Author Archives: Mundabor
As a special Thanksgiving gift, Yours Truly has decided to share his not inconsiderable experience in blogging matters. So there we are.
When I started writing this blog I decided that the smart way of doing it was to limit interactive battles to the mere minimum, and devote the time to my little space on the Internet instead; at least as much as my fiery nature can manage.
Since then, I have been insulted many times, by many people, very publicly: from homosexual journalists to frustrated bloggers, and from failed seminarians to outright nutcases. Add to that a lot of atheists and perverts, but those I do not even count as worthy of notice.
Whenever I detected something of the sort, what I did is to look for the commenters who supported the attacker and ban them from my blog (yes: there are people out there who will praise you on your blog and insult you elsewhere; that's how much they love to see their nickname on the Internet). Then I make a knot on my handkerchief, and remember the episode at the appropriate juncture. Then… well, that's it, really. But trust me, I have a long memory, and the knots on my handkerchief are rather strong ones.
This way of running the blog has several advantages: it avoids the never-to-bed-and-you-know-you-have-to-work-tomorrow internet evenings; it avoids giving more ammo to atheists who then mock us for attacking each other; it saves vast amounts of adrenalines; it avoids making of the blog something self-referential, and it allows to dedicate the time to the blog topics instead, ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
Let me stress this particular point again: the savings in adrenalines are vast.
From blogger to blogger, I must say this to you: it's the smart way to go. I know it out of quinquennial blogging experience. Mind, it does not mean that I will leave an attack unpunished. I tend to leave very little unpunished. It means that, as smart people used to say, est modus in rebus.
We Catholic bloggers should learn from the Church. The smart one, I mean. The one before John. Those churchmen did not leave much unpunished, either. But they knew how to do it in the proper way. This was, of course, before the advent of the Age of Stupidity, but you get my drift.
The temptation to get into that Twitter brawl or that Facebook row can be big in the moment. But if you pray and write a blog post instead, whilst on the Internet others are attacking you from several places you will be the winner, big time.
In addition, with advancing age I have become less confident in my ability to teach idiots to think, or to induce reprobates to save their souls. Idiots will not think, because they're idiots. Reprobates will not save their souls, because they're reprobates. All others (those who are neither idiots nor reprobates) do not profit from inter-Catholic Internet quarrels. They profit from a blog passionately written about issues different from the blog author having been offended.
If you are a blogger, my suggestion to you would be to never link to the wrong sites – you bring traffic to them – but to deal with the matter at hand – or with the person at hand – in a general way: this and this is wrong, or: if Grima or Pollyanna tell you this and that you do not believe them, and the like. No traffic to them, and education of the reader. When the reader then meets the condemned attitude, he will know why it is wrong. If the reader never meets it, so much the better. You never bring traffic to the wrong sites in order to show that they are wrong.
I have followed these rules fairly strictly these five years. It has helped me a lot. It has also avoided to make of this blog – written ad maiorem Dei gloriam – a platform for my personal grievances. If anyone insults you on the net, let it stay on the net, for the permanent shaming of those who so insult you; and answer in due course, and without any haste, in the matter itself.
Of course, it is very human to want to react and respond to those who insult us. It is human and it can be even right, as we know how nasty liberals and fake Catholics can be. But it might bring little advantage in the end. The reader will remember the blogger who has not reacted long after he has forgotten the thirty who did, no matter how right they were to react.
I am not suggesting to take the high road. I am suggesting to take the smart one.
You will look, and live, so much better.
Father Lombardi is going to retire (no link, because it is an evil site).
The candidates to the job appear to be:
- Father Antonio Spadaro, directly or indirectly involved in many of the Pope’s heresies. Editor of Civilta’ Cattolica, a clear hotbed of heresy. One of the devil throughout.
- Father Thomas Rosica, a well-known promoter of sexual perversion, and very possibly a pervert himself. One of the main actors in the shameless manipulation of both the 2014 and the 2015 Synod. A bully (see Vox Cantoris-gate) and outright faccia di tolla. Clearly, another one of Lucifer’s team.
In the Year of the Lord 2015, this is the way to make a career in the Vatican: heresy and confusion throughout, and it probably helps a lot to be a sodomite.
Pray for this Pontificate to end soon.
There was a time when no one in his right Christian mind would have dreamed to “shack up” and not fear the consequences of an unprovided death. Then the “pastoral” mentality came about, and suddenly more and more people were “provisionally” living together. But you see, thought their parents, they do intend to marry, “if all goes well”! So it's not really a scandal, is it now? Come on, God would forgive their son or daughter who die in mortal sin because they lurv, surely?
Give it a bit more time, and it is full of people who shack up and do not even plan to marry, because they “don't believe in marriage”. But you see, will those around them say (including an awful lot of parents, uncles and aunts), they have “their heart in the right place!”. If the Obama hits the fan God would, in His mercy, certainly not punish them! They are even members of the WWF. It would be as cruel as killing a kitten! God is merciful. They will be fine.
There was a time when Baptism was the first thought upon the birth of a child. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born at midnight, and was baptised by ten in the morning the following day. Then came the time of “pastoral care”. Baptisms were postponed more and more, because you see, God being so merciful Baptism is not a priority. And then one is supposed to throw such expensive parties! Let's make it in three months' time instead. Or six. Or next year.
Give it a couple of decades, and Baptism is very low in the list of priorities. God would certainly not deny Paradise to a child just because he is unbaptised, would he? How could God be so unmerciful? Well then… Baptism can wait. And hey, is it not the child who should decide what he wants to do when he grows up? Why impose a Baptism on him?
I could make many other examples, but I think these two are obvious enough. They are example of a satanical mercy that helps people to go to hell by willingly and constantly substituting the fear of the Lord for the fluffy feelings so many nowadays call religion.
This is not our religion. This is satanical deception. This is the contrary of what Christianity has always believed. To betray Christianity in the name of Christianity is the most evil deception possible.
We must fight against this satanical deception wherever we find it. Which, make no mistake, will likely cost a couple of friends; but then again perhaps they weren't so worthy of having them as friends.
The satanical mercies are the most dangerous, because they are the most subtle. The Year of False Mercy about to begin will be another major Satan's offensive. Let us try to counter it as much as we can.
The United States prepare to celebrate the first Thanksgiving since the Supreme Court – aided and abetted by satanical politicians and stupid common citizen – spat in the face of the same God the Country is supposed to give thanks to.
An external observer cannot but notice the process now in place: Christianity is gradually erased from the collective consciousness of the majority of the Country as traditional rites and festivities are kept in place as hollow containers of something vaguely felt as “good”, but largely used for holidays, booze, or worse.
Thanksgiving is very clearly, for more and more Americans, something not even remotely related to giving thanks to God for a good harvest allowing the survival of the Pilgrims in the new Continent. To whom these people give “thanks” must be an exercise in stupidity: the Cosmic Lesbian, the Great Universe, the Goddess of Niceness and Mahatma Ghandi are certainly thinkable candidates. The same happens with Christmas, now largely a season of exaggerated spending and boozing which people largely remember for the stress it causes them; or Easter, the season for overseas travel and house cleanups.
Those who know history know that this is the way it always happens: the Romans kept the sacred office of the Pontifex Maximus when they had pretty much forgotten what the man was there for in the first place. Rituals stay a while, because of pure attrition, after religions have largely or completely gone. We are living that transition all over the West, with the exception of Russia and some Eastern European Countries.
As we assist to the not-so-slow disappearance of Christianity from the West, we keep all the exterior rites. The so-called Church of England has just been told they are not allowed to air an adv in cinemas guilty of containing the Lord's Prayer, but you can be sure Christmas will be a huge business in the UK this year.
Christianity is being erased from the West. In the meantime, Pope Francis complains about global warming, and wants more Muslims in.
Still, there is a silver line. The battle is already won, and our behaviour and allegiance will only decide whether and how much we partake of this victory.
With God's grace, we will stay faithful to the end; and enjoy, one day, our reward as many of those who today give thanks to “Gaia, the Big Lesbian Bitch In The Sky” discover there is a price to pay for their heathenish insolence.
The ongoing show of Circus Bergoglio gave us another pearl of wisdom. During one and the same homily, Francis gave not one, but several examples of what kind of person he is. CNS reported.
Francis is, we are told, afraid of rigid priest, because “they bite”. I have never been bitten by a rigid priest, but I am fairly sure Francis has. The fact is, rigid priests tend to be rigidly Catholic – this is what Francis means by the word – and if you are rigidly Catholic Jorge Bergoglio must horrify you. Therefore, Francis’ statement is akin of the one of the criminal saying “I am afraid of policemen, they arrest you!”.
Also funny – in the tragic way of this Pontificate – is the one with the young Jesuit who wants to leave the priesthood (hence we see how good the priestly formation imparted by the Jesuits is). Francis is no one to judge, so he does not say a word about rigid things as “vows” or “duties”. Instead, he suggests to the man that he speaks to his mother, who then did the job Francis should have done and dissuaded him from the step. We have a Pope here saying in public that he can’t do his job, doesn’t know jack of anything Catholic, and is brutally outdone in matters of basic Catholicism by your average mother. And the worst is that the man seems blissfully oblivious of the fact; so much so, that he makes of his incompetence a matter of jokes.
Not surprisingly, the man closes with the last bovine bowel movement of the day: it’s “interesting”, he says, that when a priest is “too fundamentalist”, Francis “does not trust him”.
Besides the casual offensive remark to orthodox priests – which in the mind of such a man as Francis can only be “rigid” or “fundamentalists” – I notice one thing that I deem important: good priests do not trust Francis, either.
The incompetent, inept, frankly stupid boor of a Pope laughs about his own incompetence as he insults right and left those good priests who do the work of Christ. Priests do not sprout like mushrooms (you don’t say?), but this Pope here seems fallen from Mars.
I am curious to see whether some good Cardinal or Bishop will rebuke the Pope and praise good Catholuc priests. It is time that the almost daily rants of this man are made to stop.
The circus has gone on for long enough.
Via Rorate Caeli, an excellent sermon about Mohammed and Islam.
Let us spread these words of reason.
It is not often that you hear words of truth about Islam from a priest.
Quite the Dalai Lama in white, Pope Francis keeps spouting the same tired rhetoric for kindergarten children and adults of low intellect. This time, we are given two messages:
- Jesus weeps. All the time, apparently.
- We are in the middle of WW III
As to 1, I must repeat again that I have more than a tiny problem with everyone who: a) claims to know when Jesus weeps, and b) gives us this week image of Jesus, as if our Lord were a kitten we must protect from being all wet once again. Yes, Jesus wept for Jerusalem, and in this we see His infinite mercy and solicitude for our destiny. But two thousand years of Catholicism have given us the image of a Rex tremendae majestatis, not a wet kitten. There is war, somewhere, at any given time. Therefore, this “Jesus weeps” things means Jesus is crying all the time. Beside some homos I do not think anyone will find the image very appealing, or very useful, or even orthodox.
Think Pantokrator, not wet kitten.
As to 2., the man shows a great ignorance of basic history. Historically seen, the world is actually extremely peaceful at least as proper war is concerned. It is merely the TV and twitter that brings every conflict to our homes, thus amplifying them. If there is something that is worrying for us, however, is the widespread persecution of Christians within and without the (rare) theatres of war. Of this, Francis talks very little, and certainly much less than about perceived inequality, environment issues, and non-existing wars. I also notice that the man who says that there is “war everywhere” is the one actively helping Muslims to export their war to Europe. We are here squarely in the region of mental retardation or outright evil intent.
The man has no solid education, no historical background, no idea of what he is talking about. He likes hearing his voice a lot, though.
When he dies, he will see whether Christ is the wet kitten he loves to imagine.
“I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more”.
Let us go back to the latest papal piddle outside of the potty. The words above are the concluding part of the long waffle triggered by Francis inability to simply say to the woman that she must convert to the Catholic Church.
Francis here is clearly talking out of his whim, as he always does. This, at the same time, guarantees that these improvised observations reflect, in a way, the way he thinks.
The words of the man are confused, because he is confused. They sound hollow and stupid, because that’s what he is. but they reflect a fundamental fear of his: the fear to cross a line out of which there would be no way out than public humiliation or risk of deposition.
if you read again the entire rant (follow the link on the post of mine linked above) you will see Francis “reasoning” along these lines:
- I would so much like to give communion to everyone, but
- I know that’s beyond my pay grade, and I do not dare to cross the line of self-destruction.
This is a concentrate of this pontificate: heresy in heart and mind, sacrilege as a way of thinking, complicity with every enemy of Catholicism. But at the same time, fear of going there where personal danger begins.
Francis is a Che Guevara who would so much like to start a revolution, if it didn’t entail personal danger for himself.
As the danger for himself is very real – as he was spectacularly reminded in public on a couple of occasions and, no doubt, unofficially on many other occasions – the man prefers to air his vague revolutionary ideas, without declaring the revolución himself.
He will, methinks, continue to spread his revolutionary “thoughts” without a revolution. He will continue to chase easy popularity among the atheist, the perverts, and the wrong people of every sorts. He will probably die before becoming the butt of jokes because he has been talking of revolution for so long and never had the gut to put his office where his mouth is. He will also continue to do extremely stupid things, which sabotage and damage Catholicism without being openly heretical, for example with his attack on marriage via reform of the annulment process. He will cause a lot of damage all right.
But I do not think that we will see an official challenge to Catholic doctrine during this pontificate.
With Francis, Satan got an extremely good hand. He will do as much damage as he can with him, but it won’t be enough.
In the end, what God allowed him to get is a “Che” without the guts.
Interesting post of the great Father Carota (please keep him in your prayers) about Sedevacantism. Father’s short post does not get into details, but it makes the sound, common sense argument most people will instantly recognise as right because so eminently reasonable and sound. If you want more details as to the issue of how to deal with a heretical Pope, please direct your mouse here.
Father Carota’s stance on Sedevacantism is neither new nor surprising. However, one phrase in his blog post is one of those signs of the times.
“As we pray for a new pope we need to ask God for a pope who will be clear and consistent with what the church has taught for 1980 years”.
The idea that a sound Catholic should pray for a new Pope appears so natural to the writer, that he puts the thought en passant in the argument against Sedevacantism. Of course you pray for a new pope, so bad is this one…
Yours Truly reads, approves, and can’t avoid thinking of all the insults found in his comment box when he himself started to encourage his readers to pray for this pontificate to end one way or another (I have heard abdications are all the rage these days).
We now find the same encouragement, as a matter of course, in blogs written by unquestionably orthodox (and, very probably, saintly) priests; because you see, facts have a way to impress themselves on people even if these people would rather prefer to ignore them. At some point, you can’t avoid the facts staring at you straight in the face. At some point, you realise it is really, really so, and there’s nothing you can do to avoid the stare.
Pray for a new Pope.
This time, hopefully, a Catholic one.
I do not pray the “new” Rosary (the one, I mean, which JP II of Assisi memory introduced to “improve” on the Blessed Virgin), but I seem to recall that one of the new Mysteries involved Jesus' call to repentance.
JP II simply thought he knew better.
Twenty years or so later, another Pope “improves” pretty much everything. I cannot imagine the man calling to repentance concerning much more than having used the air conditioner; he would, rather, call to dialogue; this dialogue would in no way include a call to conversion, because that would be Proselytism, an attitude Francis insults as he does everything Catholic.
That's another one who thinks he knows better.
So there we are: from the still orthodox – in the content; much less so in the attitude – new set of mysteries, to a new set of unofficial innovations and heresies spread via interview.
This is what happens when you think you can “improve” on the Blessed Virgin.
V II cannot be divided in a good and a bad part.
It is a fifty years long slippery slope.
No reasonable person can have any doubt that most people in Nazi Germany were, actually, very nice. They greeted their neighbours, helped old women to cross the road, loved their dear ones, and were all round regular guys and gals. You can also be sure that in many of them the ideology wasn’t the primary aspect of their lives, which actually revolved – as everywhere – around family, friends, personal interests and a more or less pronounced amount of religion.
However, they also had something in common: to a littler or greater extent, they all subscribed to an extremely dangerous, racist, destructive, anti-Christian ideology; an ideology whose less savoury aspects they just set aside in the same way as the garden variety Pollyanna looks the other side when Pope Francis goes in full Evil Clown mode once again.
We know how it ended. The Holocaust, kept away from the eyes of the German Nation, was nothing more than the consequent application to its logical end of those very principles the good guys and gals approved. We also know that the most fanatical Nazis weren’t those of the first hour, but those of the last: the boys (and girls!) of the Hitlerjugend, raised without knowing anything else than bling loyalty to Hitler and accustomed since they could remember to set their life at naught against the Fuehrer and his ideals.
We can make a solid parallelism with the Nazism of our time: Islam.
Granted: most Muslims are certainly sincerely peaceful and, due to their imperfect attachment to their religion, prefer to look only at its savoury aspects and conveniently disregard the bad ones. But the fact remains that they are still objectively supporting, with their religious allegiance, the bloodiest, most cruel killing machine on the planet. Their childish desire to ignore the immense potential for violence inbuilt in their religion – so much so, that strong orthodoxy must, in fact, be a call to violence – changes nothing in the fact that they are still, objectively, helping this potential to explode.
Yes, they are nice guys and gals. Many of us know some of them. Still, they are, like the Good Nazis, part of an abominable system of violence and oppression; like the Good Nazis, they wilfully ignore the obvious, huge problems caused by their own religion; and as in the case of the Hitlerjugend, they are breeding a new generation of people who only know fanaticism, and put it before their own lives without thinking twice.
It is time to understand – and to say out loud – that to say that Islam is a huge problem, and a religion fomenting violence and hatred of all sort, does not mean to criminalise millions of decent people. It means to look at the facts without the rosa coloured spectacles of political correctness.
Yeah, I know. There are a lot of sincerely Good Muslims.
There were a lot of sincerely Good Nazis, too.
“My name is Anke de Bernardinis and, like many people in our community, I’m married to an Italian, who is a Roman Catholic Christian. We’ve lived happily together for many years, sharing joys and sorrows. And so we greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord’s Supper together. What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?”
Only possible answer:
“You must convert to the Catholic Church”.
Is this too much to ask of a Pope? Really?
It is certainly beyond the pale for this Pope; who, offered the only possible answer on a silver plate, throws himself in the usual confused blabbering; at the end of which we have no answer at all, but we understand the man is trying to make her as much of a honorary Catholic as he can without telling her the brutal facts: that she isn’t and that this is very, very bad.
The only way is conversion. There is only one shop. You are in or out. If you’re out you are in danger of damnation. That’s it.
Basic Catholic fare for every peasant until V II.
Too much for a Pope now.