Author Archives: Mundabor
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I have not written anything about the new Cardinals, because little has come to my screen, up to now, concerning them.
But if this chap is indicative of the general quality, we are in for a very rough ride.
The new Cardinal-designate Dew is such a Kasperite he should get the t-shirt. Nothing in what he says would let you think he is a Catholic. He sounds like a Presbyterian wannabe-bishop, bitching and whining around as he reflects on what shade of pink would make him look better.
We do not know about the sexual orientation of this walking disgrace. But the emotional “argument” of the man is so effeminate that one truly wonders.Are there no men left among the leftists?
Firstly, note the expression, apparently used already as early as 2005:
“the scandal of hunger for eucharistic food”.
This is a purely emotional appeal letting the Church appear an…
View original 554 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Read on Rorate Caeli the news of Cardinal Sarah openly warning Francis & Co. about the heresy of detaching the Magisterium from pastoral practice.
His words are brutally clear, and I quote them here again. The emphasis is, I think, Rorate’s.
“The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice — which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions — is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology. I affirm solemnly that the Church of Africa will firmly oppose every rebellion against the teaching of Christ and the Magisterium.”
To call the “theology on his knees” “heresy” and “dangerous, schizophrenic pathology” is, I think, as clear as any word ever pronounced by Cardinal Burke himself. The clear mention that the Church in Africa will “firmly oppose every rebellion” drives another concept home: we will…
View original 50 more words
The beautiful video from Christopher Ferrara (that I have from Veneremus Cernui) points out to another willfully confusing statement of Francis: that we should pray for the Synod.
This is another of those slimy statement from our slimy man. One who thinks that God evolves can only want to mean that we should pray that the Synod helps us to recognise that He (allegedly) does. Which is heresy and, I would add, blasphemy. Mr Ferrara doesn’t say it so openly, but one gets the message anyway.
But Francis does not criticise only that. He criticises the “gossip”. Which means “I want want we hold as the truth to change, but if you say you are afraid of just that you are gossiping”.
Francis clearly would want us to say nothing before the nuclear explosion, and welcome it as the beginning of a new age afterwards. Fat chance, Frankie.
These methods remind me of those tactics always in use in big office before restructurings. Before it happens, the usual people say “let us not worry about it, we do not know what will happen”. After it has happened, they say “well, it’s too late for complaints now”.
Make no mistake: this restructuring will not work in the end.
There is an excellent blog post from Louie Verrecchio imagining what Francis would say if he were… a Catholic interested in Catholicism instead of a faithless, wordly old man interested in his own self-aggrandisement. I suggest you click here and read the post in its entirety.
I would like here to develop a bit on the point and wonder whether this disgrace of a Pope could not see in environmental issues a way to achieve popularity the easy way.
We all know Francis has already put a huge bomb under the chair of the Church, but the reaction of sincere Catholics who actually believe in heaven and hell defused the bomb before the explosion. The following months showed even to the most stupid (and Francis is not so stupid) that a huge conflict awaits him if he pulls a stunt in Kasper style next October. The events in October also indicate that this here is not a brave man; and we already know that he is a real Jesuit, intended here in the usual meaning of “sly, oily, slippery, accommodating little piece of work”.
What is, then, such a man to do? Could it not be that faced with the choice of being remembered as the Pope of Destruction or the Pope of the Environment, he would choose the second role and a quiet life?
Francis might be content with becoming the Apostle Of Mother Earth. The White Mandela for the stupid masses looking for the World Uncle. The Friend Of The Squirrels. You get the point.
This is easy to do, and not fraught with the potential for self-destruction a Kasperite Campaign starting in October would have not for the Church (which is Indefectible) but for his own very backside.
The issue of the environment would allow him to reach both these objectives: self-promotion among the unthinking masses, and avoidance of a nuclear conflict that could well destroy him in the reputation, if not in the office.
A Pope lives of his being seen as the spiritual guide of Catholics. As the spiritual guide of hippies amidst the ferocious condemnation of Catholics no Papacy has ever been, is, or will ever be worth a dime. And yes, the world at large would still recognise who are the Catholics; even – actually, first of all – those who insult them all the time.
I do not know what the man thinks. I think he is cunning, but I do not think he is intelligent. Actually, he seems to me clearly less endowed than average in that department. He might well feel safe in October, and perhaps use his own environ-mental popularity overdose to think he can pull the Kasper-stunt without danger. But this is rather far-fetched, and contrasts with the obvious CV of a man who was, all his life, not prone to vocal conflict, particularly when dangerous to him. Francis always went for the easy way: the populist rhetoric, the Pinocchio masses, the rides on the bus, the ecu-maniacal stunts, all that pleases the crowds, without ever risking being transferred to the Tierra Del Fuego.
Enviro-Idiot. That would be one possible role for Francis, particularly if it helps him to spare us a nuclear conflict of communion for adulterers. He might well warm to the job. I even hope he will, so that his mind is occupied – and his ego satisfied – elsewhere. Until we get freed from his presence, and pray and hope that a better successor will be given to tend to us.
How we have fallen. Reduced to hope that a Pope might be inducing by wordly popularity to forgive Christ a tad less, or not spit to his face like a mad Roman soldier…
One day all this will be gone. Let’s hope that day comes soon.
The second sodomy reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Elton John, the pathetic freak show, has just stated that Francis is “his hero”; seasoning his stupid utterances with the usual bollocks about his own perverted concept of “love”. It is clear here that the pathetic freak show is referring to Francis’ failed attempt to pervert Catholicism toward sexual perversion.
This will make headlines worldwide.
I wonder how many Pollyannas will start to open their big blue eyes after this. A man who is everything the Church considers scandalous and abominable praises a Pope for trying to bring the Church on his side. If this does not open Pollyanna’s big eyes, what ever will?
Open your big blue eyes, Pollyanna. This is a papacy fit for atheists and perverts. By continuing in your increasingly more stubborn blindness, you are endangering your soul.
The recent news about Bishop Finn (and less recent news about Bishop Barros of Chile) allow us to make a very short reflection about Francis:
If you are a decent Bishop, the Pope will let you cook with the slow burner until you are forced out, because it seems you have not always been perfect in the past.
If you are one of his friends, or friends of the friends, you can be an obvious protector of pedophile priests, and he will make you bishop ignoring the massive, massive popular protest.
Francis is like a drunken, inept, stupid king of the past.
One is reminded of William II, the unfortunate son of the more famous William the Conqueror:
arrogant, inept, impious, and possibly a sodomite.
P.s. I read here the open accusation that Bishop Barros would be a homo himself. It would explain the “friends of the friends” connection wonderfully.
Truly, Francis is one of the devil.
Father Z has an interesting mail from a reader whose old priest encouraged the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel after Mass, whilst the new man dismisses the thing as “part of some ultra-conservative agenda”.
I can relate to this as I know a parish where exactly that has happened (the prayer used to be said, and now isn’t), albeit the new man does not appear to be less conservative, rather more afraid of his bishop.
There can be no denying that the prayer to St Michael is radically catholic and, as such, unacceptable to NuChurch. People who recite it must say words like “battle”, “wickedness”, “devil”, “host”, “hell”, “satan”, “ruin of souls” to mention only some parts.
A pagan priest in Francis’ style does not want you to think even for a moment of yourself as engaged in a war, rather in a “dialogue”. He does not like to speak of “wickedness”, much less the one of the devil: he prefers to address the supposed injustices and inequalities in this life. He dares to hope (and is, actually, rather persuaded of that) that hell is empty of human souls, if hell exists at all. He rejects the very concept of “ruin of souls” as referred to the sin of his sheep (adultery, fornication, sodomy), and if something like that must be admitted he prefers to mention it in connection with bankers, oil men, and managers of mining companies.
There can be no doubt that the very invitation to recite such a prayer – nay, the very teaching of it, as the prayer must be, nowadays, taught to your parishioners – is a clear indication of the priest’s desire to engage in exactly that battle the “Francispriest” wants you to forget. In my experience, there are still an awful lot of priests around – Novus Ordo priests, I mean – who have sincere fear of the Lord and interest in the salvation of the souls entrusted to them. But being smart, they recognise that their biggest – or one of their biggest – obstacles lies not in the secular world around them, but in the bishop above them. The prayer to St Michael is one of the ways of calling the souls to arms whilst remaining within the narrow confines of what the bishop considers acceptable, or would not have the nerve to officially discourage. Again, I see this happening – in my frequent Novus Ordo exploration trips – fairly often: a testament, I think, of the good will of many priests, and of the bad will of a couple of bishops.
How to help the good priest in his work? By praying not only for him and for the poor, trampled Church, but also by praying the Prayer to St. Michael with renewed zeal. I recite the prayer every day I see obvious dykes or faggots in the street, which in the modern cesspool known as London is an all but infrequent experience.
Good priests are helped by praying, as is prayer in general.
The more NuChurch does not want us to pray, the more we do.
Just another “religion of mercy” reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
How powerful they are with the simple! How many of the latter there are!
Cardinal Wuerl has now made clear what the strategy of the Modernist faction (led by TMAHICH) against orthodox Catholics (factually led by the SSPX, and by Cardinal Burke in the Conciliar camp) in the months leading to October will be: comparing them to “dissenters”.
Wuerl’s aim is transparent enough: leveraging on the love for orthodoxy of your common Catholic to create an aura of rebellion around those who defend Catholic orthodoxy, whilst letting the heretics appear orthodox because the Pope sides with them.
Mind, Cardinal Wuerl makes no names concerning who the “dissenting” brother bishops are: but Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider immediately come to mind, together with the five Cardinals who authored “Remaining in the Truth of Christ”. Others have also spoken, but I think these seven are the main targets.
View original 311 more words
The “Almost like Francis” Reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
The Mexican Presbyterians have decided, after 139 years, to file for divorce from the PCUSA, the Presbyterian [so-called] Church of the USA.
It would appear that whilst the Holy Ghost spoke to the ones suggesting to them that homosexual priests – I mean here outright sodomites – are just the ticket, the same Holy Ghost spoke to the others – in good Spanish, I presume – telling them that this is a no-no.
As a consequence of this translation/communication/phone signal problems, the two organisations have resulted in an event that can be rightly defined one of the defining features of Protestantism, and a significant Protestant gift to the modern world: divorce.
I do not know whether or how the two organisations will discuss their differences, and whenever I am in front of these situations I can’t avoid being embarrassed for the boys, girls and third sex members (plus all the…
View original 149 more words
It seems to me the more The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) feels isolated, the more he tries to counterattack with assertions that can only be defined as opposed to Christianity, if not outright blasphemous at least in their end result.
Firstly, Francis has taken on this disgusting (heretic, possibly blasphemous) habit of telling us that whoever does not follow him in whatever heretical (blasphemous?) novelties he preaches displeases God, has no God, is dead inside, or something of the sort.
This time, as you might have read, it is “dialogue”. For two thousand years, Christians wanted to convert. In the age of Francis, suddenly conversion is nowhere to be found. Instead we have “dialogue”, which basically boils down to giving legitimacy to error against a very vague hope that our blabbering may persuade someone to convert out of us telling him to hold on to his Koran.
Who the heck is this old nincompoop; this ass in white; this fat, arrogant, lewd old man to tell us that not only God has changed (an heresy in itself, and a blasphemy in that it obviously denies a fundamental attribute of God’s Divine Perfection), but that he is the legitimate authority, the Chosen One to tell us exactly how God has changed, and how we must behave in order not to displease this, erm, new god Francis apparently knows so well? Give me a stake, and I’ll show you how such arrogance should be fittingly punished (after due deposition, of course; see above in the fixed “pages” for more details).
Then there is the other habit, which enrages me beyond words (even the strong ones), of always comparing Christians to Pharisees.
The evil clown obviously wants to persuade you that the Christians of today are exactly what the Pharisees of yore were: wrong. As the Pharisees were stubbornly attached to an old religion, made obsolete by Christ, Christians who believe in everything in which Christianity has always believed are now obsolete, passé, and left behind by a new god and a new religion; a religion consisting in adoring the Goddess Of Mercy and Francis, her Fat Prophet.
These two heretical, and in the end blasphemous habits both point out to a core message: forget Christianity. We are in a new time of mercy, and this new time has a new god and new rules, and those who follow the Only God and the (forcibly) immutable rules are the bad ones.
My blood boils everytime I read Francis’ pagan preaching; a preaching coming from the Pope, of all people; a satanical cocktail of lies and deception that can only be explained with God’s wrath at his faithless and stupid children; so faithless and so stupid, in fact, that they even reject the concept of God’s wrath. It pains me beyond words that whenever this heretical (or blasphemous) propaganda is spitted by that disgusting mouth, I seldom read more than polite disagreement.
Call him an idiot, a nincompoop, an evil man. That’s who he is, and you know it. Polite disagreement will not make him stop. Worldwide ridicule might.
Let us say it again: the stake is what this man has deserved. I doubt it would be enough to save a man as rotten as this, but you never know.
I am, at least, all in favour of making the attempt.
Rick Santorum is weighing his option as a candidate to be President, and I can’t say I like the way things are going.
Asked whether he would participate to a so-called same-sex marriage (you know: that kind of circus where two perverts smash their own perversion in your face and ask you to “celebrate” it) Mr Santorum is quoted with the following words:
“I would not,” Santorum replied to radio host Hugh Hewitt. When asked why not, he said, “Because I don’t, I’ve just self, as a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”
What the Elton does that even mean?
“A violation of my faith?” Is he apologising? What is he talking about, Truth or the Highway Code?
What about “an abomination”?
And what the Elton (again) does the “support” thing mean? How can anyone “support” anyone else in the latter’s doing something that one knows is gravely evil?
This all sounds so stupid and hypocritical. The message Santorum sends (as read in the linked article) sounds so much like: “I will give you all the support I can, but alas, I can’t be at the ceremony itself”. This sounds like the boy saying “I would like playing soccer with you, but my father has said I must make homework instead; so very sad, but I must obey”.
If Mr Santorum believes in hell and heaven (which I am sure he does), he must say so openly. He must say that he does not take part to the circus ceremony because the entire matter, and not only the ceremony, is gravely evil and bound to send the main actors to hell (and possibly those who area accomplices in their sin; I have no idea to what extent they would be punished in the same way, though I am sure they would be punished harshly) with the Sodom Express.
It’s not about what Mr Santorum’s religion forces him to do, obviously with a degree of reluctant sadness as it clearly emerges from his words. It is about the very objective reality of right and wrong. If Mr Santorum thinks he can take refuge in a kind of “get out of embarrassment card” because hey, it’s his religion, but you can be assured of his “support” in everythign that does not involve participating in ceremonies, we have here another one who has sold his integrity for the sake of a dream that will never become reality anyway.
Man up, Mr Santorum. Stand up to the Truth. Don’t dance around the subject. You will never be President anyway. The best thing you can do is to contribute to the shift of the US political landscape towards sanity.
I am sick and tired of these politicians thinking they must be everything to everyone. The exceptional politician – as opposed to the usual little whore so common in Western democracies – is the one who fights for his own Christian vision of the world and tries his best to shift the voters on his position. It seems to me Mr Santorum is doing exactly the opposite.
Is there *one* candidate who is still ready to stand for Christian values? I dread to read of Ted Cruz making the same mistake Santorum is making. Perhaps he already did, but please don’t send me any link, my old heart asks for some respite at this time.
Santorum must man up and say loud an dclear how things stand. This will be more important as the US Supreme Court – as it appears certain now – will sit squarely on the side of Satan in a matter of one or two months now.
Santorum can’t seriously think the Supreme Court decision will allow him to say “hey, relax, there’s nothing I can do now”. The real battle begins now. Roe vs Wade did not end the abortion controversy, either. He will have to take a stand, and “I would support them” is nothing like taking a stand.
Actually, it is more like bending over.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
On the “mainstream” blog “First Things” there is an excellent article from a Maureen Mullarkey about the latest blunder of The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) and, expanding from that, the clownesque, stupid, socialist, godless, self-centred boundless egotism of the man. Follow the link as long as you can. Kudos to Rorate for making us aware of the article.
In case the blog post be taken down, below are some of the pearls. Emphases mine.
Handwriting has been on the wall along the Viale Vaticano from the get-go. At the beginning of his pontificate, Francis revealed himself to be fastidiously attuned to image. He refused to give communion in public ceremonies lest he be photographed giving the sacrament to the wrong kind of sinner. So, when he agreed to pose between two well-known environmental activists and brandish an anti-fracking T-shirt, we believed what we…
View original 389 more words
I have been kindly directed to an excellent blog post written from Ann Barnhardt; this post concerns on the one hand the similarities between Francis and Obama and on the other hand – and far more importantly – the similarities between the way Francis cajoles the stupid masses and the way Satan tried to tempt Our Lord.
The similarity between the two main populists of our time has been already stressed on this blog several times. The second part hasn’t, and I invite you to take the time to read this long but beautifully written post to become aware of what is going on with this unspeakable Pontificate.
As always, Barnhardt does not mince words: for example, speaking of of Obama and the Unholy Father she writes:
“They are both stupid, babbling fools, completely incoherent when not reading off a script prepared by others. Both are Marxists. Both are media darling fronts for a thuggish regime…”
Harsh? You bet. But seriously: how can truth be condemned because it is a harsh truth? “Babbling fool” is, in fact, the gentlest thing that can be said of both, all other possibilities being even worse for their eternal salvation.
It all boils down to one point: Francis has, like Obama, chosen earth over heaven. And like Obama, very probably he does not believe in the latter. The consequence of this is that secular thinking that always was, is and always will be the tool of Satan to harvest as many souls as he can.
I invite you to read the article, and to say a prayer for the brave author.
It isn’t often that one gets the truth said whole, even when it is harsh.
As many of you know, Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco has been involved in a controversy for some time now, because he insists on unspeakable things like demanding that teachers in Catholic schools live and teach in a Catholic way.
Things have now massively escalated as a group of soi-disant prominent
Catholics dissenters have bought an entire page of the San Francisco Chronicle to ask that the Archbishop be removed, as his obvious Catholicism is out of place in the diocese and could keep other dissenters from deceiving themselves.
I think only one of two can apply here:
1. The dissenters have really – as they claim – tried to obtain the Archbishop's removal through unofficial channels; they have failed, and now bitch in public like it's Elton John Day.
2. The dissenters have been told by friendly sources in Rome: “we can't just move the man out of the blue; but make some Lio and we will take it as an excuse to remove him because hey, he fosters divisions”.
I hope the first, and fear the second. It seems to me very much in tune with this satanical Pontificate that mob-pressure in Stalin-style be used as the excuse for the purge. The obvious Catholicism of Archbishop Cordileone must be unwelcome in Francis' entourage, and runs counter to the anti-Catholic rubbish the Unholy Father goes spitting out of his godless mouth practically every day. I am, therefore, not very optimistic, albeit it can still be that Francis prefers not to create a precedent of the sort, particularly after his extremely controversial appointment in Chile.
The main point of today is, though, a different one: if we had a halfway decent Pope, the public call for his removal would not make any sense both financially and as a PR instrument. Irrespective of how this situation is going to develop, the very fact that the call was published shows how emboldened dissenters feel in the so-called “age of mercy”, where being Catholic is considered unmerciful.
Let us increase our prayers not only for the good Archbishop, but for the end of this satanical Pontificate.