Category Archives: Catholicism

REBLOG: Pope Homo? Francis Approved Homoerotic Synod Text, Says Cardinal

The smell of sheep was becoming unbearable

 

Pope Francis had, with usual hypocrisy (I do not call him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, or TMAHICH, for nothing) pretended he was on the sidelines during the synod, allowing the “debate” (including perversion, and sacrilegious undermining of Sacraments) and then intervening at the end like the good uncle who cares for orthodoxy.

Well, that was another blatant lie, as we all knew but is now officially official.

You must notice a couple of revealing elements here. Emphases mine:

1) Cardinal Baldisseri’s bomb: “The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence,” “Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”

2) The reason Cardinal Baldisseri gives for dropping the bomb: “This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease,”

I can see a clear pattern here. Baldisseri is feeling the heat for his scandalous behaviour at the Synod. He is more or less fed up of being identified with it by all the mainstream Catholics (the informed Catholics know Francis was behind everything, because they think). He then separates his responsibility from the one of the Unholy Father, and lets the bomb drop: “don’t blame me”, he says, “this is Francis’ work”.

Baldisseri is obviously the little lapdog of Francis, but it is true that in this case the responsibility for the text lies entirely by Francis. Francis is in charge, Francis read, Francis green lighted the text, Francis answers for it.

—–

Another difficult day for the Pollyannas, then.

But don’t worry. They are stupid enough. They will swallow new excuses.

——

The text of the relatio, and the scandalous events happened before and after, do demand that we pose the question: is this Pope homosexual?

The relatio post disceptationem was a piece of clearly homoerotic rubbish. It cannot have come from the mind of a normal, healthy, straight man because normal, healthy, straight men are disgusted by homosexuality.

Therefore, even Francis has such a dirty mind that he has some sort of lewd sexual excitement by mixing with sexual perverts (as the latest example of the Trannie has proved once again), or he is homosexual himself, and promotes the homo agenda at every step.

Either very lewd, or outright pervert. Tertium non datur.

I continue to pray for both his immortal soul, and the end of this pontificate.

M

 

 

 

 

REBLOG: The Feast Of The Chair Of St. Peter

Tomorrow 22nd February is the feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Whilst St. Peter’s feast day is the 29th June, the feast of the 22nd February is more directly aimed at celebrating the Petrine Office. This feast is, therefore, as Catholic as they come.

This feast day might be an occasion to explain to some non-Catholic in your circle of acquaintances why you are Catholic. When requested, I proceed more or less in this way:

1) And I say to thee: that Thou are Peter…. Jesus doesn’t say to Simon that he is a nice chap; or that he is very perceptive; or that he himself is surprised that among the apostles Simon was the only one to give the right answer to his question “Who do people say that I am?”. No, he changes his name and calls him a rock.

2) and upon this rock I will build my Church…. Jesus doesn’t say “I will build my first church”, nor does he say “I will build my provisional church”. Jesus picks a rock, and builds upon him One (1, Una, Eine, Une) Church.

3) and the gates of Hell shall not previal against it….. It, that is: the very same Church built on Peter, the “rock”. That one, and no other. Jesus doesn’t say “the Gates of hell shall, in around fifteen centuries, prevail against the Church I built on you”, nor does he say “the Gates of Hell shall prevail against the Church built on you but hey, let us be happy with a generic term of “church” so it can work even when yours goes astray”. He is very specific: he builds one Church upon one man and gives his promise of indefectibility to this – and no other – organisation.

4) And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven….. This is also dumb-proof: keys are a very obvious symbol of power and authority and it is clear here that Jesus is speaking with extreme solemnity. He doesn’t say to Peter: “Peter, you keep the key for the moment” or “look mate, gotta go; keep the keys until I find you or yours unworthy, will ya?”. No, this is a solemn promise evidently made for all times, as his just pronounced promise about indefectibility must make clear to the dumbest intellect.

5)  ….and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. For those who should at this point still not have gotten what is going on, Jesus becomes even more explicit: Peter has the keys, and the keys mean authority upon the faithful now and forever; an authority given in the most emphatic terms possible. 

The meaning of these phrases; the clear solemnity Jesus gives to his words; the crescendo of emphatic declarations of such a broad and clear scope do not leave room for any possible doubt and as a result, Protestants have nowhere to hide. Whoever reads Jesus’ words with a minimum of intellectual honesty cannot avoid to recognise that the Only Church of Peter’s time (and of the following fifteen centuries) is the Only Church of today and that as a result whatever grievance against the men who run the Church does not change a iota concerning the position of authority of the Church. As to the complaint that some Popes were oh-so-bad (not much worse than many a tv-preacher I’d say, but laissons tomber….), Peter wasn’t immaculate either, but his shortcomings didn’t prevent Jesus from promoting him to rock of His Church.

To believe anything different from the fact that the Only Church founded by Jesus is.. the Only Church means to believe one or more of the following:

1) that Jesus made a mistake in founding His Church on Peter;

2) that Jesus was mistakenly persuaded that Peter’s successors would be good chaps, but  had his toy ruined by the baddies who  succeeded Peter;

3) that Jesus couldn’t count;

4) that Jesus’ words had a sell-by date, or

5) that Jesus made his promise of indefectibility without taking it seriously.

Or perhaps one could decide to read and understand the only possible meaning of such emphatically worded statements, as Jesus repeatedly made.

There is only One Church, folks. It’s the only one founded by Jesus. Simple, really.

Mundabor

The Endless Shame

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Evil Clown “celebrates” the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter. 

Please observe: 

  1. The people, or actually the almost total absence of them. The Romans have more sensus catholicus than this old, lewd idiot. 
  2. The nudity and revealing outfits, and the moves of the young women. 
  3. The music. Again, this is the feast of the chair of Saint Peter. Please, Lord, make the man die soon.
  4. The prelates. Embarrassed and embarrassing. I think they were thinking point 3 above.
  5. The old creep wants to kiss the little girl at the end. Someone call the police.

This is what this lewd idiot has reduced the papacy soon. Can’t wait for the one below.   

M

sede-vacante

The Half Time Period Of Alinskyite Popes Is Rather Short.

Photo-20160915182858483.jpg

Blah blah humanity blah justice blah blah organising blah blah exploitation blah blah blah blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I used to be very angry when the Evil Clown used to spit his social justice fake gospel to the masses. In time, I started to notice the following:

  • The man has lost the novelty factor
  • He is so verbose, not even his atheist and communist friends will bother to read him
  • He has now lost all prudence, further decreasing the danger caused by his propaganda

At this point even as an abortionist, atheist, drug addict “transgendered” Black Lives Matter activist you just wake up in the morning and expect from Francis this kind of crap just like people expect the sun to rise: an obvious event without any special significance.

Francis is mightily angry that after his many messages to the American people (and in particular American Catholics, whom in his stupidity he thought he could influence) inviting them to ditch Trump, his own sheep have decided this shepherd is either on drugs or in the hands of Satan, sending Trump to the White House instead. Actually, I suspect Francis might be even angrier because he realises that with his shameless abandonment of reason and common sense he has, in fact, directly contributed to Trump’s victory. The Lord has the finest sense of humour. 

This shameless clown has become not only the joke of every Christian with a head on his shoulder; but he is rapidly tiring even those he so desperately wants to help.

The half time period of an Alinskyite Pope is rather short. The novelty wears fast, and what you are left with is an old commie idiot in white whom the mainstream media increasingly neglect, or mentions in connection with the anger he is causing to real Catholics.

You can be a decent Pope and you can be an Alinskyite one. What you can’t do is to be the latter and be considered the former.

Francis can keep vomiting Alinskyite crap as much as he wants. The game is up and he knows it, which is why he reacts losing all sense of decency.

I think Satan will punish people in hell by ordering them to stay near him, and forcing them to listen to him reading Amoris Laetitia.

Footnotes included.

M

Reblog: The Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants

Mundabor, Self-Portrait, 2016

 

 

Not without surprise, I sometimes read the one or other Rad Trad blog (not excluding mine, I must very immodestly say; then my critics seem to read me more than I read them, and I notice their criticism only by way of a limited number of blog referrals, which in turn do not indicate a huge readership) called “insignificant”. As if, in the great battle between Right and Wrong, this had any importance.

Let us say you bravely defend Catholic Truth among friends and relatives, and no one heeds you. Is your effort insignificant? Certainly not! It is very significant, in fact, to the Angels looking on you from heaven. It is very significant for your own salvation. And, last but not least, it is significant because it is right.

But let us say, now, that you have a blog, and this blog reaches thirty people, who read you three times a week and draw some benefit from it. Thirty people who actually think that you make a difference in their spiritual life, or in their view of Catholicism, or in helping them not to drown in a sea of confusion; and, therefore, come back to your blog again and again. Is this insignificant? Certainly not! You are, in fact, already exercising a bigger influence than most teachers, bar the very best, have on their pupils! And all this, in most cases, gratis et amore Dei. No, it is certainly not insignificant. It is, in fact, a notable achievement.

However, it must be clear to all of us that, in the great scheme of things, we are all insignificant, in that none of us will ever, alone, change the course of history or be a leader of nations. This is true both for our insignificant blogs, and for those still insignificant Catholic publications who call us insignificant, and I doubt if they ever properly strengthen the faith of anyone, rather than leading them towards indifference or perdition.

But then again I wonder: how insignificant is insignificant, if it is mentioned among countless blog to one’s own readership as an example of lack of significance? Does not this deny, in itself, the premise? Still, they are right in the essence: in the great scheme of things, insignificant we all are, together with our detractors.

How should, therefore, each faithful Catholic (mother and father, friend and colleague) see ourselves? We should see ourselves, I think, as warrior ants.

Each one of us, taken individually, is certainly insignificant in the great scheme of things (albeit what he does is most significant for his own salvation, which in itself is infinitely important). However, warrior ants are a frightful force when they march together. Does the individual warrior ant care about how much “significant” she is? I have never asked one, but most probably not. The warrior ant cares, in her own way, about what she can do exactly as insignificant, expendable warrior ant, and that is the beginning and the end of it.

When we die we will not be asked whether we have “changed the world”. We will not be asked how “significant” we were. We will not be asked how many readers our blog used to have. We will be asked whether we have kept defending Truth when no one listened to us; when we were mocked and insulted; when we were, in fact, being – exactly – insignificant to the world. And by the way: be afraid of when the world calls you “relevant”: you might just have become like it.

I have started this blog hoping to reach sixty or seventy people every day: two to three school classes. My thinking was that this kind of readership would allow me to help my fellow Catholics in a comparable way as, say, a deeply Catholic high school history or philosophy teacher who has the ability to, as they say, “touch the life” of a comparable number of people every day with his own solid faith. Every blogger who is inclined to write and perseveres in his aim can, I think, reach this goal (and compensate for a non-existent Catholic philosophy or history teacher) obviously for no pay. Call it insignificant as much as you want, but I think it already counts a lot, both in this world and in the next.

This little effort – insignificant, of course, in the great scheme of things – reaches around 1500 unique users every day, and it is sailing towards five millions page views. You can call it, if you wish, a very fat and very angry warrior ant, but a warrior ant it still is. Few good history or philosophy teachers reach as many lives as this warrior ant does. You can also call it fifty philosophy classes, or three healthy parishes (apart from the fact, of course, that your fat warrior ant is not a priest). But you see, I do not start writing a blog post thinking of the fifteen hundred people my blog post might reach. I start writing for this blog because I want to be one of the Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. Small. Expendable. Utterly insignificant. But still there, marching together with many other warrior ants, and not caring about this world’s or his battle’s outcome. A single warrior ant can be easily squashed, but an army of them is a devastating force.

One of the reasons I write this blog is to encourage every one of my readers to be, in his little sphere of influence, Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. I encourage you to be warrior ants – with the due prudence; we aren’t like those Proddie in Oxford Street crying around: “repent!” – when no one seems open to you, when everyone considers you that very strange guy. One day, with God’s grace, the one or other may well remember your words, start to connect the dots and, in time, start to finally understand.

In order to do this, the warrior ant must bite. Fluff is easily forgotten after two days, strong words will be remembered in fifty years. By God’s grace, the words your atheist relative resents today might be the words God uses to save his soul on his deathbed in, say, 2055; with Pope Francis V very unhappily reigning , and Catholic ruins everywhere.

Yes, we are – taken individually – utterly insignificant. Expendable warrior ants. Not even a small nuisance to the world.

May we die that way, all of us, and what a blessing!

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barking Up The Wrong Tree: The SSPX And The Anonymous Critics of Pope Francis

After the unfortunate (or rather disgraceful) piece published by the SSPX with the public condemnation of the anonymous critics of the Pope, yours truly has published some old but, I think, valid considerations about the reasons for anonymity. It seems to me that whoever does not get the very simple concepts I have therein explained is being very naive in the best of cases, and very bad in the worst.

Also, please mind that my blog post was not meant as a defense of this little effort. I doubt the SSPX is even aware of my existence. However, the SSPX is certainly aware of the epic, but absolutely justified anti-Francis pranks in the last weeks (the posters and the fake Osservatore page), as well as of the well informed, anonymous, very critical posts published on Rorate Caeli in the past and signed by Don Pio Pace (an example is here. Every respectable search engine will give you others). In the last days we also had more explosive commentary from the excellent, anonymous Fra’ Cristoforo (this, dear readers, is Manzoni again!), who blogs in Italian in the aptly named site Anonimi della Croce.  (“Anonymous Ones of the Cross”). All of them have intervened to target one man: the Evil Clown.

It is utterly amazing that after the Holy Ghost allowed Trump’s great victory in part through anonymous revelations to Assange’s WikiLeaks and even more anonymous hacking of John Podesta’s emails, there should be people who still prefer – when this is at no cost and no risk to them – to accuse of “cowardice” people who are giving an extremely precious service to Christianity. Would the anonymous author of the SSPX article have preferred that the “cowardly”, anonymous WikiLeaks hacker had never penetrated John Podesta’s emails? Words fail me.

Even more persuading is the argument appeared on Non Veni Pacem. : the organisation that justifies her own disobedience to the Pope in the name of the state of necessity is unable to understand, condone, or even not insult the in comparison extremely harmless disobedience of critics of probably the most Satan-friendly Pope in history? Really? Is the anonymous writer of the SSPX article unable to understand that we are living every day in a state of necessity the like of which Archbishop Lefebvre could only imagine in a very hypothetical way? 

But there is more. The SSPX is, many say, about to be “reconciled” with the Vatican. Am I the only one who thinks that such initiatives should be avoided now more carefully than ever, in order to avoid even the suspicion that the SSPX may be trying to ingratiate themselves to Francis?

Not saying that this is the case, of course. But I do think that the SSPX should be above suspicion. I am sorry to say this, but right now they aren’t; at least some corners within them. 

It would be smart to let that disgraceful article disappear. It would be even smarter to let it follow with the most brutal indictment of Amoris Laetitia, in a condemnation even worse than the comparison to the boat with a hole in its bottom. It would be smartest to accuse Francis of being a heretic again, renewing the accusation that he is a genuine Modernist , just in case anyone might be forgetting. Think of the words Bishop Fellay used on that occasion: 

“Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”

Pretty clear, uh? This is the attitude we want to see from the SSPX, not the third-rate politicking at the expense of perfectly decent Catholics. We don’t need this kind of attitude from the SSPX. If they don’t like the anonymity of the pranks and the accusations, they should be decent enough to shut up about it.

Particularly now. 

M

The Times, They Are A Changin’; Melania Trump Edition

chewbacca

Above, then. Below, now.  

 

I know, it’s the Proddie version. But I will take it every day in preference to Gay Mulatto expunging God from his speeches and working, now doubt also under the influence of Chewbacca, towards the eradication of Christianity from the U S of A. 

I sense eight (and hopefully more) years of partial return to sanity. May the Lord guide and protect the First Man of the West, and his Christian wife.

“It Gives The Feeling Of A Schism”, Plus Bonus Rant.

 

It’s good to watch videos like the one above. They tell you there are still Catholics around. Actually, they tell you there will always be Catholics around. To paraphrase St Athanasius, the heretics may occupy our churches, but we will keep our faith.

—-

In this matter of so-called communion for adulterers, there are a couple of things that always give me a light case of nettle-rash. Not saying they are both happening in this video. I just want to get this out of my system. 

The first is describing the teaching of the Church as if had been created, or at least clearly affirmed for the first time, in Familiaris Consortio. I think I will scream next time I read that Familiaris Consortio is mentioned in this regard. As evidence of what the Church teaches, Familiaris Consortio is neither here nor there. The prohibition of communion for adulterers is based on the constant teaching of the Church, it is based directly on the words of Our Lord and has always been considered part and parcel of the Depositum Fidei. If, therefore, Familiaris Consortio introduced a novelty, then this novelty could be a heresy or a quasi-heresy like several other novelties introduced in V II-times encyclicals. If (as it is most certainly the case) JP II based his very words in Familiaris Consortio on the constant teaching of the Church, then it is this last element that must be constantly stressed, as it is infinitely more decisive than what one of the at times very bad, and at all times more or less questionable, V II encyclicals states.

Let the V II people try to explain everything with documents of the V II era. We should simply ignore them. Everything that is right and has a solid foundation in Catholicism can be explained without mentioning them, and everything that cannot be founded in pre-existing Church teaching is very probably wrong and in any way never to be trusted unconditionally. The only innovation not suspect of heresy or watering down of the faith  introduced by V II I can think of is the invitation to the faithful to denounce heresy. But this is a logical consequence of the rise in education and literacy. Educated laymen were never requested to shut up when confronted with heresy.  

Our (sound) Catholicism is based on what the Church has always believed, not on what JP II (rightly or wrongly) stated. If JP II alone can be the foundation of Church doctrine, than Francis can be it, too.

For this reason (and this is my second nettle-rush trigger), the mention from the man in the video that Francis might, in theory, announce a “change in discipline” is just plain wrong. Discipline cannot contradict doctrine. Therefore,  Francis could never change discipline in such a matter. The only thing he could do is to proclaim heresy. This is something that I would like to see stressed more in the public discourse. Truths are immutable facts that can never be changed by way of “discipline”. They can only be attacked by way of heresy.

We are in a de facto schism, in which the Pope willingly allows cardinal to contradict cardinal and bishop to contradict bishop in matters that every child old enough to know what “adultery” is would understand without any difficulty.

Francis and Satan observe this happening without any meaningful reaction, and laugh.

At least for now. 

 

   

     

 

Reblog: Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.

2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.

3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.

4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.

5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.

6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.

7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.

This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).

8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.

9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.

10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.

This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.

Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.

Mundabor

Microphone By Way Of Marriage

chewbacca

Michelle Obama relaxing at home.

 

I very much liked this post appeared on One Mad Mom. I invite you to read it in its entirety. It is beautiful to see that in the midst of the stupidity of our times, there are still an awful lot of Catholic mothers who understand the very basics of life, basics which obviously escape the rich wife of the many, many billions.

The blog post also allows me to spend two words about this strange phenomenon of the modern times: bought and/or married prominence.  

The First lady wasn’t elected President. Her husband was. Melinda gates isn’t a successful entrepreneur. Her husband is. She literally bought he public space by way of marriage and sinking an awful lot of money earned by her husband in more or less (often: more) satanical activities.

This idea that we should listen to someone (who, like in this case, may well be the perfect cow) because she has married someone who was, or has become, extremely rich and/or extremely powerful is just plain dumb.

Let her write her own blog if she wants, by all means. Let her express her opinions freely like everyone else of us. But prominence by way of the husband is clearly off.

I have barely started to breath again now that I don’t run any (big) risk of seeing pics of the former First Trannie, always a menace to my digestion.

But I really would like a world in which prominence is earned, not married or bought.

   

Father Gregory Baum Officially a Sodomite: What Does Father Rosica Have To Say About It?

angry-rosica

From their friends you will recognise them

 

Father Gregory Baum, at 93 still an indefatigable agent for Satan, has just admitted to decades of sodomy. 

He has, also, said that he preferred to conceal his perversion in order to better work to undermine Church teaching as a V II peritus

Father Rosica, whom many besides me suspect of being a first-class fudge packer, has expressed himself about this disgusting parody of a priest in the following words:

You remain a faithful, deeply devoted Catholic, love Jesus, the Church, the Eucharist

I’ve certainly admired very much your theology, your writings but also your love of the Church, your love of Christ, and you helped to keep alive not only the spirit of the Second Vatican Council but also the authentic teaching of the Council

One wonders whether Father Rosica will now have a word or two to say about sodomy in general and sodomy in a priest in particular. This is a priest for whom he carved a prominent role on his TV station, so he can’t really dream he will be able to shut up and get away with it.

These, my dear readers, are the “peripheries” of the Church.

They smell of sheep, they pack fudge, and their rectum is severely damaged. 

M

The Boor, The Lids And The “Tablet”

jesus-christ-ravenna-mosaic-6c-1

 

When even the most unCatholic of Francispapers starts complaining about Francis being “divisive”, (please don’t click on the linked Tablet article! It gives them money!) you know they are very much afraid of being caught on the wrong side of  a nuclear conflagration. 

Mind, it’s not that the Tablet wants Francis to become Catholic. They are merely uncomfortable with the pace at which the demolition is going on, making the work of the Evil Clown far too overt even for his own allies! 

I seem to read a subtext in this: “The old man is becoming more and more imprudent in his old age; the cowardly silence of the Cardinals and Bishops is emboldening him too much! If he goes on in this fashion, he runs the risk of altogether ruining the work of demolition we have so strongly supported by letting the entire thing explode in his hands!”.

Dear heretics at the Tablet, let me tell you what is happening here with an Italian saying: “il diavolo fa le pentole, ma non i coperchi”, “the devil makes the pots, but not the lids”.  

The satanical influence of this Pontificate must show itself in some way or other for everyone who has a Catholic heart and a desire for Truth. Yes, the Lord could still allow a more subtle satanical influence, which is what the Tablet is calling for; but in His goodness, He has given us at least this consolation: that in the midst of such confusion we can at least very clearly see who is wrong and who is right.  

The desire of the Tablet that the Pope be more subtle about his subversive work is understandable from their heretical perspective. However, the devil will never make the lids of his pots. There will always be a way to recognise deception, because The One who is The Way has decreed that he be always recognisable as such.

This consolation we at least have, and we will always have: that there will always be a way to recognise a heretic. Let us be glad that as God inflicts on us a decidedly deserved punishment, He does it so in a way that allows us to very easily see who is on the right side. He has not abandoned us. He will never abandon us. 

and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The question is: will you abandon Him?

The Tablet will not get, as long as Francis lives, the subtle heretic they wish.

They will have to make do with this stupid boor instead.

M

 

 

 

 

Time To Call A Heretic A Heretic

 

Photo-20170113124129161.jpg

Cardinal Coccopalmerio (a FrancisCardinal with the t-shirt) has, bizarrely, deserted his own press conference on occasion of the launch of a heretical booklet ‘splainin’ why the Church was wrong for 2,000 years, but heretics like himself and the Evil Clown are right. This is bizarre, but still understandable in view of the barrage of questions the heretical Cardinal clearly did not want to answer.

Even more bizarre, and outright absurd, is the rumour circulated by gay operatives of the Vatican that Coccopalmerio’s press conference would be the way the Pope answers the Dubia. 

Poppycock. 

The Dubia are made exactly so, that either the Pope himself or someone who officially claims to speak for him with his authorisation (say: the head of the CDF stating “the Pope authorises me to answer in the following way”) can be considered a valid answer. What gay operatives in the Vatican allege the statements of a Cardinal should be considered counts exactly zero point zero. If Coccopalmerio is the signatory of an answer explicitly, officially authorised by Francis, then Francis (not Coccopalmerio) has answered. If the man is just spreading heretical statements, his statement cannot count as the Pope’s answer more than any other statement of any other Cardinal not officially qualified by the Pope as the answer to the Dubia.  

We should never allow Francis’ gay Troops to state that (cough) hey, in a way, I mean, you might say, pretty clearly, that Francis has answered (in their sense, of course) when he hasn’t. Nor can Francis call himself out by just not answering. An answer is due and expected, and this answer must come from him. If the Pope refuses to answer, then clearly this silence condemns him and as such he must be condemned by whatever Bishops and Cardinals are still afraid of hell (not many, I gather). But really, what must not happen is that Francis is allowed to get away with having his own faggots stating he has answered without taking the responsibility and doing exactly that.

The Dubia were formulated as they were, and the vehicle of the Dubia itself was chosen, exactly in order not to allow Francis to hide behind interviews without a recorder, third party statements, and interpretations of various kind. He must say yes or no, and this is all there is to it. Including, of course, that his silence condemns him in the most blatant way anyway.

I do not know whether the private warning to the Pope that should precede the official censure has been delivered or not. What I know is that if the Cardinals do not follow through and do not condemn Francis for not answering (meaning here: condemn him for not answering; not simply compare his silence with a reaffirmation of truth coming from themselves) they deserve to be transferred to Guam en bloc (as the rumor has it this is about to happen to Cardinal Burke) and be buried there.

Enough with Popes heretical by silence, and Cardinals bravely meowing. 

Time to call a heretic a heretic, no ifs and no buts. By now even my cat understood that Francis is a commie heretic anyway.

And as to the question:

No, I am not afraid to have a heretical Pope openly proclaim his heresy. It is certainly preferable to having a heretical Pope promoting heresy in less open ways. It has been decreed that we should live in such disgraceful times. Let us look at reality in the face, and fight the good fight.

We are not afraid.  

M     

 

 

 

Oportet Ut Scandala Eveniant

pope-francis-angry

“Don’t you dare to dig into my smelling-of-sheep past!”

 

This blog post  made me reflect on the fact that it has been a great advantage for the Evil Clown to come from the “peripheries”. The English-speaking press, which together with the Italian one dominates the Catholic discourse, is very far away. There does not seem to be any big interest in serious investigative journalism about The Life And Evil Work Of Bishop Bergoglio. His connections to homosexual priest (search this blog), his arrest for having marijuana in his luggage (search this blog), and his support for clearly evil bishops and cardinals (refer to the post linked above) should give a newspaper ready to pay the cost more than some hope for rich pickings.

Unfortunately, the secular press is largely interested in promoting the Evil Clown and they have no interest in bringing him down, not even for the sake of prestige and income. Meanwhile, the big Catholic press seems too much beholden to a strange concept of “loyalty” to start the serious digging exercise that is called for now. It is difficult to think that the likes of EWTN will make the conscious decision to start unearthing the excrement in the excrement-rich life of Jorge Bergoglio, sadly of Italian ancestors.

We can still pray.

It would be glorious, and a new pearl in the crown of the Church, if a brave Catholic publication would take on itself the costly work of exposing the dirt at the very top, where a man with a very dirty mind is operating every day.

Oportet ut scandala eveniant. 

M   

REBLOG: Let’s Stop Talking The Language Of Our Enemies

Only days after the Orlando massacre, the wrong vocabulary is everywhere. “Gays”, “LGBT”, “homophobia”, all that rubbish.

It angers me no end.

When will people understand (even conservative pundits) that you can never win a battle by accepting the vocabulary of your enemy?

The Libtards have created a new vocabulary to reprogram the brain of the simple. If we want to deprogram the brain of the simple, we must go back to the old vocabulary.

It’s not “gays”, it’s “homosexuals” (which refers to the sexual perversion) or “sodomites” (which refers to the acting on the perversion). It’s not “LGBT”, it’s “perverts”. It’s not “homophobia”, it’s Christian feeling and Christian decency.

This, if you write for an official publication, or if you are a priest.

All the others should, if you ask me, be more assertive than that, and assertively use language to shame wrong behaviour. Fag, Dyke, Fudge Packer, Pillow Biter, Elton, and so on. It’s like flying a flag. It does get noticed. Be ready to double down whenever necessary.

It astonishes me how many people do not understand this simple concept: words shape thinking. We can’t escape this reality. We can avoid the issue, but it will came back to bite us when we are then forced to fight with one hand bound.

Let’s stop talking the language of our enemies.

Let’s start talking the language of our grandfathers instead.

M

 

%d bloggers like this: