Author Archives: Mundabor
It is a fine morning in the Eternal City, and the Bishop of Rome has just finished his very merciful rest. Soon the air will be filled with the fragrance of Spring; but alas, we are not there yet.
The Bishop of Rome dresses himself, and then meets the homosexual priest that runs the establishment where he occupies an entire floor. Some words occur between the two. One has a strong South American accent, the other a somewhat high pitch. A homosexual, this one. Several scandals already. Francis is not at all disturbed. He likes the company of perverts.
Francis says his morning prayers, obviously without counting Hail Marys, because he doesn’t like it at all. He uses a small crucifix that has been with him many years now. He has stolen it from the cold hands of a dead priest. He holds the crucifix in his hands every day, and the thought does not disturb him at all. What a smart move that was.
Today, Francis has a guest. An Argentinian Rabbi. The man is often a guest these days. They chat a lot. The man refuses Christ every day, and seems intentioned to die in his refusal. Is Pope Francis fazed by this? Not in the least. He pays attention that the man eats kosher, a subject matter in which he is rather fit. He leaves the discussions about the “details” to the theologians. Hey, the man believes “in God”! OK, this does not include the Son or the Holy Ghost, and can therefore, strictly speaking, not even include the Father. But who cares? These are “details” about which theologians quarrel, not him.
He moves along and starts to walk toward the Papal Apartments, where he has his office and a second (unoccupied; because of his humility, see…) apartment. He throws a glance out of a magnificent window, at a distant building where some of the calligraphers worked. There were many of them, sending beautifully written papal blessings to newlywed couples, and the like. A nice business, too, and a very pious one. What a joy for a newlywed bride to see on the wall, beautifully framed, the papal blessing for what will now be the care and vocation – and the tears, and the sorrow perhaps – of her entire life. But Francis didn’t like it. “Have I got rid all those people?” He thinks. “I sure remember they were supposed to be unemployed come January? Better ask the secretary, I think”. Yes, Holy Father. Think. Where can a calligrapher find another job as a calligrapher in a place like Rome? Hundreds, all or pretty much all of them, you wanted to make redundant. In a city where this means a tragedy for the entire family. Did you do that in the end? Was that so evil a profession? Sorry, I am talking at the clouds. Yes, Francis did want to make all of them redundant. he was not at all disturbed.
Francis arrives at the office, and meets a Cardinal very near to him. This Cardinal is accused – publicly, for all the world to see – of having stolen almost 200 copies of a book he did not want as many bishops to receive. A heist, and a criminal energy, for which in Italy he would realistically expect a conviction, and very possibly home jail time straight away. Francis knows of the accusation, because it’s everywhere in Catholic circles. The Thieving Cardinal, people say. Francis smiles at the thought of the Cardinal making so many copies of that horribly sanctimonious book disappear. Ah, the derring-do! The chutzpah! He likes that! “Hmmmm, I will ask him if he has ordered the heist. If he says no, that’s it. If he says yes and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
He is now about to open his diary (in Italian: agenda) and is reminded that he has said marriage for priests is, actually, there. “I’ll have to discuss this soon”, he thinks. “If a would-be priest wants pussy, who am I to judge?”
He sees the programme for the next days, and is angered that there is nothing very fit for the media all week. “I will have to do something”, he thinks. “Let us see whom I can receive. Hhmmmm… Hmmm… Pro-homo priest? No, done that. Concubines with fruit of sin who want to be married? Hhmmm, no, used that already, too. Phone call with adulterer who wants communion? Ouch, that too! Then an interview with Scalfari perhaps? We could make another book of it! Salvation for atheists, conscience as substitute for Christianity! I like that! Or, I could meet a Trannie? No, wait…Ah, I got it! Anti-fracking, proto-comunistas activists! Oh no! Got that too!!
Then comes the meeting with Father Rosica. The man has threatened to sue a poor Catholic blogger and family father. The blogosphere is aflame. But hey, why would this bother him… “
¿Como estas, Tom?” No, better not touch the issue. People will forget. All this mess for a Canadian chap. A churchgoer. Blah! Whatever. Who cares.
The meeting with Rosica ends, and Francis remains alone. He throws a glance at St Peter’s Square, below. The masses have long disappeared. Less and less people want to see him. He has tried everything, even the showers for the homeless. But nothing. He can’t keep embracing wheelchairs anymore; even at Patheos they have had enough.
Oh, come on. Something will be found. It’s just a momentary dip. Perverts love him. Communists love him. Abortionists love him. Environmentalists love him. Why should he be bothered with these sanctimonious people smelling of holy water? Cazzo!
Oops! He did it again! He must pay attention. Once already it slipped, and he got the benefit of the doubt. A second time would be a mess. These damn hypocrites, always out to find fault! Ca… aargh!
So thinks our man, Francis, the Humble Bishop, and goes back to his splendid desk.
We leave him there, in a fine Roman morning.
A day in the age of Mercy.
Firstly a short premise: I do not approve of Sedevacantism. Sedevacantist comments are not allowed. If I see that your comments aim at pushing – overtly or covertly – a Sedevacantist agenda, you will be banned. Some have already tested me in that and you do not read their comments anymore, so there. In these things, one must be a Fascist. Yours Truly does Fascism well.
Having said that, some Sedes have quality sites, to which I link as little as I can, but at times I think are worth linking to.
One of these is Novus Ordo Watch; who, it must be said, make an admirable work (if from the wrong premise) of collection and exposure of Bergoglio’s madness. I am sure many of their readers are not Sedevacantists, and visit the site because of the quality of the content itself.
This time they have some very interesting content from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro. Gnocchi writes a comment in response to a reader, and this comment developed to a kind of article in itself.
Your humble correspondent identifies almost completely in what Gnocchi says, with only two small observations:
1. It can be misleading to say that “we cannot say” whether Bergoglio is Pope or not. Bergoglio is the Pope, period. What I think Gnocchi wanted to say is that we are nobody to start questioning the legitimacy of the one whom the Church considers the Pope.
2. I do know why we are being punished with Bergoglio, and Gnocchi says as much implicitly when he says in Bergoglio the (earthly) Church has the Pope she deserves. We are being punished for our sins of arrogance and rebellion to Truth. As I have already stated, it is as if the Lord would ram down our throat a big quantity of the very excrements we thought would be wholesome in smaller doses. If you liked V II, why, you must love Bergoglio!
Please click the site, enjoy the article, and do not be influenced by the Sedevacantist argument.
V II stated, in a way, the principle that Catholic drugs are fine, thinking that this would be limited to the marijuana as everything else was unthinkable. Then a Pope comes who has lived his entire life in this marijuana-filled atmosphere and reasons that hey, we must take this seriously here: if drugs are fine, then… drugs are fine. What follows is injections of heroin like it’s Catholic Junkie Day.
Bergoglio is recognisable as a Catholic only when he reads statements written by Catholics. He himself is as much Catholic as my cat. Can a Pope be as bad as that? Of course he can! Many have certainly become Pope who were atheists in every cell. The Holy Ghost does not assure that the Pope will have fear of the Lord, or believe in Him.
Gnocchi is also right in the disastrous Ratzinger attitude, and in saying that another Ratzinger would, at this point, not stop the decline and decomposition at all.
The day Benedict dies, I do not think he will have to fear for having resigned. But he must live with the fear of being punished for the way he has wasted eight years of Pontificate thinking that a varnish of orthodoxy and Summorum Pontificum would be enough, whilst he proceeded to the most atrocious appointments to please the Modernist crowd around him.
The Gnocchi Reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
“Will God accept being put to the side like a useless toy for much longer?”
These are the last, ominous words of a beautiful article appeared in Riscossa Cristiana, and beautifully translated courtesy of Francesca Romana at Rorate Caeli.
I invite you to follow the link and to read there the entire article.
You will find, there, several other ominous statements. The most beautiful is from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro:
“We will find ourselves more and more faced with someone who professes to speak to us in the name of God by telling us that we have no need of Him.”
Gnocchi is right. But I do not want to spoil the fun. Enjoy Marco Bongi’s explanation of why this is the case.
Our clergymen have forgotten God. They worship the world and, ultimately, themselves.
It will all end up…
View original 4 more words
In the wake of the October Synod, around 200 copies of the well-known “Remaining in the Truth of Christ” are sent to as many bishop using the Italian postal service. Only two or three reach their addressees, all the others simply disappear.
Whatever you want to say of the Italian postal service: no, it isn’t as bad as that, at all.
Now a journalist, Manfred Ferrari, has information, and makes names: the books have obviously arrived to the Vatican post office, and have been stolen from there to prevent them from being handed to the Bishops.
The journalist makes the name of the person allegedly behind it: Cardinal Baldisseri.
This, my dear reader, is theft, and who has organised this is a thief. Let us see what Cardinal Baldisseri has to say about this, if he deigns to say a word after such a grave episode, and such grave accusations of what must be, even in Argentina (but perhaps not in Bergoglioland?), a very grave offence.
What kind of people these apostles of mercy are! Bullying hypocrites like Father Rosica; vulgar thugs like his Basilian confrere, Father Scott; and now apparently even thieves, not ashamed of stealing en masse from their own bishops!
But then again what do you expect when the Merciful In Chief is a man who brags of stealing a crucifix from the hands of a dead man, and considers such feat absolutely brilliant and worthy of a wink-wink of admiration.
What a walking canalisation these people are. And the brashness, the sheer arrogance of how they go on about their business, safe in the knowledge of the protection of their own disgraceful superiors, is what angers the most.
Whoever did this did not do it to help the line of the five Cardinals (read: Catholicism). Whoever did this must have been high enough to be able to order something like that and enforce obedience. Whoever did this either did it with Francis’ explicit approval, or he did it in the knowledge that upon knowing the facts Francis would have smiled on his “entrepreneurial spirit”.
A bunch of bullies, boors, and thieves. Starting from the very top. This is the Vatican as we write the year of the Lord 2015.
I have found on the Internet this very useful reflection on defamation lawsuits. Mind, the language is very explicit.
This article is written by a U.S. Criminal defence attorney, and it is aimed at outlets based in the US. It is, I think, useful for every reader, but it should be of particular interest for bloggers of US based blogs.
By delving into the subject matter you will find interesting consideration about what is “libel”, and for example learn that the “a” word (“you are an a-word”) is, in general, opinion and not actionable. A second interesting takeaway is that a blogger generally does not answer for libellous comments on his combox. A third one is that the libel is seen in the contest of the article, say: the use of the expression “Father Rosica must be on cocaine” is allowed if the context makes clear this is an hyperbole or a way to express surprise, without the intention of letting his readers believe that Father Rosica, in actual fact, sniffs.
Similarly, rhetorical figures like (to make an example): “Father Rosica has already shown his tongue has an uncanny ability to reach the strangest places of people who can can help him to honours and favours” only express in a hyperbolic way the writer’s opinion that Father Rosica is an ecclesiastical ladder climber, ready and willing to host and praise excommunicated priests if he thinks they have friends in high places who can be useful to him.
Please click the link, get over the language, and educate yourself a bit over a matter about to become more frequently discussed in the months leading to the Synod.
There are further links there, that I will follow when time allows.
A prayer for this potty-mouthed but rather useful attorney is, I think, fully in order.
A Basilian, father Timothy Scott, the spokesman of the order for Canada, tweets “STFU” to a Cardinal. He retracts, but still…
Another Basilian, Father Rosica, threatens to sue a poor Catholic blogger for being Catholic.
This justifies a question for Father Rosica: should Cardinal Burke, then, sue Father Scott?
The question should be posed to him without accepting any deflection: “he did a horrible thing, for which he apologised”, doesn’t wash, because it’s not the answer. By the by, Rosica said he reserves the right to sue even if get apologies from Mr Domet for having reminded him of the Catholic religion, so that doesn’t wash twice.
Let us see the question again:
what does Father Rosica think: would it be right if Cardinal Burke sued Father Scott?
I hope at the next press conference hosted by Father Rosica someone will ask this and several other questions related to the man.
Enough with moneylenders in the temple.
Fr Scott, the man who tweeted the STFU to Cardinal Burke and retracted after abundant protest from Twitter readers, has resigned (or… was resigned) as spokesman of the Basilian Order in Canada.
I do not know how many Basilians there are in Canada, but certainly there are two too many: this one here and, of course, Father Rosica.
We had a positive development in this matter. Let us see what happens in the other one.
Who knows: Father Rosica might decide to come out as a Presbyterian after all.
Ex Magno Silentio has the bomb, and the Catholic News Service has the evidence: less than 10,000 people wanted to know what Francis has to say, or at least see the former celebrity. And that, on Ash Wednesday. Sad.
The key of what is happening is in the title itself of CNS’s article:
“Pope: Liberty, equality can turn selfish, unfair without brotherly love”.
Here you have all the issues in one phrase: secular waffle, stupid slogans, vague appeal to feelings, and no mention of Catholicism.
Not surprising at all. The rubbish you can hear from this man day in and day out can be read from every leftist newspaper all over Europe, and from every liberal outlet the other side of the pond. And after receiving and abetting fags and trannies, he can now only get some headlines with dog-screwers.
This man will soon be an embarrassment even to Fr Rosica. People will deny having ever liked him. “Francis? No! I was saying from the start that there was something wrong with him!”
The hype has gone. The “Francis effect” is in front of our eyes, though it is not what was hoped.
Francis is officially out of fashion.
It is a well known fact that those preaching “inclusion” are the first ones to exclude those they don’t like. They are pretty numerous nowadays. There is the Canadian Basilian (like Father Rosica: they must learn thuggery in the seminary…) who offends Cardinal Burke most brutally for… being an orthodox Catholic; then we have the already mentioned Father Rosica, whose “mercy” apparently includes attacking poor family fathers for pointing out he has insulted the Holy Father and blasphemed Christ; let us not forget Cardinal Wuerl suddenly putting orthodox Catholics in the same boat as dissenters, and obviously Francis constantly reminding us how very bad unnamed good Catholics can be. All this, in the last couple of weeks or so.
It seems, therefore, to me that “inclusion” is now a favourite buzzword of people who want to kick Catholics out of the church, pretty much as it happened in Arian times. Starting, of course, from the Bishop of Rome himself, to whom stinking of perversion is apparently better than having an ordered life obviously committed to Catholic values.
But let see this word again: inclusion. Is inclusion really a value?
Does a flag include all the others? When you stand up and sing your national anthem, are you “including” everyone else? Does your rooting for a certain team “include” the rooting for their rivals? What about associations, circles, clubs of all kind: why do they exist in the first place?
The truth of the matter is that it is simply not possible to define us as something without automatically excluding all those who are something else. Those who tell you they “love everyone” do not really love anyone, but themselves. Those who say they are “world citizen” do not love their flag, do not love any flag.
To be Catholic is to have a certain set of beliefs. Automatically, this excludes those who do not share these beliefs or actively betray them. There can be no escape from this reality. There can be no “inclusiveness” of this sort, ever. Neither do New York Yankees fans “include” Red Sox fans in their rooting, or Lazio fans include Rom fans, or Chelsea fans Arsenal fans. You are either here or there. You can’t be and not be something. You must make a choice.
This express will of “overcoming differences” (seen very often in Francis, albeit in him it might be evil intent rather than simple stupidity) pretends to forget that pretty much everything is defined exactly by its differences with everything else. You can’t be Christian and Muslim. You can’t be Catholic and Protestant. You can’t be right and wrong.
The Church must never aim at including. The Church must aim at converting. You are different from me, and this is not ok at all! You are different from me, and I want you to renounce to the differences and become like me! You are wrong, and I want you to be right!
None of this can be “inclusive”. The club accepts those who are fit to become members and share the club’s values. It cannot be any differently.
Even the apostles of “inclusion” never dream of “including” Traditionalist in their (hopefully not lewd) embrace. They know very well that there are differences. They practice themselves what they condemn in us. They aren’t more “inclusive” than Chelsea or Yankee fans are of Manchester City and Red Sox fans. They write Tweets to you with “STFU”, not “we welcome and include your inspired and candid approach”. They want to shut you up all right. They might even sue you to keep you out!
No. Inclusion is a fable made to fool the gullible. It is always here or there.
We are here. Francis and his likes are there. There can be no inclusion.
I am against inclusion. I am one of the least inclusive chaps you’ll ever meet.
I want conversion, not inclusion.
We live now in an age in which a huge number of Catholics slowly begin to approach their grave. Many of them, who grew up in the Sixties, will go to their grave without ever knowing the old school Catholicism, the era not only of sanity, but of splendour that went to an end in 1958.
There is no doubt that hell is threatening many of these souls, letting Satan anticipate a harvest without precedents in the West in twenty centuries. It is, in fact, another sign of the madness of the times that many of those so endangered think that they will be fine, because they are such nice neighbours and do some “charitable” work without knowing what charity even is. Many others seem to think that people who have never been properly instructed can keep going against the teaching of the Church unpunished because hey, they did not have good priests; which lets one think that if this is true, the best thing to do is to have horrible ones.
No. Either this generation runs the concrete risk of being punished very hard, or all the preceding ones were wrong in caring about salvation – and about orthodoxy, and proper instruction – the way they did.
Some might say that these scattered sheep must now be gathered with gentle, soothing words; with a softly-softly approach that does not cause them to reject the Church altogether; with a gentle reminder that says look, one should think whether our forefathers were perhaps right, and whether the modern thinking has brought the expected results after all.
In my eyes, the softly-softly approach is what has scattered the sheep in the first place, and it is therefore not smart at all to think that more of this will have any other result than to scatter them further. Conversion must be primed. It must be primed by a sort of fuse, a switch, an internal turmoil that suddenly stops the wrong thinking in its path and encourages, or forces, a person to think in a radically different way.
One thinks abortion is unpleasant, but hey, at times you gotta do what you gotta do. He supports abortion laws, and finds opposition to it unrealistic, unenforceable, or “dangerous for the women forced to abort illegally” (I seldom hear the argument of the “poor heroin addicts forced to drug themselves illegally”, by the way). Another thinks the condemnation of fornication is the residue of another time; a third thinks the Church is wrong on “the gays” and should “celebrate diversity” instead. I could go on and on.
Do you think such people, already dulled by years of wrong thinking, are going to be impressed – much less converted – by those inviting them to a kind of “slightly different approach”? No. What they need is a far more brutal experience. Something like, so to speak, the Mundabor experience.
The chap above sees photos of aborted foetuses; Or he hears abortion called murder; or he is told very clearly: you are a fool if you think you are not in grave danger of hell. He reads the brutal facts about Sodoms. He is confronted with serious warnings. Truth looks at him straight in the face.
Most importantly, he realises that all that he reads is nothing new; that it is, in fact, very old; that it is what his forefathers have always believed, what the West is largely founded upon. This new approach cannot be merely suggested. Suggestions rarely lead to 180 degrees change of direction. The new approach – which is the very old one – must be smashed on the face of the reader; with charity and compassion, yes; but smashed on his nose entirely anyway.
This is, I think, what has the best probability of starting, in time, a thinking process. Being knocked out of what is today called the “comfort zone” is, very often, a necessary condition for a real change of thinking. Let people be angry at first. Immediate conversions are extremely rare. But push down his throat a seed that will never be forgotten; that will stay there for years, abiding its time; and will perhaps start to germinate when, perhaps many years later, a traumatic event occurs: a bereavement, or loss of health, or of financial security. Something which leads one to look for a new basis of his existence. When the time comes, the seed will be there.
The preachers of old, who thundered about hell like there is no tomorrow, knew that people would – in most cases – not go home and start a new life. What they knew is that the shock would be remembered, and kept in storage until, with God’s grace, the time when it would be allowed to bear fruit.
This is why the Church has continued to lose Western churchgoers under Benedict. Benedict was no earthquake. He wasn’t the “old religion”. He did not move anyone to assist to Traditional Latin Papal Mass in awe – which he never celebrated – and he therefore did not move people to suddenly, brutally come in contact with a completely different reality: with the old, and therefore completely new to them, ball game.
Those who succeed are those who go all out. Padre Pio slapped people. Joan of Arc inflamed them. Savonarola – with all his excesses – still made them wish to be more like Christ. You can’t set people’s hearts in flames without a flamethrower. They will not experience a deep change in their outlook merely because of you politely suggesting they do so.
I will never forget my relief – confused non-practicing Catholic as I then was; with so much rubbish in my head I want to cry if I only think about it – at knowing, from Internet sites first clicked in the now distant 2005, that “the old religion” still existed! That there were, in fact, people around – laymen, people like you and I – talking like my Grandmas did, and like I had never heard one priest, not one, in my entire life talking!
I had been encouraged for so many years to downplay the Truth, from the very people who should have taught it to me, that it was like discovering an old food you told out of market has never being discontinued. It was people like you and me, going on the Internet and saying “stop being bamboozled by half words and half wishes! This.Is.The.Truth! And yes, I cannot deny that it was also my fault that I was lapsed. But I was never encouraged not to lapse, in a time when priests did not even care to tell you you must go to Mass.
I do not say to you that my change was immediate. The discovery set up a process that led to that pleasant thought – there is still, out there, that old religion! – being thought more and more often, and become in time a desire to know more of it; and, in time, a need to be nourished by it; and with, it the need to be again near it, in church, as it used to be as a child. It was some time before I even found the courage to go to General Confession, and many a time I attended Mass without Communion before that. I was also lucky, that the church was the Brompton Oratory. What a treasure a properly Catholic church is!
But you see: many times even a gradual process starts with some big discovery: that Catholicism, as it used to be, is still alive and kicking among the common people.
There is no way to sweeten this pill, unless it be by saying that membership is open to anyone who takes the club seriously. Truth must said whole, and the truth said whole will make you go “ouch!” before it sets you free.
This is why this blog is so blunt, and why I wish there were many more blunt blogs, particularly in the English speaking world. To awaken people from their one-world torpor, weak slogans and ambiguous words are not enough.
They will likely need a Mundabor experience.
Via Call me Jorge, I republish this wonderful work from Miles Christi,
This beautiful work is not a collection of comments or articles, but it has countless quotes from the man himself, all with references and Internet links. The document goes on for twelve pages. How much work went into it I do not even want to think. It is updated to 2 December 2014; which means, in two words, pre-Rabbitgate time.
In order to properly understand TMAHICH and his mentality I quote another pearl from this man, also mentioned by Call me Jorge:
- Francis in 7 December 2014 interview –
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
This video is another example of all the wrong things going on in Francis’ mind.
Can you imagine a Pope of the past severing the hands of a child joint in prayer! It is disturbing to even think of a father doing this to his son, and no child with some sense of religion would do the same to another child. To Francis, this is worth doing before the cameras.
Look at the video attentively. The child has his hands joint in prayer. Francis talks to him and seems to ask him whether his hands are incollate, which means “glued together”. The child insists on keeping his hands joint. At this point Francis proceeds to severe by applying a certain amount of gentle but unmistakable force. It seems clear to me the child still does not want to disjoint his hands, and it is only the force…
View original 592 more words
You will ask why no nonsense from Francis was published today.
The answer is that it appears the man has gone in mini-retreat in Ariccia, a nice place outside Rome (note here: not Castengandolfo; that’s too much “Renaissance Prince”), with some of his bravi.
This one being a Jesuit, it is sold as a “penitential retreat”. Which, seen that we aren’t stupid, means that it is a strategic retreat to discuss in peace and without unwanted ears with his fedelissimi about what to do in the months to come.
I am often a tad too optimist, but I smell the pungent atmosphere of the film “The Downfall” here. Please consider that for one Cardinal Sarah who shoots with the cannon in all openness, there will be many who let their more discreet, but no less clear message come to the ear of the Unholy Father: you are playing with fire, and you won’t get away with it.
What to do, then? Continue with the “offensive of mercy” and hope both the bishops and the laity decide it’s the convenient thing to do, therefore they will support Francis? Or elaborate an elegant exit plan, by which the social issues and bla bla are slowly allowed to completely take the place of the Communion For Adulterers row?
We shall see.
Ariccia is very famous for two things: the porchetta and the bridge. The first is a traditional pork roast, of which the place is the undisputed capital. The second is a very tall, actually beautiful bridge, once notorious (and still known) for the suicides, and aptly called by the people “ponte dei suicidi”.
I do not doubt Francis will sample with gusto from the first. As to the second, no, I do not wish that to anyone. Not even to Father Rosica, who might well be present at the retreat to explain to the Holy father how his lawsuit against poor Mr Domet will be a wonderful example of fight against “careerism, arrogance, hypocrisy, corruption and being too judgmental instead of merciful”.
The only thing I know, is that none of the present will get out of it one ounce more Catholic.