Author Archives: Mundabor

Married Priests? Let’s Wait And See

smoke

The smoke of Satan is getting very, very thick… 

 

The anonymous, apparently well-informed blog of Fra’ Cristoforo has published a post announcing Francis’ intention to allow – as a general praxis rather than the exception as it is traditional in the Roman Rite – married men to become priests

This document, says Fra’ Cristoforo, will be not an encyclical, but a pastoral letter. The application of the rule will be universal. The document will be released before the end of Autumn.  I don’t need to tell you that whilst, in a way, strictly a matter of discipline, priest celibacy has in the West such a strong tradition that for most Westerners it is difficult to even imagine a Catholic Church made of married priests as the usual case. I have also read that in many quarters the tradition of priest celibacy is deemed so hallowed by time that it should be considered an unofficial matter of doctrine, a factually untouchable mainstay of the Church in the West. There is no doubt that the news would be historic, and the disruption in the Barque of Peter huge. I will rant against this plan as time allows, which is: not today.  

I report this as a humble blogger, because I think it is important enough to be mentioned. I also believe in the good faith of Fra’ Cristoforo.

What I am less convinced of – but ready to change my mind – is the actual truthfulness of his sources. Sources which might, in fact, be using him to promote a “Fake News” narrative and try to discredit the Traditionalist, anti-Francis movement. Which would be a stupid thing to do, but then again many liberal priests, Bishops and Cardinals are stupid. 

I published some time ago another explosive revelation of Fra’ Cristoforo, concerning Benedict’s abdication.  In it, Fra’ Cristoforo states: 

“[…]tra un mese Anonimidellacroce sarà in grado di pubblicare il contenuto della lettera fatidica che Benedetto ricevette prima di decidere di dimettersi”.

“In a month, AnonymousoftheCross will be able to publish the content of the fateful letter Benedict received before deciding to resign”

It is fairly obvious to your humble correspondent that Fra’ Cristoforo does not have the material, but was promised it would be delivered to him.   

Well, this is a very simple matter then. Either this famous letter is released and authentic, or it is not released or not authentic. I will personally await for the event (scheduled during Holy week if we take Fra’ Cristoforo literally, though we might give him some slack in the form of a week or two) in order to see how truthful these revelations are.

Again, it’s not that I doubt the personal integrity of the man. I doubt the personal integrity of those who feed him the “scoops”.

As I wait for the Holy Week, I allow myself a last, small reflection: Francis is such a plague that there is no rumor, no matter how savage, that would be dismissed out of hand as not realistic because obviously un-Catholic. Actually, the contrary is the case: the most unCatholic the plan, the more reliable appears the rumor.

And there can be no doubt that this idea of married priests as the usual way is, doctrine or no doctrine, as unCatholic as they come.

M  

Beware Of Selective Orthodoxy

 

 

A Sicilian priest, Don Minutella, who broadcasts through a Catholic radio called radio domina nostra, has launched a scathing attack to Pope Francis and has invited to a manifestation against FrancisChurch. The event will take place on Saturday, 22 April, in Verona. 

“Good guy!”, you will say. Well, yes and no. 

I believe, like Riscossa Cristiana, that the man is in good faith; actually, you can’t listen to the Italian video without realising very fast that there is nothing deceitful in this man. However, like Riscossa Cristiana, I do not think those on the right side of Catholicism (that is, obviously, Traditionalism) should support a priest (brave as he certainly is; he openly states he is awaiting canonical sanctions, and insults Francis without any problem nevertheless) that in the end is just another part of the same poisoned cake called Vatican II.

Alas, Don Minutella is Vatican II through and through. Not only he thinks that the likes of John Paul II and Benedict are the solution, rather than the problem, but he even criticises Traditionalism. Now, this is where I personally draw a line.

You want my support even if you are a V II fanboy, fine. I support Cardinal Burke (if he had the guts) criticising the Pope even if he is a V II man. But when I get called “extremist fringe of supertraditionalist”, that’s where my support ends. 

We should not support this kind of half-blind orthodoxy. We do not need people who condemn the heresies of Pope Francis and think Bergoglio has fallen on the papacy out of absolutely nothing. We can do without any priest, however well- intentioned, who calls us to rally around him and talks about the “extraordinary gift of the Second Vatican Council”. It is akin to fighting against Stalin, but for Communism. 

Of course, the more people criticise Francis, the better. However, this does not mean that sound, Traditionalist Catholics should support this invitation to keep supporting heresy so that heresy may be defeated. And in fact, if you support this guy you support exactly the problem that gave us Bergoglio.

Not only Bergoglio must be eradicated, but the entire V II ideology must be eradicated with it. Unless and until this happens we will keep having more Bergoglios, because Francis is merely the (provisional) end of a slippery slope that must lead from heresy to heresy and from confusion to confusion. 

Let V II supporters criticise V II supporters. Let them tear apart each other in the name of different interpretations of what is fundamentally wrong. 

V II is rotten to the core. Therefore, no matter how orthodox one tries to be, rot is what will come out of it.

We, the sound Catholics, do not help rot to survive so that no worse rot may happen.

Don Menichella appears well-intentioned to me. He appears also fully resigned to whatever persecution will fall upon him (and it will). However, you should not give any support to people who criticise you for criticising V II. 

Don Menichella wants to live of V II.

Let him die of it.  

M  

 

 

 

 

Faggotry On Steroids. In Church.

 

Courtesy of Vox Cantoris, this appalling video of a clearly homosexual priest “dancing” in the church as he goes around caressing people (a lot of them, men). The thing is so revolting I could not stand it to the end, but I still want this horror to be posted on my blog as a further testimony against this damn faggot, and his enablers, the day he dies.

The stink of reprobation is so strong one can not even stand the spectacle. The church itself is so deprived of Catholic ornaments you would think it is a Methodist prayer hall. The stupid people applaud at the end.

No one slaps the fag in the face, either, as he approaches to “caress” him; another clear sign the public of this shameful “spectacle” was carefully selected among a collection of unrepentant fornicators, adulterers, perverts, and their “supportive” relatives.

Dies irae, dies illaOne must be really stupid to think that God: a) exists, and b) will not punish everyone of the present in the harshest way. These people have made an alternative religion for themselves. They must like Francis a lot. Methinks, they will keep him company one day. 

Oh, I almost forgot. 

Dear Lord, when the time comes please, in your charity, be particularly harsh with the sisters, who have chosen to wear their habit in a particularly despicable act of deception.

 

 

 

Enough With The Waiting

4_Abyssian_kittens

For some reason, Francis wasn’t scared of them… 

 

If you visit the page of Canon212 (something which you should do every day, as I do) you will see, scrolling down on the left hand side column, the

“number of days since Francis received the Cardinal’s Dubia on Amoris Laetitia”.

As I write this, the count is 188.

I will not, on this occasion, be silent about another fact: that even the Dubia came after an extremely long, certainly gravely culpable silence from the clergy en masseAmoris Laetitia was published on 8 April 2016. Heck, it’s almost a year, and we are still awaiting for the first (cough) blessed Cardinal to openly say that the encyclical is rubbish. 

Now, the Church is normally slow. She is slow because she is prudent, and she is slow because in many situations slowness is a good course of action. But you see, slowness must then be prudent and/or a good course of action. Slowness isn’t good in itself. 

The Church is also traditionally slow because, traditionally, information used to travel very slowly. When the one or other heretic started to get notoriety in some more or less obscure part of Europe it would take months (or years) before the thing got to the ears of Rome. Then it would get an awful lot of time only to reliably confirm the information and get more details. Then there might be other distant bishops and cardinals to consult with. In short, the slowness wasn’t there because people just slept one year at a time on well-known facts. The slowness was there because that was the way the entire world was.

Today is different. A published encyclical will be read all over the planet in a matter of hours. A papal tweet (boy, what has the world come to!) is spread worldwide instantly. Information is exchanged with extreme rapidity.

The Cardinals knew as a fact, when they decided to make the Dubia public, that they had been told that Francis would not answer them.  How does waiting six months change any of this? They were told. They got the memo. The decision was made. 

If a private correction was to be made, the time was very fast after getting the news that the Pope had decided not to answer. There was no need for the crème de la crème of Catholic theology to assemble at the Sorbonne, after consulting with who knows how many others. There was no need to visit the King of France and procure his support (financial, if needed) for the planned action.

The correction should have been officially made a week or two after being informed the man does not want to do his job, and a very public rebuke and accusation of promoting heresy should have come a week or two after that. All the rest is meowing of scared kitten.

What it would seem it might happen now is that the mountain will give birth to a country mouse:   a shame for the church as a whole and something that makes the Four Cardinals look, if possible, even worse than those who have shut up from the beginning; then the latter have at least not tried to make themselves beautiful with faithful Catholics and smuggle themselves as the defenders of Catholic orthodoxy. 

Francis must be laughing all the way to the porta potty at seeing that his opponents are such little boys, so fearful and so scared of him that they will not dare to do anything after showing a very, very, very big mouth. To add insult to injury, we are made to wait even for the country mouse, as if a banal reassertion of Catholic doctrine (something I have heard in church, and even in V II churches, in no uncertain terms at least a dozen times since the publication of Amoris Laetitia) were such a momentous event showing anything but the monumental cowardice of these supposed Princes. 

I might still be wrong, of course. The kitten might still wake up lions one day. But what I keep hearing is only the most disgraceful meowing. 

Let the Cardinals speak and be done with this farce. If they speak plainly, then let the serious battle begin. If they limit themselves to the meowing the longer the wait, the worse the shame.  

M

 

 

 

The Correction That Won’t Be One?

This one here was on the twitter account of Canon 212. 

You will forgive this native Italian for not understanding exactly what the Cardinal says, but what I could acoustically get is this: 

  • If there is no response the Cardinals will “correct the situation”, in a “respectful way”.
  • they will, in this case, “draw the response to the question from the constant teaching of the Church”

 This means, to put it plainly, that there will be no correction.

What there will be is only a sort or reminder, or integration. Something every Bishop can do every day. “The Pope has not answered the Dubia, so we will do it for him”. No demand that the Pope speaks himself. No ultimatums. No warning that the Pope is, by refusing to answer the Dubia, promoting heresy. Merely a faint meowing. 

This will open the floodgates for more heresies and more perverted encyclicals letters, in which Francis implies all sorts of abominations and shuts up when asked to correct them. After which, a handful of kitten will tell us what we already know without the slightest need for them to remind us of the obvious. In the meantime, the heretical Pope will go on spreading heresies, and these people will seriously try to make us believe that they have fulfilled their duty.  

Mind, it might come out differently in the end. It might be that the Cardinal does not want to show his hand right now.

However, if this were to be the situation it seems to me that Fra’ Cristoforo is absolutely right: no correction at all; with the addition of some blabla so that the Cardinals may try to save face.

These here are supposed to be Princes of the Church. In what miserable state we are. 

 

Meet Francis, The Humble Shitter

portapotty

 

How I love those pictures that say everything without a single word! 

Shabby Pope is here pictured in the act of going out of a Porta Potty in Milan, whilst the present (including, no doubt, professional photographers) are snapping like there is no tomorrow. 

This would make for a couple of nice headlines: “Porta Pope”, “The Humble Shitter” and “Pope Humbly Piddles In Front Of Cameras” come to mind. 

After which, the Humble Shitter was flown back to his entire floor of a quite nice Hotel. 

The hypocrisy is so strong in this one that he does not see the contradiction between these empty gestures of “humbleness” and his splendid life.

Almost as strong as the hypocrisy is the vanity: the old lewd man is so eager to make a headline that he does not hesitate to literally piddle (or faking a piddle) in front of the cameras. This abnormal vanity and desire to attract attention and approval is, by the way, a well-known mark of homosexuals, which is why so many of them become actors and politicians.      

Francis is both. And a clown to boot. 

Shit well, Evil Clown. 

You will have your reward. 

M

 

 

 

 

How The SSPX Can Pave The Way For “Reconciliation”

The SSPX seems – not for the first time – on the brink of “reconciliation”. I am assuming here that the reconciliation will be what every sensible person would insist on: complete control of assets, seminary and command structure. As I have written many times, nothing else would be acceptable.

However, there seems to be in some quarter some fear that the SSPX may either “go native”, or become scandalously silent in front of this scandalous Pontificate because of the carrot being dangled in front of them.

Luckily, Mundabor comes to the rescue and suggests a very simple way for the SSPX to obtain both aims: reconciliation with both the Vatican and their mistrustful supporters.

The solution is a scathing attack against Amoris Laetitia and Francis’ heretical pontificate. I don’t care how they call it in sophisticated theological term. What I would like to see is that they hurt him badly.

After that, only one of two things can happen. The first is that Francis abandons the idea of the reconciliation. This shows that he only wanted to keep them silent as the carrot dangles in front of them. The SSPX sees the cards and wins the hand. The second is that Francis decides that his “mercy” dividend is still worth the attacks of the SSPX, and the reconciliation process moves on under the banner of “mercy”. The SSPX keeps intact credentials and wins the hand again.

What’s not to like? If Francis really has interest in the “mercy credentials”he won’t mind the steamroller going over him; actually, the accusations will help him in presenting himself as meek and very, very Ghandian.  If he closes the door to the SSPX then he didn’t have anything “merciful” in mind in the first place.

Can’t see what the SSPX has to lose if they – as I am sure they do – value Truth first.

M

 

 

 

 

Liar, Cheating Francis Tries It Again

Photo-20161021122235731.jpg

See? I have answered the Dubia! Only…. I haven’t!

 

I had to smile when I read about the Chilean Bishops reporting that Francis has expressed himself, oh so clearly, about his being against the very same abomination and sacrilege he has relentlessly pushed during his disgraceful Pontificate. 

Mind, I do not doubt for a second that Francis has really spoken in the way indicated by the Bishops. What is also certain, though, is the following:

Firstly, even my cat knows that Francis is a damn Jesuit who says everything he thinks may profit him for the moment.  

Secondly, this one here is a cunning rascal and a liar on steroids. Remember: “Soon, soon!”??

Thirdly, when a Pope is asked to officially answer some Dubia the only thing he has to do is to officially answer them, or have them answered by someone to whom he has given authority to do so. Rumours, reported speeches and “my cousin heard him say” are absolutely nowhere.

So no, if Francis thinks he can pull himself out of a difficult situation by trying to let us believe that he answered the Dubia without doing it he had better think again.

Liar. Coward. Jesuit.

And stupid. 

 

 

Meet Cardinal Scola, Sycophant On Steroids

boots

Cardinal Scola found the licking not tiring at all…

 

In the Age of the Kitten Cardinal you really don’t know whom to turn to. There is one (Scola), who would have been considered a more than passable choice (as V II Cardinals go) in 2013. Well, not really. 

The same Cardinal  kitten is now on record with saying that Francis was a salutary blow to the stomach for the Church. 

Words fail. The sycophancy is mind blowing.This is one who missed the train in 2013 and is now ready to do absolutely everything in order not to miss the next one. Prompt comes the reassurance to the ever growing ranks of the FrancisCardinals: “Pick me, gentlemen. I am innocuous, reassuringly middle-of-the-way, and will lick every boot there is to lick to become Pope”. 

I fear for the old bastard that his train has left the platform for good. Francis will polarise the ranks of the Cardinals, and at the end of the exercise there will be no place for middle-of-the-road boot lickers. More likely, it will be either another FrancisCardinal (Tagle, Schoenborn, Maradiaga) or the result of a silent Revolt of the Kitten, a man considered “conservative” in V II circles: one like Piacenza, or Pell, or Mueller.

Poor Cardinal Scola. All that licking utterly in vain…  

When Francis kicks the bucket, the Church will wake up with a huge hangover. The Cardinals will then have to choose between sobriety and alcoholism. I very much doubt they will pick a vocal vodka fan.

M  

 

 

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 302 & 303

Guido_Reni_031 (1)

 

The text of 302 (emphases always mine)

302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved. On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

This paragraph is the priming of a bomb about to explode. Francis starts from something already mentioned in the Catechism of JP II, and always known in Church doctrine: we aren’t Jews, who consider a behaviour only in its external manifestation, without consideration for the subjective element. We also know, and have always known, how these situations apply: the eight years old child who steals from the cookie jar is a different situation from the eighteen years old who steals scooters, and the like. The suicide in a sudden raptus of madness is difference than the suicide deliberate and planned, and so on. We all know this, it has always been that way, each one of you can bring infinite examples. 

This is also why the statements in that sense of the October Relatio were – and are – not problematic. They are in line with what the Church has always said. There’s nothing new or worrying here.  

However, this has never applied to the situation of objective scandal and mortal sin. For these, the answer given by the Church has always been the one given by JP II. With the important difference that I very much doubt that in, say, 1898, the “living like brothers and sisters” idea would have found many friends. But then again it is always that way: you start by conceding a finger, at some point the entire hand goes.

Francis here takes a general principle that applies in limited circumstances and extends it – and this is a novelty and subversion of established truth, which in common parlance is rightly called heresy – to situations to which these principles have never applied. I have written about this in the linked article, so you can read it again if you like. 

Francis closes this primer with another subtly subversive statement: that pastoral discernment in these situation must take into account a person’s properly formed conscience.  

This is an exercise in Jesuit hypocrisy. If the conscience of a person is properly formed there can be no discussion at all: he knows that he is in adultery, public scandal, and mortal sin.  There can be no other pastoral work than to say to this man “pack you things NOW!”. What the Evil Clown here means is that the priest must consider what the distorted, hypocritical, self-righteous “conscience” of the adulterer tells him. How do I know this? because it is the only way how what follows makes any sense. If, as already stated, the conscience is properly formed, there can be no discussion at all, and the only “pastoral” exercise can be a reiteration of why what can’t be can never, ever be. 

The bomb, now primed, is ready to explode.  Enter paragraph 303:  

303. Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.

Heretical bullshit like this would, in Christian past, have deserved its author the stake.

Read it carefully. Francis has already said that the “properly formed conscience” must guide the adulterer’s action, but it was immediately obvious that a properly formed conscience has no need at all for discussion, because it knows that truth isn’t there for discussion. Therefore, he now examines how to deal with your typical unrepentant adulterer. What follows is an open support for the heresy of Kasper, and this happens in the most brutal of ways:

*for now* this is the most the adulterers can do

*God Himself* asks them not to do more (not only heresy! Blasphemy, too!!)

The adulterous situation is downplayed to *not the objective ideal*

I see here more than a hint to what is called “situation ethics”: what appears bad can actually be good given the circumstances. The mother and wife can consent to sex with the prison guard in order to be let go and go back to her husband and children, and such like. The Church has always condemned such thinking, refusing any kind of “lesser evil” (much less, making of the evil anything “good”) and stating that evil is not committed, period.

Even V II Popes (before Francis) clearly saw this and defended it robustly. From Veritatis Splendor, paragraph 72:

72. The morality of acts is defined by the relationship of man’s freedom with the authentic good. This good is established, as the eternal law, by Divine Wisdom which orders every being towards its end: this eternal law is known both by man’s natural reason (hence it is “natural law”), and — in an integral and perfect way — by God’s supernatural Revelation (hence it is called “divine law”). Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man’s true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme good in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness.

[….]

The rational ordering of the human act to the good in its truth and the voluntary pursuit of that good, known by reason, constitute morality. Hence human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good.122 Activity is morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason. If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.

There you have it, in very clear words. And mind, it is not that JP II is making some difficult, little-known, sophisticated argument here. This is confirmation stuff. Francis throws everything out of the window, and profoundly subverts the very basis of Catholic thinking. 

Let me say it once again: in our Christian past, such rubbish would have led its proponent to die at the stake.

This is heresy and blasphemy in the most open form imaginable. There is nothing ambiguous in this. This is pure poison. It is not enough for our shepherds to ignore this fetid words. They must condemn them. 

Heresy! Blasphemy! Where are our shepherds?

M

 

  

 

 

 

E’ Primavera! Uplifting Reflections in The Times Of Francis

 

It’s Spring, and this year it is a somewhat different Spring. 

After four years of devastation, in the next months things might come to a head. This year we might finally have meowing Cardinal kitten, or even – if we are extremely lucky and the Lord assists us – the one or other kitten producing himself in somewhat vaguely resembling a roar. Come on, it’s Spring! Let me daydream a bit…

Getting a bit of distance from the daily business, however, we can see this: kitten or no kitten, this Papacy is unraveling like the South American corrupt, incompetent, boorish, actually stupid dictatorship that it is. This is clear enough with or without meowing kitten. 

The Cardinals may speak, or more probably won’t. The devastation may continue, or not. The next Pope could a tragedy like Tagle or someone more Conservative like Piacenza, probably among the best or least worst this corrupt generation can produce; but one fact is clear: real Catholics aren’t buying Francis fake currency. 

It is Spring. Leave aside the cares of the day and reflect that no amount of sexual perversion or demonic subversion can stop the sun, the seasons, or the Truth. 

M

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 301

St.-Michael-the-Archangel2

 

The text (emphases mine). 

Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

—-

“Irregular” situation. “Irregular” is written in inverted commas. These people are afraid even of the word “irregular”. Hey, who are they to judge? 

Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Huge heretical bomb. The reason why adulterers are forbidden communion is exactly because they are in mortal sin. It is not only the sexual behaviour they put in place between the sheets (which might not be there; he could be an impotent ass, and she a frigid bitch), but the scandal they give that makes the mortal sin. There is no way any cat, dog or evil Pope can get around this.

Even Pope JP II – specialist of doctrinal slalom, capital punishment saboteur and allower of pagan deities on Catholic altars – saw this very clearly. Read what he writes in paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

See? There are facts which are in objective contradiction to receiving communion, because they are contrary to everything Communion is and represents. The adulterous couple’s “feeling” and “discernment” are neither here nor there. Facts are facts. Catholics do not let feelings get in the way of facts. 

Also note how the writing is heretical in itself. It was said. It can no longer be said. Truth has changed. 

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Another huge heretical bomb. Basically, this amounts to the abolition of mortal sin for everyone but satanists. Every prostitute, drug dealer, and child rapist can easily claim that he has great difficulties in understanding the “inherent values” of rules that go against what he really, really wants to do. Everyone can say that he “cannot act differently”. Everyone can say that he cannot decide otherwise “without further sin” (“the impulse to rape children is too strong. I could commit suicide if I were to attempt to let it go. I am already so depressed!”. “I cannot but be a prostitute! If I were to stop, my child would die on the street! On the street!! How is that not a sin!?).

Besides, I have never heard that the standard for a mortal sin would be so high as to require the grasping of the religious and philosophical edifice behind them. The commandments are not explained. They are commanded. They were and are made to be grasped by simple people: peasants, factory workers, domestic servants. No intellectual prowess was ever required, and the lack of it never excused the sinner. These are the commandments. That’s it. Are you retarded? No? Then you know what they mean, period. 

——

As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

Of course they did. Of course they may. But again, no Pope in the history of Catholicism had the effrontery of extending this obvious consideration to situations of objective scandal and clear mortal sin. See the above mentioned quote from Familiaris Consortio again. Francis, in his satanical hypocrisy, quotes in the notes the very same Familiaris Consortio, but blatantly ignores the very cornerstone of Pope JP II’s reasoning in the matter. 

—-

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Oh, the effrontery! Saint Thomas Aquinas would have had Francis deposed as a heretic and burned at the stake. That the Evil Clown even dares to mention his name, and tries to take him as hostage for his heresy, is beyond contemptible. 

Besides, the argument is stupid in itself. What St Thomas said does not mean in any way, shape or form that a public adulterer may have some form of grace, but be unable to exercise them well. The argument just does not follow. On the contrary, Saint Thomas Aquinas would have stated without hesitation that a soul in mortal sin is a soul dead to grace. This idea of the public adulterer has some grace that he can’t extract from his pocket is just stupid. 

Let us see what even JP II’s mediocre catechism says (1855 and 1861):

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him….

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 

All this is turned on its head by Francis atheist, Jesuitical rambling. This is pure heresy. It is the attempt to wash the character of mortal sin from basically all mortal sins bar those committed by the most evil among evil people.

———

Paragraph 301 is obviously heretical in several ways. It attacks the very heart of Christian morality. It tries to subvert Catholicism at its very roots. 

Saint Michal the Archangel, defend us in battle! 

M

 

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 301

St.-Michael-the-Archangel2

 

The text (emphases mine). 

Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

—-

“Irregular” situation. “Irregular” is written in inverted commas. These people are afraid even of the word “irregular”. Hey, who are they to judge? 

Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Huge heretical bomb. The reason why adulterers are forbidden communion is exactly because they are in mortal sin. It is not only the sexual behaviour they put in place between the sheets (which might not be there; he could be an impotent ass, and she a frigid bitch), but the scandal they give that makes the mortal sin. There is no way any cat, dog or evil Pope can get around this.

Even Pope JP II – specialist of doctrinal slalom, capital punishment saboteur and allower of pagan deities on Catholic altars – saw this very clearly. Read what he writes in paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

See? There are facts which are in objective contradiction to receiving communion, because they are contrary to everything Communion is and represents. The adulterous couple’s “feeling” and “discernment” are neither here nor there. Facts are facts. Catholics do not let feelings get in the way of facts. 

Also note how the writing is heretical in itself. It was said. It can no longer be said. Truth has changed. 

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Another huge heretical bomb. Basically, this amounts to the abolition of mortal sin for everyone but satanists. Every prostitute, drug dealer, and child rapist can easily claim that he has great difficulties in understanding the “inherent values” of rules that go against what he really, really wants to do. Everyone can say that he “cannot act differently”. Everyone can say that he cannot decide otherwise “without further sin” (“the impulse to rape children is too strong. I could commit suicide if I were to attempt to let it go. I am already so depressed!”. “I cannot but be a prostitute! If I were to stop, my child would die on the street! On the street!! How is that not a sin!?).

Besides, I have never heard that the standard for a mortal sin would be so high as to require the grasping of the religious and philosophical edifice behind them. The commandments are not explained. They are commanded. They were and are made to be grasped by simple people: peasants, factory workers, domestic servants. No intellectual prowess was ever required, and the lack of it never excused the sinner. These are the commandments. That’s it. Are you retarded? No? Then you know what they mean, period. 

——

As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

Of course they did. Of course they may. But again, no Pope in the history of Catholicism had the effrontery of extending this obvious consideration to situations of objective scandal and clear mortal sin. See the above mentioned quote from Familiaris Consortio again. Francis, in his satanical hypocrisy, quotes in the notes the very same Familiaris Consortio, but blatantly ignores the very cornerstone of Pope JP II’s reasoning in the matter. 

—-

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Oh, the effrontery! Saint Thomas Aquinas would have had Francis deposed as a heretic and burned at the stake. That the Evil Clown even dares to mention his name, and tries to take him as hostage for his heresy, is beyond contemptible. 

Besides, the argument is stupid in itself. What St Thomas said does not mean in any way, shape or form that a public adulterer may have some form of grace, but be unable to exercise them well. The argument just does not follow. On the contrary, Saint Thomas Aquinas would have stated without hesitation that a soul in mortal sin is a soul dead to grace. This idea of the public adulterer has some grace that he can’t extract from his pocket is just stupid. 

Let us see what even JP II’s mediocre catechism says (1855 and 1861):

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him….

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 

All this is turned on its head by Francis atheist, Jesuitical rambling. This is pure heresy. It is the attempt to wash the character of mortal sin from basically all mortal sins bar those committed by the most evil among evil people.

———

Paragraph 301 is obviously heretical in several ways. It attacks the very heart of Christian morality. It tries to subvert Catholicism at its very roots. 

Saint Michal the Archangel, defend us in battle! 

M

 

 

 

Will The Correction Come? Keeping The Faith In The Age Of The Kitten Cardinal

four little kittens

 

Will, then, the famous correction come?

Fra Cristoforo says it won’t.

Edward Pentin says it will.

I quote the Bible:

 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

I will be very glad if the correction comes. I will be moderately sad if it doesn’t. But one way or the other my faith will not be shaken, my days will go on exactly in the same way and my salvation will not be directly influenced by it.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty. I do not believe in four Cardinals. As far as I am concerned, these Cardinals can decide to send themselves to hell together with the others and it’s their decision, not mine. Or they might decide to finally, finally, finally take a stand against Francis’ abomination and denounce at least his heresies, and bully for them. But no, my faith will not move one micron whether they speak or not. 

Too many people think of the Church as a wonderful apparatus that never misses a bit. They lack historic depth and basic understanding of human nature. Several times in history the Church was plunged into chaos, and this chaos went on, at times, for many decades. 

The Church has a supernatural and a human aspect. The supernatural aspect lies in her ultimate nature and function, and in the protection she enjoys.  The human aspect is the way humans run her here on earth. 

If Jesus had wanted the Church to be the Most Wonderful Perfect Institution He would have chosen angels, not men, to run her. The very first man he picked for the job denied him. Out of the very first twelve bishops one betrayed him, and other ten had no guts to show up at the foot of the cross. If your faith is shaken because we live in The Age Of The Kitten Cardinal you haven’t been paying attention both at doctrine and in history class.   

I wish the Cardinals salvation. I hope that at least four of them will make a decisive step in that direction. But I wouldn’t be shocked at all in knowing, one day, that all of them went to hell, with no exception. Bishops and Cardinals do not decide about the validity of the Only Church. They can only decide about their eternal destiny vis-à-vis their duties towards her.

Hope that the Cardinals decidee to speak, but do not be discouraged if they don’t. Keep praying your rosary. Keep deepening your faith. Keep looking to heaven, where the saints are on your side, rather than in the gutter of cowardice and convenience , where you will find most bishops and cardinals. 

One day we will die, and on that day whether Burke & Co. have found the nerve to finally, finally, finally do their damn job will not play any role in your salvation. 

But pray your rosary, deepen your faith, resolve to be unshakable in your determination to die in the one true faith. And let any Cardinal who wants to send himself to hell.

Hell will be packed with kitten priests, kitten bishops and kitten cardinals.  

M

 

   

 

[REBLOG] Jesus, Joseph And Mary Were Not Illegals

In another show of diabolical misinformation about the simplest facts of life we are, now and then, told, or rather suggested, that the Holy Family was in the same situation as the army of pimps, prostitutes, small criminals, their children and families, and other opportunists or simple scroungers (and, possibly, terrorists) who now wish to enter Europe without being in possession of the legal requirements to be considered refugees simply because… we are getting more and more stupid.

Let us clarify a point here: Jesus, Joseph and Mary were never “illegals”. They did not dodge any frontier post. They did not fake any distress call. They did not pay any criminal to smuggle them anywhere.

They simply moved from a territory under direct or indirect control of the Roman Empire to another territory under direct or indirect control of the Roman Empire. Exactly as Jesus did when going to and fro between Judea and Galilee. Exactly as St. Paul did when moving around the Mediterranean. Exactly as Christianity spread all over the Empire. There is clear indication in the Gospel – and there is obvious indication in the history books – that none of these movements was “illegal”.

Nor has Christianity ever taught that frontiers are illegals, or boundaries unjust. Those who tell you such rubbish are the third-worldist enemies of the West, aided by their Muslim brother in arms, all of them at war against Western culture and civilisation.

It always sends my adrenaline levels to the sky when I hear illegality preached as something not only good, but godly.

I wonder why Pope Tree Hugger never talks about these simple facts?

M

%d bloggers like this: