind, because feminism. If this is Catholicism, I am an elephant.   

This is wrong. The place of the wife is at the side of her husband, and the place of a prominent Catholic wife is at the side of her husband whilst she proclaims that it it should be so. Who does she think she is, Nancy “Botox” Pelosi? 

Don’t tell me that Newt has certainly approved. It does only make two wrong, but the wife who goes away from her husband the more so. However, this makes Newt a cuck, too. A man who does not even have her wife under control should not be allowed to run for President.  

This is another example of modern secular culture running counter to our traditional values, amidst the applause of the more or less Catholic press. Catholic values are defended by having wives in public positions publicly espousing and defending their Catholic role, not running the rat race.

Callista Gingrich should have publicly stated that, as a Catholic wife, her role is at the side of her husband. This would have sent a beautiful message and would have contributed to have her less than exemplary past seen in the light of a reformed woman. But what I see here is not this; what I see here is arrivism, power grab, and feminist attitude. This is, in fact, the same attitude that leads a woman in the bed of a married man and reach a position of prestige and eminence through this adulterous relationship. 

Callista Gingrich reminds me of Nilde Iotti. A smart woman for sure, she was a collaborator of Palmiro Togliatti, the head of the Italian Communist Party, and his mistress before Togliatti publicly ditched his wife for her. Nilde Iotti managed to make a prestigious political career for herself, but smart people always remembered what stood at the beginning of it all: the marital bed of a powerful man. But she was a Communist at least.  

One day, Callista Gingrich will run for senator.

I wonder if we will, then, get another book about “rediscovering God in Italy”.

M       

Peer Review In The Age Of Madness

equal opportunities

 

Breitbart has a very funny (though tragic at the same time) story about a hoax study passing peer review with flying colours.

The story just shows to what extremes madness is carried in the world of “social science”. There is, of course, nothing scientific in any of that. There is a rabid hate of everything that is traditional morality, pushed by people either living in very strong opposition to this morality of too afraid to oppose it in any way. In this particular case, the “peers” who reviewed the bogus document managed to dig themselves into an even deeper hole and make themselves even more ridiculous in the process.  

Will the “peers” lose their job because of manifest incompetence, pathological bias and congenital stupidity? Don’t bet your pint. In a world that revels in its fanaticism there is no point at which fanaticism become excessive, or sanity and competence required. 

Still, this little episode will contribute to opening the eyes of a number of people. The same, by the way, can be said for the other sectors in which bogus science is peddled everywhere: from global warming to the destruction of the forest, to the imminent death of the polar bear.

Enjoy the article.

Limitless Resources And Selective Starvation: A Small Guide To Dealing With Church Contributions.

Holy Trinity Catholic Church, Vienna

Clearly made to keep the faithful out: Holy Trinity catholic Church, Vienna

 

The funny blog post published on Father Z’s site   prompts me to some not so obvious, not so politically correct, and not so kind considerations. Read the post first if you want to avoid the spoiler below.  

—-

The particular building mentioned in Father’s post was built after a public appeal. The money collected was such that there was a lot to spare, which led to the extensive alabaster decoration inside. Put it simply, the Archbishop only had to ask, and it was given to him much more than he had asked. Even, I add, for the godless monster he then built to show the world how godless he was (and is, because the man still lives). You will also remember Cardinal Dolan mobilising around $140 millions in no time to restore the roof of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan.  

Moral of the stories: the Church has limitless resources. It’s not about how much money is in the bank account. It is about how much money can be received just for the asking. 

What does this tell us? That you don’t need to be afraid that good priests will ever starve, or there will be no money for the restoration of Catholic patrimony. However, this does not mean that you should finance a monster like the Los Angeles Cathedral, or atheists like Cardinal Mahony. 

My suggestion is this: starve the bad parishes and give your money to the good causes. The good causes may well be distant, the bad parish may well be near. It doesn’t matter. You help what is right, not what is near. 

The way a Catholic should react to the current confusion is to cause the closure of bad parishes and the thriving of good ones. Yes, up to a point wealthy donors will keep bad parishes alive; but only up to a point, as we keep seeing that whilst it is very easy to mobilise big money for big or prestigious projects, parishes out in the “peripheries” keep being closed.

There is, obviously, no guarantee this will end well. A bad bishop might be so stupid that he closes the thriving parish to keep the bad one open; but I bet most of them aren’t as dumb as that, because they understand the risks this involves. They know that in the modern world a Catholic will not hesitate to send his money to worthy Catholic causes in other nations, even on the other end of the earth, but punish him for closing down the good parishes. Not will he be able to mobilise his rich donors in every circumstance. For the Cathedral, easy. For the ugly Sixties church with no bell tower, not so much. 

The faithful do that (and you should do that) because the traditional idea that your parish should be helped first cannot stand in an age when your parish sabotages, rather than helping, Catholicism. Do they starve you of sensible, sane Catholicism? Starve them of their means of survival. Again: Cathedrals always find rich donors. Ugly parishes in the suburbs, not so much. 

Let your money talk. Do not be afraid that the Church might ever remain without money for the roof of the cathedrals, or for the restoration of old, beautiful churches. There will always be money for the indispensable, the very beautiful and the very visible. Give your money ad hoc  as much as you can to minimise the risk of misdirection (e.g. money for single, nominated projects: the new traditional vestments for the priests; for sanctuary renovations bringing them back to the old glory; for the new monstrance or tabernacle, etc.). 

But starve the horrible parish with the horrible liturgy. Make the bad priests unemployed (yes, a priest can be unemployed). Vote against V II with your wallet. Make the parish go down in flames. In time, the unavoidable shrinking of the Church will see more sane parishes surviving and a more than proportional extinction of the bad ones.   

Your cathedrals will not crumble. But you will contribute to the regeneration of the Church by voting with your wallet. 

Do not be impressed by the whining of your V II priests that the parish is dying. He had it coming, and so did the army of lecturer, assistants of the assistants, busybodies of all sorts, and their applauding (in church) smug audience.

Let them go the way of the Dodo. Make them see that their own stupidity has ended in self-extinction.

Church of Stupid must die. It is better to have less parishes, but with a greater content of Catholicism, than help V II to survive;

and your local dumbo priest be damned.

M  

 

   

 

 

 

Rome Life Forum: Talk Is Good, Action Is Better

The Rome Life Forum that is about to begin will be centred not only on the protection of the unborn life, but on the current crisis in the Church. This is good, as there can never be too much discussion about a Church that seems to have forgotten Her role and mission.

However, it gives one pause when one reads that among the participants will be some of those of whom concrete actions has been awaited for many months now, and who seem intentioned to renounce to it in favour of … more words. These two are, to wit, Cardinals Burke and Caffarra: two of those who, after announcing that they would defend the faith, have preferred to just wait for… no one knows exactly what reason.

A Cardinal's (and bishop's) job is not to participate to discussions about generic church problems, but to denounce them loud and clear with all the necessary consequences.

To see Cardinals who not only should have acted months ago, but who have announced that they would so just limit themselves to discussion rounds as if they were journalists or activists is extremely saddening, and gives you a clear picture of the scale of the crisis currently plaguing the Church.

It reminds me of “Life of Brian”, where the members of the revolutionary committee issue a resolution protesting the arrest of their member. However, in that case there was at least a resolution. In this case, the resolution was announced but never put in place.

Cardinal Caffarra and Cardinal Burke are gravely in arrears. More words will not wash. They must now do the right thing and openly condemn the heresies in Amoris Laetitia, accusing the Pope of dereliction of duty and promotion of heresy for refusing to answer the Dubia.

This and only this, not more abstract words of dissatisfaction and diffused clerical whining, is what is required of them. It is required of all bishops and Cardinals of course; but it is required of the Four Cardinals in the first place, as they have made themselves beautiful with the faithful announcing a vigorous defence of Church teaching whose concrete exercise we are still awaiting.

It's like someone announcing he would challenge the school bully and then doing nothing about it. He will probably be despised more than those who shut up from the start.

The time to participate to fora has now passed, at least for the Cardinals. They should remember why they dress in red and act accordingly.

Perhaps we will hear something about when the Cardinals are planning to act, but I will not hold my breath. At this point, I think the plan is to let the matter of the Dubia be quietly forgotten, with some lame excuse about the Pope not answering them, or the like.

Pray for the Cardinals, that they should not flee in front of the wolves.

As they have most certainly been doing up to now.

M

 

Defensive Carry In The Time of Jesus

Roman-Gladius-700x467

 

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

We are not told if the Disciples were carrying open or concealed. I suspect they did both according to the occasion. On this particular occasion, only two out of eleven (Judas already gone, and he would not count anyway) were actually carrying. On other occasions they must have been more, because it is obvious that the Disciples here count the armed ones among them on that particular day.

Of these two, one would make a defensive use of his sword before long. 

These swords were, methinks, like the Roman gladius: a short but lethal sword, easy to carry and to use for short quarters combat, and therefore very apt for a defensive urban use. They clearly weren’t daggers, either. The word sword is not equivocal.    

Our Lord does not object to his disciples’ carrying in the least. Actually, he says to them they should carry more. No, actually I think he says all of them should carry.  Their right to keep and bear arms should, very obviously,  not be infringed. The Second Amendment is so very evangelical. 

Thought I would mention this blatant disregard of Our Lord for any form of arm control and, in fact, strong encouragement to defensive carry.

I am sure Hillary & Co. are very disappointed. 

M

 

The “Dreamer God”: Francis Goes Gaga

imagine

 

In his catechesis during today’s Wednesday audience Pope Francis called God in the grammatical present “a dreamer who dreams about the transformation of the world”. At the same time he claimed that God “has realised the transformation of the world in the mystery of the resurrection.”

This is drunk nonsense even for the standard of The Francis.

God in His Providence has made the world in the way the world it is supposed to be made. Whatever sinfulness there is in it, God has providentially allowed it in order to make a greater good emerge out of it. God has not created a faulty toy of which He dreams it would work properly. God does not sighs about a perfect world whilst he listens to John Lennon’s “Imagine”. God is not only Omniscient, but Omnipotent. There is no “dreaming” in Him. There is no separation between what things are and what He would have them to be, if He only could. God has allowed the Fall as He has allowed all the rest, from the Holocaust to… Pope Francis. 

The Death and Resurrection of Our Lord, which the man mentions without having any idea of what he is talking about, is exactly the way through which this faulty existence and fallen nature – which is by no means meant to go away – is given the possibility of redemption. It isn’t the shaping of a new earth. It isn’t a promise of an earth in which hounds and foxes say “good night” to each other before going to sleep. It isn’t the promise of a paradise on earth. On the contrary, Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life we must follow exactly because of the fundamental flaw we had since birth: Original Sin. The reality of Original Sin is not going to change. Therefore, the reality of evil is not going to go away, either.

The reality of sinfulness due to the Fall has been, once again, allowed by God, with all the consequences and all the sins, all the injustices and all the atrocities; not only from the beginning to the end of time, but from all eternity.

Dreams of fundamental transformation of this world are the most obvious indication of lack of faith in the next one.    

What we once again see here is a stupid, ignorant old bloke who never understood jack of anything Catholic and keeps going around spreading sugary nonsense for adolescent cretins like, no doubt, he once was (I mean by that that he is not an adolescent anymore).

There is in him no concept whatsoever of Providence. There is clearly no belief in the Original Sin. Therefore, there is no explanation for the evil in the world. On the contrary, there is this completely bonkers idea of God standing there like a spot-plagued teenager, dreaming of a better world. This is part of the humanisation and banalisation of absolutely everything that has been a trademark of this disgraceful Papacy. 

“Imagine” was an openly atheist song. It had to be, as the Christian vision of the world and of the fallen human nature is radically opposed to Lennon’s and Francis’ idea of radical transformation of the human being, and of the possibility of creating a paradise of social justice and harmony on earth, if he only behave. There will always be injustice, there will always be conflict, there will always be evil in the world. At the root of the evil is not human laziness, but the serpent.

The reality of the Fall will be part of the human condition for as long as the world exists. All this escapes Francis. He is aligned with John Lennon instead.    

Francis is not only stupid. He is clearly either an atheist or a person so confused about God that he thinks Him a sort of Dalai Lama In The Sky, prisoner of all sort of sentimental rubbish. 

The ignorance of this man should be an embarrassment to every Catholic. Unfortunately, it seems that around 6000 bishops prefers to keep schtum about it, lest their career should suffer. 

M

 

 

 

Medjugorje And No End Of Deception, Opportunism And Confusion

Regina Caeli, Ora pro nobis

 

 

The news is everywhere so I am sure you will be able to find the links yourselves: the Medjugorje commission has given the most ambiguous, non-answering answer to the scam of Medjugorje, and the CDF has countered with its own, far more critical document.

Alas, the Church of V II appears to have only one commandment: Thou Shall Not Offend.

The commission bent over backward in the most extraordinary way, dividing the apparitions in two groups: the first set of “unannounced” alleged apparitions and the industry of the thousand of alleged apparitions afterwards. In the first case, the majority (but not all, as Church Militant tell us it’s necessary) of the members consider the apparitions supernatural. There is no conclusion of constat de supernaturalitate, because – again, according to what CM reports – for that unanimity would be required. Therefore, even the first apparitions do not pass the test.

The second set is destroyed as expected, though even in this case our heroes stop short of issuing a constat de non supernaturalitate. Rather, it seems to me the conclusion is non constat de supernaturalitate, but I will have to read more in detail.

In a third stunning turn of event, it is proposed to examine the possibility of making of the place a sanctuary, under control of the Vatican, because Medjugorje would encourage “spirituality” and blabla. Apart from the obvious rebellion of following a fake Blessed Virgin who says uncatholic things against the open condemnation of two bishops, with this train of thought the Church should establish Lutheran sanctuaries in all important places of Lutheranism (Erfurt, Wartburg, Worms, the lot) as there is no doubt Lutheranism has produced many very pious men and women.

The entire document is an exercise in absurdity: it implies the possibility that people may 1) see the Blessed Virgin and 2) subsequently be deceived by the devil, or by their own stupidity, or by greed, or by vain glory. This is too stupid for words: any real apparition of the Blessed Virgin must be a transformative experience, it being inconceivable that the Blessed Virgin would appear to people of which she must know they will seed heresy and confusion afterwards. “Let’s appear to these people”, this fantasy blessed virgin would think. “They will exploit me for decades afterwards and deceive countless people, but hey, it’s on them…” . Do the bishops not see how insulting and utterly stupid this is?

These obvious truths seem to escape most of the bishops in the commission, but they actually don’t. What is happening here is a shameless attempt to find something good in a scam, because an awful lot of people who deem themselves spiritual happen to believe in it.

Don’t insult your intelligence thinking that these bishops have been deceived. They are, as they always do, going with the flow, and are avoiding to rock a boat that would cause cries of indignation from a multitude of dumb fanatics in great need of a doctor and a reality check. Heck, Medjugorje is too stupid even for Pope Francis, what else do you need to persuade yourself of its absurdity!

What the bishops want to do is, in the best case, to embrace the crap, put it under the church’s umbrella and let it slowly die of neglect and starvation and, in the worst case, to ride this easy wave of “spirituality”. This is wrong and cowardly. Deception must be denounced as such, instead of allowing countless souls to keep deceiving themselves.

A sanctuary for an apparition which is not acknowledged is truly too absurd even for this pontificate.

Then you can just as well made a sanctuary of both the Santiago Bernabeu and the Juventus stadium because millions of football enthusiasts are praying for Real Madrid’s or Juventus’ victory in the Champions League’s final. Really, the level of cowardice in front of every group of organised lunatics has reached levels unthinkable only some years before.

But then again no cardinals and only one bishop have spoken against Amoris Laetitia, so this is par for the course.

M

 

 

 

 

 

Banalising God: The Ikea Wall Clock As Monstrance

17_05_13_Fatima_monstrance

 

Forgive me if I am saying something wrong here, but I always thought that a Monstrance had to be splendid. Not nice. Not beautiful. Splendid.

This is, very obviously, because the fact that the Monstrance is destined to carry the Blessed Sacrament has as obvious corollary that no material can be too precious, no design too elaborate, no expenses can be deemed excessive.

In the end, the Monstrance – even the most elaborate – will always be the palest attempt at conveying the Preciousness of its content. Still, the more precious it is, the less unworthy the attempt. 

I now see on Father Z’s blog the photo reproduced above, of the “propeller-monstrance” used in Fatima last weekend and carried by the Evil Clown himself.

What immediately strikes me as evident is not the ugliness of the design, but the banalisation of the object and, by reflection, the downplaying of its sacred content. Vatican II and, the more so, its latest version on steroids, aims at taking the divine out of the Church. In the same way as Francis keeps insulting the Blessed Virgin as an ignorant girl of the people, which not only banalises but outright protestantises the way the Church sees the Blessed Virgin, he does the same with this monstrance; which, though certainly made of silver, could be any frame of a domestic clock for people who never learned subtlety.

The design wants to be everyday decoration. The material wants to look like everyday metal. There is nothing here of the exceptional effort, immediately visible to the onlooker, that said “the importance of what is contained here is such that no contained could be too precious”. No, this here looks like an Ikea wall clock that has been dismounted to put a huge host in its place.  

The sabotaging of everything that the Church is and believes is not only made of off-the-cuff speeches and heretical homilies. It is also visual as visible symbols are very apt to convey theological meanings, a fact of which the Church has made the most wonderful use during the centuries. These visual symbols are now demolished one by one: banal and horrible croziers, the demise of the tiara or the sedia gestatoria, the refusal to wear appropriate papal dresses and, now, the extreme banalisation of even the monstrance containing the Blessed Sacrament. It starts with communion in the hand, it ends with the Ikea monstrance.  

To Francis and his people nothing is sacred. Everything must be banalised and reduced to your everyday experience. The Blessed Virgin didn’t know what was happening. She was, perhaps, angry at God under the Cross. Laudetur Jesus Christus must be substituted for buonasera.  The Blessed Sacrament is shown in an Ikea decoration article. 

But woe to the one who builds a wall to keep illegals and criminals out. 

M

 

   

 

 

 

Rabbi (Way) More Catholic Than The Pope

Photo-20161214180953952.jpg

 

Gloria TV  reports a surreal interview with, of all people, a US Rabbi giving The Francis and the entire Conciliar church a lesson in Catholicism. 

You might say that this is an infidel and that he should convert first, but this is not the issue. The issue is that the decay of the Catholic Church and “the dismantling of the Catholic faith in the aftermath of the [second] Vatican council” is now so evident, so blatantly obvious that even a Rabbi can easily recognise and denounce it whilst looking with some longing (of sort) at the proud, uncompromising church of the past. Strangely, all the while hordes of flip-flop clad Catholics keep clapping and applauding in the church as they feel so, so good for having showed up at the self-celebratory gathering. 

At some point the heresies and blasphemies of Francischurch will be visible from Mars. For the moment, they are visible even to people capable of denying the divinity of Our Lord.

It is as if a policeman were so astonishingly corrupt that even the criminals lament the good old times of the honest cop, when the world still followed its own God-given order.

M  

 

 

 

 

Keep It Simple

noose (2)

Every now and then I read strange stories about executions in the US. Things like executions being “rushed through” because the substance used to execute the criminal is about to expire.

It all seems absurd to me. 

It is as if a criminal had a sort of right to be executed in the most painless, safe, clinically proven method possible. Such a right has never existed, not should it. 

Either it is unjust to condemn a criminal to the death penalty, or it isn’t. Catholic doctrine has always said it is justified when the circumstances are sufficiently serious. That’s it. Besides the obvious necessity of not choosing a method unnecessarily painful, there is no obligation to go the extra ten miles to make the experience of being executed extremely complicated and extremely expensive, by the way offering to the defence attorneys countless ways to try to delay the (allegedly) inevitable.

In more Christian times all these problems did not exist.  One got either shot or hanged, and that was that. In the Papal States, civilians normally got hanged, though apparently it was not always that way (Tosca‘s Cavaradossi gets a firing squad for an execution that should be fake, but isn’t; it might be poetic licence as he wasn’t a military man, I don’t know). 

Either way, it wasn’t very long, and anyone who wanted to avoid the short suffering that was necessary merely had to avoid being executed. Often, the criminal would die instantly or almost instantly. But honestly, it isn’t too much to ask, say, a murderer to wait thirty second before dying. Tough luck, boy (or girl). You should have thought about it before.

In the Age of Effeminacy, this seems to be too much.  The entire kindergarten assembles and decides what is the absolutely darnedest safest way to execute one. Why?

Murder = noose. This is what the kindergarten needs to be told. In the Papal States, young boys were made to assist to public executions, and no Nazi social worker crying “child abuse” in sight. 

You see a man being hanged. It sits. Which is exactly what is supposed to happen. 

Life is a simple thing, but the loss of faith makes everything complicated. Suddenly innocent children can be murdered in the womb in the most atrocious way, but condemned criminals have every right to the most immaculate white gloves, foxes become more precious that babies, and the planet God has created becomes endangered by one of his most diffused components, which is most certainly not a pollutant.

Poppycock.

Let us learn from our very Catholic forefathers, and from our extremely saintly  Popes of the past.

Get a noose and a priest, and be done with it.

M  

Dilbert Blasphemes Climate Change

Oh my, I hope Scott Adams goes around armed….

dilbert

The Queen Of Vatican Communications

Below Father Martin has a list of very correct things said about him. I wanted to share this as, seen that Father Martin wants the world to know what kind of tool he is, I thought I would help him. However, notice that I do not approve of the use of the word “gay” to mean a sodomite. 

This disgraceful individual, this pathetic queen in priestly clothes, truly embodies everything that is wrong with FrancisChurch. 

Pray for his immortal soul, that he may avoid burning in hell forever. 

Just avoid betting your pint that he will. 

M

 

%d bloggers like this: