Category Archives: Bad Shepherds
Cardinal Burke has now given an interview criticising the rather easy target of a fake Catholic university awarding a honour to a fake Catholic. I haven’t even read what the man had to say, as it is irrelevant.
Honestly: the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
The very man who has not only decided to shut up about the heresies and blasphemies of Amoris Laetitia, but has accused orthodox Catholics to be the real problem now has the almighty gall to try to remake a virginity for himself by waving the Catholic flag when it is easy and safe.
I have enough of these people. After the 8 April there can be only one criterion to value a bishop or a cardinal: if he has spoken against Amoris Laetitia or not. Silence, excuses, and other subterfuges do not wash now, and will not wash until they stop playing with dolls and speak out against AL.
I am done with this man and with all those who have willingly chosen a vocation that should see them undergoing persecution without even flinching, and prefer to look at blasphemy in silence to keep their (abundant) privileges. I am sick and tired of this cheap orthodoxy that costs nothing, and comes from those who are called to be the very first to pay the price. I refuse to consider this man, and all those wannabe orthodox clergy, as examples of anything but pusillanimity and dereliction of duty.
To be a Cardinal is a great honour exactly because of the great burden the position entails. The magnificence of a Cardinal’s life is, and very rightly so, the counterpart of the duty to set it at naught (if needs be) when the time comes. i will write this again and again: ubi honor, ibi onus. He who does not want to bear the burden is not worthy of the honour. He should be man enough to admit it and ask to be sent to a faraway parish, where he can work as a simple priest; hopefully having the guts to defend truth is his new, far little sphere of influence, and without insulting those who not only love truth before luxury, but are helping him to do his job properly.
Cardinal Burke is unworthy of his red robe. Not only that: he even blamed us for what Francis did! A slap in the face, this one, that Mueller, Brandmueller, Sarah, & Co. and the other professional blind and mute Cardinals (= all of them) at least had the sense to avoid. Unworthy all of them, but he unworthy the most.
God knows I liked this man. But the facts shout louder than any sympathy or emotional attachment to a cherished image of “orthodox V II Cardinal”. There are none. I am done with Burke and with all those like him. He has betrayed the cause as he has insulted those who defend it. He has no excuses.
The Cardinal was weighted, and he was found wanting.
He could now at least have the common decency to shut up.
Archbishop C is, you know, one of those guys. He is very much into pastoral work. So open. So merciful. So inclusive.
He loves to make pastoral visits in the homes of the marginalised, and to “accompany” them in their journey. Because mercy.
Once he saw a man savagely beating his, erm, concubine. Archbishop C asked the man: “son, is you decision in good conscience?”. “F@ck yeah!” answered the man with scarce delicacy; and to make the point, he gave a last uppercut to the woman, who as a result fell senseless to the ground.
“I am impressed with the strength of your feelings, son!” – said Archbishop C – “Shall I accompany you to the Sacrament?”. The man asked Archbishop C what the F he was going there, and why the F did he not go away; actually, he suggested the man F disappears at once, or he would F break his F ass.
Archbishop C went away quite happy, satisfied that he had “accompanied” the man as much as he could. He felt so pastoral he was moved to tears by his own mercy and goodness.
On another occasion, Archbishop C visited another marginalised man. The man was what uncharitable people call a sodomite, and normal people a faggot. Archbishop C does not approve exclusionary language in the least, and he actually likes sodomites; I mean, he thinks that they are our brothers, our sisters, our cousins, our altar boys, our seminarians, our brothers in lurv…
Speaking of lurv, the fag made clear avances to the archbishop, who was alone on that day (he is always alone when he visit the “gays”; which he does often, because mercy…). Archbishop C thought the he must accompany the man in his lurv, and share the lurv. “What kind of Christian would I be” – he thought – “if I did not share the lurv with this wonderful, unique, marginalised person? Lurv must reach out to the peripheries! The priest must smell of the sheep!”
As the fag is sodomising him, Archbishop C cannot but reflect: “Why not? I think that gay people are human beings too!”. The pain grows bigger by the minute, but Archbishop C, who is very pastoral, kind of likes it. “I think that we really need to get to know what these people’s life is like if we’re going to accompany them”, he thinks. After the fact, and still in visible pain, Archbishop C asks the man is he wants to accompany him to church to get “the Sacrament”. There was, he reflects, a lot of accompanying, so that was certainly warranted. Archbishop C is now crying, we do not know exactly whether because of the pain, or of the consciousness of his own awesomeness.
Then there was the time where the man visited another man “living at the peripheries”. As he entered the man’s room, the chap was screwing his dog. The man was taken by surprise, and let go of the dog. “No, no!” – said Archbishop C to him – “I think that we have to make sure that we don’t pigeonhole one group as though they are not part of the human family, as though there’s a different set of rules for them. That would be a big mistake! Keep what you are doing, son! The conscience is inviolable!”.
The man finished his, ahem, job, after which he thought the right thing to do to ask Archbishop C, so unusually understanding, whether he wanted to have a go himself. The Archbishop quickly remembered his painful but pleasant experience with the sodomite, and the necessity to “know what their life is like if we want to accompany them”. Therefore, he was very fast in accepting the offer. “After all”, he thought”, “if people come to a decision in good conscience then our job is to help them move forward and to respect that. The conscience is inviolable and we have to respect that when they make decisions, and I’ve always done that.”
And so it came to pass that Archbishop C got to know what the like of a lot of people is about. This gave him, he thought, a massive pastoral experience. Perhaps this pastoral experience might be shared with other people? Oh, if only every bishop were so merciful, pastoral, inclusive, and understanding like Archbishop C! What can be more inclusive than include another’s youknowwhat in one’s own youknowwhat? Isn’t this, thinks Archbishop C, what the Gospel is all about? Share the lurv!
You will say, for sure, that this story is absurd.
Archbishops don’t do such things.
But then you read articles like this one, and start to wonder how far away we are from all this.
And it came to pass yours truly was, a couple of months ago, attending Mass at one of the Novus Ordo parishes that are still not difficult to find in his parts, taking the temperature of the local churches.
A leaflet at the entrance talks about the inability of adulterers to receive communion, and describes it in terms of “exclusion”. It falls short of saying that this exclusion is “wrong”, but at the same time this “exclusion” is compared to Christ’s “inclusion”. The leaflet was not signed.
Father is your typical V II product: oily ceremonious, utterly unmanly (though not effeminate), and speaking in a sanctimonious, slow, low tone voice. You know the type. The love child of Uriah Heep and McDonald’s. He asks whether someone wants to volunteer to be the reader, because the readers haven’t showed up yet (and he seems to know the types). No takers I am afraid. Father keeps smiling.
The mass begins. One arrives late and is directed straight at the lectern. No readers for the second reading. Who wants? No one? Embarrassment all around. Father does not even think of being a priest and doing what priests do. A child of the apparent age of ten is finally chosen as mama encourages him to go there and do his best.
The boy can’t read. No, I mean he can’t read. He stotters and staggers over every word less than entirely banal, takes his time to read it, then dares to speak it. The boy is clearly mother tongue, and clearly not retarded. The scene is so embarrassing I would like to disappear; but hey, this might be the typical reading skills standard of an English boy of an apparent age of 10 in the Year of the Lord 2015. It is, by now, abundantly clear having Scripture read by a functional illiterate is still vastly preferable to Father than having to do it himself. I’m sure it’ s not laziness, but simple cult of V II.
The homily is so boringly stupid I struggle not to sleep. It clearly has five main concepts: poverty, poverty, poverty, poverty, and poverty.
The “choir” consists of five old parishioners, sitting in the pews behind me. The most tone-deaf people I have ever heard opening their mouth and sing in a church. Embarrassment again, with added pain. I am absolutely sure they were “the choir” because no one else wanted. These five, by the way, had been chatting aloud before Mass like it’s afternoon tea time in the garden. I don’t think there was any arrogance in it, just pure ignorance.
After Mass, Father has some communications:
- The rota of the readers is more and more neglected. People just don’t show up.
- The rota of the cleaners is like the rota of the readers.
- Less money is donated than it used to be, this or that initiative might not be possible next year.
And there stays yours truly, wondering how this man can be so thick that he does not understand his pathetic excuse of a mass literally drives all but the oldest away from it, and his spineless oily behaviour causes him to be despised to the point that even those scheduled to read at mass do not think they should do him the courtesy of showing up. Mind, I am not saying they are not attending Mass elsewhere, or at other times; but they do not show up when they said they would, because Father is just irrelevant.
When even your readers do not show up, Father, don’t be surprised that the money doesn’t come in, either. Your parish is dying, and deservedly so. In a number of years you’ll have to find another parish to demolish, if the money if there for that in the first place.
Perhaps should we all become more “inclusive”?
The blog “the tenth crusade” has an article whose content I do not feel I should entirely approve – the part about the SSPX I most certainly do not approve -, but which, besides its undoubted intrinsic merits, contains a wonderful digression as follows:
This is really the crux of the problem with Pope Francis, isn't it?
His conduct is that of the typical pastor who wants to bring in the heretics to teach our family, and when we point out the spiritual malpractice, he's written a book of insults to give witness to our children that we are antiquated sourpusses who can't enjoy a little clapping fornication. He has shipwrecked thirty years of catechesis in the family and parishes trying to help us navigate through the clapping fornication they are drilling into children at schools and the culture. On top of the bozo the clown act, he is surrounding our children with the clapping fornication show and culture of death and applauding it on the sidelines.
An absolute shipwreck that will take a generation to recover — some of our own children will be swept away and he's fixed it so there is little we are able to do.
Truly beautiful digression. It shows another devout Catholic for whom it is natural, speaking of orthodoxy and heresy, to say that Francis is heretical, insulting to Catholics he hates, very clearly approving of the culture of death and, in a word, pretty much Bozo the Clown. The entire digression flows so naturally, the comparison with the heretical priest is so vivid, the clown comparison so obvious, the knowledge of the reader of the Pope's heresy so naturally understood, that no one is aware of any logical jump of any sort. If you talk of heretics within the Church, Francis obviously comes to mind.
The pope is compared to Bozo the Clown. You know the comparison is very fitting. If thousands of blogs like this had written thousands of comparisons like this one, I cannot imagine that we would be where we are now, politely awaiting to see what kind of havoc Francis will wreak in October.
But I suppose politeness, and not be seen as aggressive, must come first, and truth second. If Francis truly goes nuclear in October there will still be time for more polite disagreement.
I do not know if he is the only one who has noticed this, but I have it from Vox Cantoris: an astonishing tweet of Cardinal Maradiaga stating that:
Vox Cantoris charitably wonders whether the man’s account has been hacked. More realistically, I think the man is just being his usual heretic self.
Read the tweet again.
The man flatly denies the possibility of damnation. Your pastoral accompaniment is “authentic” (that is: not characterised by the “exclusion” typical of the “rigorists”) if the pastor 1) always walks with the person and 2) knows that whatever road the person chooses, it will lead to heaven.
This clearly is a new religion, which aims at taking the place of Christianity.
Christianity very clearly poses boundaries to the “walking with the sinner”. The sinner is invited to repent; he is welcome as a repentant sinner anytime; but he is not allowed to participate in full to the sacramental life of the Church in the same way as the one who is not in grave and open, scandalous rebellion to God. For our religion, the pastor is not one who “accompanies”. He is one who – as the name says – leads the sheep. In Maradiaga’s world there is no place for a shepherd, merely for a lady-in-waiting. There is no need to lead any sheep safely to the sheepfold, because there are no ditches or ravines where they might fall, and no wolves wanting to devour them.
The pastor who “always accompanies” is totally useless as a pastor. He proclaim his own superfluity. Every friend can “accompany” one. Actually, someone who is an accomplice in the sins of his friend will do exactly that which Maradiaga praises as so pastoral: “always walk with the person”. For this pathetic excuse of a priest, being pastoral means being the contrary of being a pastor. This is satanical. Satanical.
Then there is the second bomb. The second bomb is bigger because so openly heretical, but the two are closely intertwined because you could never understand the second part of this heretical statement without the first or describe the first without hinting at the second.
In the world of Maradiaga, High Priest Of Satan, the only possible outcome is heaven. This must be so, in order for Maradiaga to justify his transformation from pastor (who leads) to lady-in-waiting (who accompanies). If the man admitted any possibility of hell – that is: of the existence of ditches, ravines, and wolves – he would as a consequence have to admit the necessity of being a pastor, that is: of leading the sheep, telling them where to go, using the rod and the staff to make them go where he wants.
Hell is denied. Satan is believed if not exactly non-existent as an entity, certainly unable to do any damage to anyone of us in concrete. This is exactly what Satan wants, and this is exactly what Maradiaga also wants.
The man should be exorcised.
After being defrocked, of course.
As I had (very easily) predicted when I wrote the blog post about the rape of the Church (and which will remain pinned at least until the end of the Synod), a fairly consistent barrage of interviews of the or other flaming heretic has been given to more or less allied journalists, with the clear aim of creating a kind of fait accompli atmosphere at the Synod. Here, I will stop in order to allow you to utter one or two fitting insults at the address of these bastards, and to pray heaven that it may put an end to the work of said bastards in its own good time, but hopefully soon…..
After this brief intermission, I submit to your attention another interview (not the first, not the last), given by bishop Franz-Joseph Bode, undoubtedly one of the chief German
Bode reads like an exercise in Modernism:
1) We must take account of the fact that the world has changed
2) we don't want a second marriage. But we should consider giving our blessing to adultery.
3) Some people put their prick in other people's sphincter, but we should obsess about sex.
4) when the teaching of the church becomes difficult we will uphold it in principle, but call it “an ideal” that must still “have a connection with life”; which is clearly impossible when God asks something as absurd as indissolubility of marriage.
It goes on in that vein, but my adrenaline level has peaked already so I will stop here.
I know the Angels have been reading
Bastard bishop Bode. To me this is enough for today.
Make no mistake: they are being watched.
If one thing should become clear to our inept hierarchy in the dramatic times we are living, it is that “cultural Catholicism” has a limited shelf life of one generation, one and a half at most.
Grandma, born in 1920, was deeply rooted in Catholicism. Catholicism shaped her entire life. Daughter, born in 1950, was much different, but you might not seen very much of it in daily life. There were big differences on several issues, but even Grandma would have called Daughter a Christian, albeit a bad one.
Granddaughter was born in 1980. The values her mother shared never meant much to her. Her mother had a vague feeling that they were good, but she could never really articulate why. She was, herself, not entirely in agreement with her mother on a number of issues; therefore, the granddaughter thought it perfectly legitimate that she also does the same.
Daughter's “cultural Catholicism” consisted in receiving what is comfortable and understood and rejecting what is seriously inconvenient; but granddaughter does not understand why she should accept positions her mother cannot defend herself, and to her everything that causes the slightest riff with her girlfriends is highly inconvenient. The mini m common denomitor is her religion, a vague “goodness” that murders children, but feels very holy.
Grandmothher managed to get to Purgatory. Daughter's fate is far more uncertain. Granddaughter's cards are frankly – unless there is radical change – horrible.
Cultural Catholicism survives for some decades as a fallout of saner times. For one generation or so you will have an army of people who still share much of the building of Catholic values, but do not understand why the building stands in the first place. The following generation will find it more practical, or even moral, to tear the whole building down. It can be as fast as that.
Old people die, young people reach voting age. Your bishop may think the fundamental fabric of Catholicism will remain, but he is a fool. As the old people die, the “why” of things get lost, because the priest prefers to speak like a politician or a social worker, rather than a priest. One generation will do a lot of what was traditionally done without really knowing why; the following one will refuse the doing altogether.
An astonishingly inept (or worse!) clergy thought, all over Southern Europe, that cultural traditions would do for them the work they never had the guts to do. But cultural traditions die in the end, if no one can articulate why they are cherished. The funerals of the old people bury them too, slowly but irresistibly. Unless things change radically, it is only a matter of time before Italy goes to way of Ireland.
In this utter squalor, and in this climate of bankruptcy in many European Countries, we are waiting for the next encyclical of the Evil Clown.
Dedicated to… the environment.
After the very predictable results in Ireland, the first culprits of the mess that has been created go to the press (they love doing this, clearly) and give a show of incompetence that I cannot believe can be the result of stupidity (and a great amount of that would be necessary, anyway), but rather of an evil desire to avoid at all costs having to do their job and to betray Christ every day of their miserable life; provided, that is, that they get a comfortable existence before a judgment in which they very probably have stopped believing a long time ago.
For example, one reads the words of Bishop Martin and wonders why the man was ever considered fit for anything but work on a potato field; an infinitely worthier activity, by the way, than being Bishop Martin.
The words of the man are sheer unbelievable. Reality doesn’t live in the mind of this man; or, rather, not a shred of fear of the Lord.
Following, the bishop’s words accompanied by yours truly’s certainly very obvious observations.
“The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people,”
No. The Church has to speak the language of the Church. That language has always been understood well enough. It is the wishy-washy, “let us not offend anyone”, “why can’t we be all friends”, “we are so embarrassed by the pedophile scandal so we will shut up and hope we are forgiven”-language that leads nowhere, because the people understand that they have to do with a bunch a good-for-nothing eunuchs in black (when they dress in black).
The first generation will despise them and still believe. The second, who has not been properly taught the faith, will despise them and not believe. And the in the first part, they are most certainly right.
“We have to see how is it that the Church’s teaching on marriage and family is not being received even within its own flock.”
It’s because you never explained and defended it. It’s because you never told people what happens if they refuse to follow it. It’s because you never had the guts to tell things as they are. It’s because you tried to keep the very unpleasant but absolutely indispensable bits out of the recipe, and now wonder why the cake is a failure the flock does not understand, and does not want to eat.
“There’s a growing gap between Irish young people and the Church and there’s a growing gap between the culture of Ireland that’s developing and the Church.”
The man is such an ass that he does not understand (or pretends not to; which makes him evil; which is worse) that his words are his own indictment. It is exactly his job to care that there is no gap. It is exactly his job to tell his flock what happens when there is one. It his job. He is there just for that. If he is so thick that he does not get it, he should steer the next potato field.
And look at the language, even here! The bishop clearly hints (but does not say) that in all this the problem is not Ireland which develops, but the Church which doesn’t. The man can’t avoid bending over backwards to please the heathens, not even on this day! God forbid, he sends a Catholic message!
Obviously, abortion is now the next target.
How could it not be? With such idiots at the helm, what hopes there are?
Bishop Martin will have a quiet life all right. A life of privilege and authority, albeit swindling. A life of comfort, far away from the potato fields of his infinitely worthier ancestors. But when he dies, I doubt he will consider it a good investment.
I know (because, by the grace of God my faith is strong enough), I have no doubt that the Angels look down on Bishop Martin and on the army of professional Grima Wormtongues like him and ask the Lord to exact a terrible vengeance for their betrayal of Christ and His Church.
A betrayal so obvious, so blatant, so shameless, that it has now become a matter of normality, as a bishop looks at his fully de-christianised flock after he has looked at them going away from religion every step of the way and says somethign between “there must be some slight communication problem here” and “we should modernise or thinking already”.
I know the angels look down on him, and ask for vengeance. Wretched sinner as I am, I would dread to face death today with the same chances this man will have if he dies today, unrepentant. Many will end up like him. The very probably gravest crisis in the history of the Church is the result of the possibly gravest betrayal from Her shepherds.
They are a bunch of fools if they think they are going to escape the direst punishment, because they were “nice” and gave interviews about a “new language”.
In another stunning example of how stupid we have become, one of the auxiliary bishops of Westminster has joined the choir of those reacting with dismay at the findings of the recent report of the UK health Ombudsman.
Let us leave aside the specifics (an organisation titling their report “dying without dignity” is obviously affected by compulsive busybodying, political interests, pathological attention whoring or desire to safeguard its own existence), and let us delve into the real news.
An entire Country sinks into the deepest pit of atheism, and a chap who apparently has the title of bishop finds he must go to the press to express a purely secular grievance: that this army of atheists runs some risk of not going to hell in sufficient comfort.
The article – published in a Catholic weekly, and therefore not suspect of having kept out the spiritual part – has only the vaguest mention of “spiritual care”, but the fact that the vast majority of people doesn't ever think of dying with any sort of sacrament – real, or Protestant – or even the slightest sort of preparation (as in “forgive me, Father, because I have sinned”) does not register at all with the bishop. Does he have idea of how many people die in utter atheism? Of course he has! He just doesn't care! But look, that chap there died suffering! How horrible!
It all makes sense, of course. If the bishop believes in God, it is obvious he has no thought of hell. If you are not worried about hell the immense drama of all those people dying in their atheism is just nowhere to be found; but let an ombudsman whose existence many of us did not even know make some noise with some extreme and isolated cases, and there you have the man on the barricades.
The bishop complains people can't die well anymore. What he does not say is that in order to die well you need to think well; which is something he is unable to do in the first place, but demands from other that they get it out of he does not say what; because hey, damnation and hell are taboos in modern Catholic publications.
But hell is exactly the matter: once upon a time people knew how to die because they accepted the brutal reality not only of life after death, but of an irrevocable judgment to be passed immediately after death. This obvious knowledge coloured their entire existence, and obviously greatly influenced their way of dying.
The bishop asks people to die better, but does not even mention what radical re-thinking is necessary in order to be able to do so. Worse still, he sinks himself into the same pit of wordliness by making of a purely wordly concern the main reason of his intervention.
Hell is not mentioned with a word, as the complaint is uttered that an already extremely pampering health system (one that would have been beyond the dreams of comfort of countless generations before us) does not pamper well enough.
This is the reality of the Catholic Church in this beginning of the XXI Century; as the West dechristianises, led by its own shepherds.
And it came to pass TMAHICH met, as the Vatican news agency reports, representatives of the Proddie community to which the late buddy of his, Tony Palmer, belonged before going to meet (or not, as the case may be) his Maker.
During this meeting Pope Francis made, as usual, some stunning affirmations, notable for their decidedly anti-Catholic character.
The main one: we sin when we focus on our differences.
I wish his grandmother had slapped him in the face as a child. I wish his spiritual director at the seminary had kicked his ass all day long. I wish he had become just another of the potheads leaving the priesthood in the Seventies. Alas, the second and third have not happened, and the first did not, if it really happened, had any lasting result.
The missionaries, preachers, theologians, and simple priests sinned all this time, then, by defending Catholicism against heresies. The countless martyrs who decided to suffer death or persecution in order to “focus on the differences” rather than going along with the world were, according to this nincompoop, sinning. Oh St Thomas Aquinas, you must be one of the greatest sinners of all! Oh St Thomas More and St John Fisher, what great sinners you were!
In charity, one must say that this man might be an alcoholic, but we must wait to see whether something is leaked about it. He might also, for all we know, still smoke marijuana (he already admitted he did so as a young man; another good example given to the youth. What a cool pothead our Pope is…). I am by now persuaded he is not stupid, and whilst obviously not very intelligent he seems to be rather cunning.
He must be evil, then.
He is most certainly not Catholic.
The rest of this possibly grappa-fueled or marijuana-driven speech goes along the same lines, so I will spare you the revolting details.
The devil divides us, you know; but we must be smarter and just overlook the differences. This is worse than Protestant, as you will find that even Protestants do not generally simply overlook the differences. Wrong as they are, they at least believe their wrongness is right. They do not say that they in the end just do not care. Francis, the Pope, does!
This is satanical. This is the same as saying that the specificity of Catholicism is just an obstacle to the understanding among Christians; a pastime for quibbling Theologians; an occasion of sin! It is so sad, that he can't have his sorry ass kicked all the way from the faggot-run hotel to Termini Station! It would be so good for his soul! It would be, perhaps, his only chance to redemption! Alas, as a Pope he enjoys physical inviolability. Which makes of his redemption a very arduous task.
This is an Apprentice Sorcerer who has already miserably failed his apprenticeship. Screwtape will not be happy with him at all.
This man is of the devil, and I thank God that He at least gives us the opportunity to spot it so easily, if we but stay by His teaching and the teaching of the Church. Had he been smarter in his doings, the deception would have been easier. As it is, no informed Catholic has any excuse.
There is no way you can love the Church and side with this man, knowing what he is saying.
This man is, clearly, the stuff of reprobates. Which is why they love him so much, and applaud him whilst he insults Catholics and Catholicism every day.
But you, dear read, you keep strong in the Faith of our Fathers. You know better than to follow a heretic, blaspheming, socialist, sacrilegious pothead just because he is dressed in white, and embraces wheelchairs.
The shocking news, published on Rorate, of the suspension a divinis of some FFI priests looking for a new religious order is a faithful mirror image of the “mercy” of this Pontificate. A Pontificate which is rapidly distinguishing itself for the brutal illegality of his main actor as much as for the obvious ignorance – or worse – of all things Catholic. And no, for the umpteenth time: a Pope is bound by the rules as long as he does not – if he is allowed in the first place, of course – change them. He is a Pope, not a Satrap.he is bound by the rules as long as they are there. He is the one who is supposed to behave exemplarily in the first place.
Mr Beria – or shall I say Father Volpi – is acting with the brutality of a Soviet Communist Party enforcer, and to think that Francis is not behind all of this is just as brainless as to think that Stalin was in the dark about Beria’s work.
“Soon, soon!” were the words of the Bishop of Rome to the old couple who had given several of their sons to the Order, and asking in so many words when the persecution would end. How Francis must have hated them! How he must have rejoiced in saying to them those words, and thinking “just you wait!”! I wonder if there is still one sensible reader of this blog who has doubts whether The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) is entirely appropriate.
It is clear what, in the mind of this man, those words meant: soon, soon will we subject your sons and all their confreres to the most brutal Soviet-Style reeducation camp. Soon, soon will we make them understand that resistance is futile. Soon, soon will we make clear to them that they have nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide. Woe to the bishops who should dare to give them asylum. Woe to those Friars themselves who should entertain such thoughts and dare to act on them: they will be ruthlessly suspended. This, by the by, mere weeks after a dissenting nutcase has been allowed to call himself a priest in good standing again, and has thanked the Bishop of Rome by making a shameless apology of Fidel Castro.
Truly, this Pope is beyond contempt. Truly, he is the ISIS of the Church. Truly, he is the enemy of everything still remaining within the Church that is still orthodox after 50 years of relentless devastation.
And the bullying, the bullying is breathtaking. No confrontation whatever with the SSPX, who would expose him as a little, stupid child with a running nose in no time, if he dared to sound the charge against them. Instead, Stalinian reeducation and unprecedented enforcement of heterodoxy over an entire order; persecution delivered from a mind of which the only thing that can be said for sure is that mercy does not live there; with Catholics, at least.
The Francis Archipelago is now working full steam. After the FFI and Lovieres Plano, others will follow as the Humble Bishop keeps persecuting orthodox bishops like there is no tomorrow. Bishop Finn could, in fact, be the very next.
The Church goes out of every persecution stronger and more confident in the end. However big the damage this man can make (and it can be a huge damage, if the Lord in his wrath keep punishing us with his presence), the end of the campaign is written already: Satan’s complete and utter defeat.
We laymen – bloggers, commenters, fathers, teachers, friends, sons and daughters – must denounce the evil intentions of this godless man as loud as we can: frankly, openly, brutally. Shock your friends at the pub, and let them smile at first when they hear you saying what a disgrace this Pope is. They will smile, I assure you. But just a few phrases of reasoned arguing will get the smartest among them thinking. God works in mysterious ways, but he certainly never measures a priest from the number of followers he has, or indicates to us that the vast majority must be, on the whole, right.
The God of Athanasius, and of Archbishop Lefebvre, is watching us. He wants to see whether we swim with the stinking tide of a pontificate smelling of sheep (and therefore, actually, of shit), or dare to say that true is true and wrong is wrong; and the Pope can smoke whatever he pleases, but he won’t change reality.
The Francis Archipelago is now in full operation. Pray the Lord that we may see it become a relic of the past, like the Gulag one.
But still, reflect that this event is not a matter of if, but only of when.
From one of the latest ramblings of the humble Bishop of Rome:
This is the man who made of his entire pontificate a show of his own alleged goodness, mercy, and revolutionary intent. A peacock if even there was one.
This is the man who makes no mystery of wanting to remake the papacy in his own image. Albeit he is very right in this: that his extreme boastfulness brought him extremely far from the Truth.
Christians are called to “be authentic with the truth of reality and of the Gospel,”
… says the man who is the very embodiment of falsification of the Gospel, and perversion of the Truth.
Can you believe this guy? Who is this: Francis The Self-Effacing Pontiff?
“The vain say, ‘Hey, look, I’m giving this check for the church’s work,’ and they show off the check; then they scam the church from behind,” he said.
The vain says: “Look: I am hopping on the bus and use a Ford Focus”, and they show off the bus ticket and the car. They they scam the Church from behind.
& Co. & Co. & Co… Follow the link to read a new high in papal hypocrisy.
By the by, this is another prime example of Francis’ use of the homily generator.
What a clown.
I am extremely thankful to the “Eponymous Flower” for their sterling work concerning what is happening in Paraguay.
There, you have a very conservative Bishop (uh? It reminds me of the FFI), who is therefore very successful (the analogy continues) and shames his peers by showing how it’s done (interesting!).
Someone accuses Bishop Livieres Plano of misconduct of various kind (where have I heard this?), and he is suddenly removed whilst savage rumours about his past and integrity emerge (Father Manelli anyone?).
The Vatican communiqué talks, ominously, of “unity of the Church”. At this point, yours truly has no doubts anymore.
The Bishop is, like Father Manelli and the FFI, a “threat to the unity of the Church” because he is an orthodox Catholic, shaming the clowns around him.
This cannot be tolerated. He must be removed, his work destroyed, his sheep reeducated to the NuChurch of Vatican II. He must be, if possible, personally destroyed. We have already seen this movie. This is a remake in great style.
Given the precedent of the FFI, I allow myself to consider, until evidence to the contrary emerges, the orthodox Catholic Bishop the good one, and The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) the villain. If anything, because I have the villain’s disgraceful acts in front of my eyes every day. In these cases, my suggestion to the “there are things we do not know” Apostles is the same as always:
But let us imagine that the Bishop Livieres Plano is truly bad. Let us imagine – just for the sake of reasoning, poor man… – that we are here in front of another Maciel.
Why, then, the appeal for to the “unity of the Church”, a clear indication that the Bishop was removed because he refused to dance the Tango of Vatican II together with all the other bishops?
Why would in this case Francis not appoint substitutes (the provisional one, and then the definitive one) who are every bit as conservative and orthodox as the disgraced man, in order to show that the problem lies merely in his personal conduct? The substitute is, from what we know, one in the mould of Archbishop Cupich. I foresee a brilliant career for him as long as Francis is Pope. Particularly if he is a pervert. But no, the kind of appointment clearly show the accusation of misconduct were, even if proven true, just a “happy” coincidence in the effort to remove sound Catholicism from the Church.
Then there is one last thought I would want to share with you.
Has anyone ever examined the long past of Francis as Bishop and Archbishop? What about a visitation, and thorough going through archives, press, testimonies, and street gossip? Are we sure no episodes of a questionable nature can be found? Is this not the man who was once found with marijuana in his luggage? (I wish I could find the link). How many priests has a bishop or archbishop? How easy is it to accuse him first, and disgrace them in the meantime? How would Francis like the Manelli treatment applied to him and his tenure in Argentina as rector of a seminary, bishop and Archbishop?
Do not be fooled. This is another instalment of the Stalinian purge Francis is executing. When Francis is done with this, the TLM and orthodoxy will get out of the window of the diocese as fast as practicable.
The man is an utter disgrace, a damn clerical Che, and a tool of Satan.
Let us pray the Lord every day that He may, in His mercy, free us from this horrible, if utterly deserved punishment.
The Extraordinary Synod is rapidly approaching, and there is now no day without an interview of some Bishop or Cardinal, taking the one or the other side.
In the middle of all this turmoil, one thing is clear: whether Francis will dare to break taboos or not, he is causing the breaking of taboos to be discussed; freely, openly, as a matter of course.
Already it is discussed whether the canonical process of annulment should be (official word) “streamlined”. Already, “streamlined” might mean that the bishop, or a structure set up by him, should decide about annulments in a “non-juridical” way. Already, some say that not even this is necessary, but a prayerful “sit in” with the priest should at least achieve what many concubines, in the end, want: village respectability.
The pattern is well-known and has been long experimented: some total revolutionary (Kasper) proposes the totally revolutionary solution of tolerating but not accepting communion for concubines and assorted adulterers, meaning: having the sacrilegious praxis become everyday fare. After this, a “moderate” (Scola) will come out, proposing among other things (Mundabor’s commentary: what a slimy b@st@rd!) a thinkable solution for annulments that is every bit as savagely diabolical, but has the merit of sounding more moderate; because you see, the idea is not to violate the rules; merely to make a mockery of them in the first place.
Suddenly, nothing is sacred anymore. The way how to slaughter a sacrament is a subject of discussion, debate, essays, interviews, books. Suddenly, Truth is perceived as fighting for its existence.
In the meantime, Francis enjoys the lío. Catholic against Catholic, Cardinal against Cardinal. The open confrontation is, certainly, obligatory for the right side; but still, the very fact that such a confrontation exists will confuse countless Catholics, and persuade countless non-Catholics that there is no point in converting. If even Cardinals quarrel with each other about the Truth, what is Truth? And is this most un-Christian of all Pilate-like slogans not, itself, ceaselessly promoted by TMAHICH, with his insisted criticism of “excessive doctrinal security”? Can a slogan ever be more meant to promote lió than this, apart from the “who am I to judge” nuclear device?
Is this enough lío for you?
Are you still trying to read Francis through, of all people, Benedict?
I bet it is enough for TMAHICH. He is, for all the world to see, the Pope who “breaks taboos” and “paves the way for a new era”. Not for him, very probably, to be the one who lets the bombs explode. He will, very probably, be happy with being the one who made the explosions thinkable in the first place, put the bombs in place, and armed them. He does not need to be the one who orders the explosions in order to be loved by countless infidels for the rest of his life. He will be on the safe side avoiding the biggest detonations. Nothing better than reaping the fruits of a revolution without the dangers of real armed combat. The perks, I suppose, of being a shameless and faithless Pope.
Reading Francis through… what?
Believe me, TMAHICH can be best read through Saul Alinsky, or Karl Marx, or Hans Küng, and I doubt he is one bit better than any of them.
He is sowing strife and controversies, breaking taboos, attacking sacraments, insulting the Blessed Virgin, disfiguring Christ, perverting the most basic rules of Christianity, without even the risk of a major revolt.
He will, I think, very publicly stop those who want to detonate the bombs. The excited Pollyannas will hail him as the saviour of Catholicism, whilst the mainstream idiots – bar very few, extreme idiots – will buy the “prudent moderniser Pope” without a second thought.
How do you like lío?
It is there now; dished in front of you every day; pickaxing at Catholicism every day God sends on this earth.
Please. Please. Please.
Free us from this scourge.