Category Archives: Dissent
And it came to pass the Evil Clown appointed a “commission” to study the bloody obvious, and debate about heresy.
Predictably, he included the open dissenter Phyllis Zagano. Equally as predictably, the usual stupid feminist “I want a prick, or at least to be a priest” organisation
“praised the commission’s “gender-balanced” and “lay-inclusive” appointments and mentioned Zagano by name”.
Therefore, yours truly poses himself two questions: why the Evil Clown does this, and what will come out of it.
The first question has an easy answer: Francis does this in order to sow more confusion about the Priesthood, give some fodder to the feminist pigeons, and enhance his image as the Pope of dissenters, heretics, and perverts. He can’t change the priesthood more than he can change the rules of physics; but what damage he can do, he will. of course, the “commission” will end up stating the bloody obvious, but he will find the way to insert a foot note or two insinuating that maybe, just maybe, things aren’t so clear after all.
However, I think something more subversive than talk will come out of it.
Think of this: the V II church reacted to the Sixties and Seventies by parroting the Protestants with the new position of the “extraordinary minister for making oneself important”. They are, by universal admission, not ordained. Yet, they parrot the priest as much as they can. A lot of small “c” catholics live with it perfectly well, feel like little priest as they stand there with the chalice like idiots, and do not see a problem at all.
It stands to reason that this time the same will happen with the office of the Deacon: the Vatican will reaffirm that a Deacon is ordained, and can therefore only be male. However, it will waffle at length about “inclusion”, and end up with the institution of the equivalent of the “extraordinary minister” for the Diaconate. This office might be called the “extraordinary Deaconette”, for example, and be allowed to do as much of what the deacon does (which, I think, will be a lot. What does a lay deacon do? I think he visits the infirms, gives spiritual counsel to people, helps the priest in organising the work of the parish, things like that) and be called an “extraordinary Deaconette”, or some such like rubbish. The rabid feminists will condemn the “exclusion” but welcome the “step forward” (and demand a prick), the Pollyannas will be all excited that (phew!) “doctrine hasn’t been changed”, and the secular press will praise the Pope who, though clearly uncomfortable with Catholicism, does all he can to
demolish reform it.
Outlandish, you say?
Ever read Amoris Laetitia?
Every time Francis speaks from his lowest orifice (which is, as you all know, very often), I take a tour on “moderate” blogs to see what people comment there; that is: what your average non-traditionalist Catholic, who at least appears to give a damn, thinks.
Normally I see three categories of people: those who are seriously upset and say so (they are possibly Traditionalists, though); the never-dying Pollyannas; and those who write something on the lines of: “Phew! This was said from an aeroplane/off the cuff… again! So it’s not infallible! Yahoo, the Magisterium hasn’t changed! I can now relax, smile, and keep thinking everything is fine!”.
The first position is, clearly, the only acceptable one. The second might well lead to damnation, because at this point it is nothing else than shameless, willed complicity with continued attacks to Christ and His Church for the sake of one’s comfort; the third, which I hope is mainly due to ignorance, must be eradicated fast.
The Pope can’t change the Infallible Magisterium more than he can change the course of the planets. Therefore, this idea that we can smile and relax because the Pope has not changed what he cannot change anyway is a huge red herring.
Unfortunately, too many very badly catechised Catholics still seem to think that Catholic Doctrine is something with which a Pope can do everything he wants, provided he does so “infallibly”.
Truth can never contradict truth. Nothing can be truthful, that contradicts established Truth. No Pope has, ever had, or will ever have any right to simply proclaim a “truth” today which is in contrast with Divine Truth. He is intrinsically unable to do it in the same way as you are intrinsically unable to grow wings.
If the Pope were to wake up one morning, and were to infallibly proclaim that a new commandment, “Thou Shalt not Condemn Fornication, Cohabitation, Sodomy, and Adultery” shall be added to the existing ones, there would be interesting discussions about when he has ceased/will cease to be a Pope, and whether he should be burnt at the stake after he has been deposed. There will be tons of ink employed in explaining that we must resist a heretical Pope pending his deposition or death. There would be interesting debates whether to use the paper with the new pronouncement as fish wrap, or toilet paper. But most certainly one thing would not change: the Commandments.
Therefore, it is perfectly absurd to rejoice and delude oneself that things are fine (or only moderately uncomfortable; as in the case of the embarrassing uncle always prone to put his foot in his mouth) merely because Francis hasn’t changed the course of the planets, or transformed himself into an elephant, or grown a third foot.
The scandal of a heretical Pope does not consist in his doing what is impossible to do, but in doing what is very possible for a Pope to do, and which we are witnessing every day: spreading heresy and blasphemy, attacking the Sacraments, criticising everything that is holy, praising everything that is evil.
This is what is happening, and therein lies the problem.
Papal heresy must never be downplayed. It’s a huge evil. We have real problems here, we can’t just delude ourselves things are fine merely because we don’t have the imaginary ones.
This is a real bomb, coming from a publisher known for his “neocon” (means: “I will put up with everything provided I pay less taxes”) stance. As I write this, it leads Fox News’ editorial page.
The article asking for Pope Francis’ resignation is signed by Adam Shaw. The man is clearer and more cogent than the vast majority of non-traditionalist Catholic sites and blogs out there. Actually, his clear arguments put their weakness and complicity with Francis to shame.
Let us quote some of his statements, with some comments from yours truly when opportune:
Pope Francis’s three-year-old papacy, marred by controversy from the beginning, has hit a new low.
Note here: the man is not only fed up with MarriageGate. He is fed up with three years of total mess.
From his “Who am I to judge?” statement on gay people that seemed to offer a hint at a change in church teaching, to his fumbles on contraception, to his recent claim that Donald Trump is not Christian, his off-the-cuff remarks cause headlines across the globe, often followed by some sort of “clarification” from the Holy See Press Office.
Notice the subtle indictment here: the man is a maverick and the Vatican apparatus is left to clean up after he has piddled outside of the potty again.
His papacy has been a litany of confusing statements for the faithful on the most sensitive and delicate topics. While clear on political topics dear to his heart, but where Catholics can legitimately hold differing opinions, such as immigration, economics and climate change, on matters of doctrine, Francis muddied the waters to an extent that many well-meaning Catholics feel they no longer know where the Church stands on issues of faith.
Another well-spotted point, that you won’t find anywhere on “Patheos”: when he wants to make Socialist propaganda, Francis is neither nuanced nor ambiguous. He only discovers his Jesuit side when he wants to attack everything Catholic.
For a “pope of the people” he certainly doesn’t give Catholics much credit. For a Catholic marriage to be valid all that is needed is the freedom to marry, consent from both parties, and the intention to marry for life and be open to children. That’s it.
I would correct this, or perhaps make explicit what the author might be thinking already: Francis hates and despises Catholics, and his forma mentis is entirely secular. This is why he does not believe in the Sacraments (and does not like Catholics).
For Pope Francis to say the great majority of marriages are null implies that the great majority of Catholic are ignorant fools who cannot understand the responsibilities of a bedrock of society that has existed for thousands of years.
It also suggests severe doubt in the mercy and grace of God. The rule of thumb when the validity of sacraments, whether it be marriage, the Eucharist or the priesthood, is concerned, is to assume validity unless something clearly contradicts that. So just like a priest doubting his faith as he is ordained is still a priest, a bride with jitters is still validly married — God makes up for our frailties.
I would say, here, that at the root is a different, extremely secular, atheist thinking: sacraments have no value, they confer no sacramental grace. They are simply rituals, ceremonies. This is why Francis thinks they can be tampered with, and does not see anything in them beyond a ceremony of purely formal value; which, in turn, is why he thinks those living in adultery are just in the same position, if they are “committed”.
Francis’ words put the devil’s doubt into the hearts and minds of good Catholic couples who may be going through a rough time, and who instead of saying “We’re Catholic, we’re married, this is until death parts us,” may now say, “Well, the pope says most marriages aren’t valid anyway…maybe ours isn’t either” and give up.
Francis makes the work of the devil. Yep, this is literally what the man says, and kudos to him. he also encourages them to discount the value of their marriage (whilst he encourage concubines to consider themselves married).
Insane. Or Atheist Church hater. Tertium non datur.
Francis’ statement demonstrates a lack of faith in the Church and its ability to vet couples seeking marriage, to teach them about what marriage is, and to administer the sacraments effectively.
Yep, that’s the point. The man does not believe in the Church. He does not believe in anything Catholic. Not in Catholic virtues, not in Catholic doctrine, actually not even in a Catholic God.
If most marriages are invalid because couples don’t understand a life-long commitment, does that mean most priestly ordinations are invalid too? If so, are most masses invalid? Most confessions?
Well spotted again; and in fact, this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from Francis’ atheist statement. If a sacrament like Catholic marriage (of which every child knows it is a commitment for life) cannot be understood, how can First Communion be understood? What about Holy Orders? How can confession be valid, if the concepts of “contrition” and “firm purpose of amendment” are not understood, because nowadays people “don’t know what they are saying”? Why should people not doubt whether they have validly received the sacrament of Last Rites (yes, I keep calling it that way)? And so on…
The Church’s authority rests, in part, on its claim to be able to communicate the sacraments and the teachings of Christ. Francis has cast doubt on the former, has done a poor job of the latter, and by doing so has brought the Church’s legitimacy into question.
Another extremely good point. This is a man who declares the total bankruptcy of the organisation he leads; her total inability to do what Jesus put her on earth to do. “Go ye therefore, and utterly fail in teaching all nations; even those in which you have a millenary tradition…”
His comments come after he dealt more confusion to Catholic marriages by allowing the liberal Cardinal Walter Kasper to take control of last year’s Synod of the Family — who turned the whole thing into a referendum on gay people and communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.
Francis’ subversion is rightly recognised. The Fake Synod, falsely manipulated by the “gay” clergy, is not forgotten…
Francis made things worse this year with his vague document on the family — Amoris Laetitia — in which he buried the hot topic of divorced and remarried Catholics in a footnote, and muddied the waters some more by saying that such couples could receive sacraments “in certain cases.”
… nor is the huge scandal of Amoris Laetitia.
When asked to clarify he said “I don’t remember the footnote.” Wonderful.
The man is embarrassing even in his evil arrogance.
Once upon a time Catholics would have been stuck with a bad pope, but since Pope Emeritus Benedict opened the door for a pope resigning when he can no longer do his job, it is time for the faithful to look at Francis and ask — “is this man able to lead the Holy Catholic Church?”
I must disagree here. Catholics were never required to stick with a heretical Pope without asking for his removal. However, the power to remove him is not in their hands. Benedict’s resignation would make it easier for Francis to save face, but is not the reason why he can be asked to go, or can legitimately be seen as unable to lead the Holy Catholic Church.
At this point it is clear, Bergoglio has repeatedly proven himself unable to lead, and is doing incalculable damage to the Church that will take decades to heal.
I think “unable to lead” here means “astonishingly incompetent”. Nothing to add on the incalculable damage.
Pope Francis should resign, and Catholics should demand it, so the Church can begin recovering from the havoc his ill-advised and arrogant papacy has wrought.
Two very important points to close, both again very well spotted: it is a duty of a faithful Catholics to react to this impiousness by demanding that the Pope resign (as opposed to Pollyanning around blathering nonsense like “relax, the Holy Ghost is in charge!”), and the damage done is so massive, that even if Francis resigned today it would a very long time before the Church can be said to have recovered from it.
Even the mainstream press now starts to demand that the man be made to leave; and again, with words clearer than you would read in fake Catholic sites and blogs.
The world woke up, and discovered that the Pope is an Evil Clown.
This is the other side of the medal. The first part is here.
In his disgraceful off-the-cuff godless madness, Francis did not only say that the great majority of marriages are null. He also said that he is sure that the “faithful” cohabitations he has seen in Argentina are real marriages.
This truly is a bizarro world, in which the married aren't married, but the concubines are, because they are “committed” or “faithful” or whatever.
This is the kind of nonsense you could hear from an atheist lesbian, not from a Pope. This is the kind of nonsense you could hear from people who have no idea of what a sacrament is, have no fear of the Lord, consider concubinage not only harmless but positive, and think they can make their own religion.
This man is an atheist. Nothing that the Church believes finds him aligned to it, unless it is in a twisted way that he managed to reconcile with his twisted, socialist, atheist ideology (as when he is against abortion because the unborn baby is “poor”, or “marginalised”). In all the rest, the man is pure Catholicusm-free space.
Not, mind, because he doesn't know better; but because he hates Catholicism and wants you to understand it. He abandons himself in public utterances to a completely secular ideology, whilst continually criticising the Catholic one. It isn't a coincidence. It's what he thinks, and what he wants to do.
Most marriages aren't such. Let us allow mass annulments. Many adulterers are “married”. Let us allow them to go to confession and receive communion. Sacraments don't count. Rules don't count. The feeling of the couple for each other is all that counts, it is the way this idiot thinks he can “recognise” a marriage in a cohabitation.
Please, Lord, free us from this scourge!
You read it correctly. This is what the man said.
This is, of course, part of the evil plan to destroy Sacraments in which he does not believe, and damage the Church he hates.
This is, plainly, Pope Francis The Atheist speaking.
The attack to Communion and Marriage goes through the attack to the sacramental life of every Catholic.
According to the Evil Clown, your marriage is likely invalid. Means your “divorce” and “remarriage” are ok. Not ok for Catholicism, of course, because for Catholicism you are still a concubine living in public sin. But ok for Francis because, if you are “committed”, who is he to judge? Therefore, you can receive communion anyway, and also go to confession, which is not made for the saints but for sinners.
Bam. Three sacraments torpedoed in one go. I suspect this is the usual childish, stupid reaction to the continued criticism of Amoris Laetitia. “Why do you keep blabbering about marriage?” – asks the man – “it's all rubbish anyway!”.
Please, Lord, rid us of this tool soon!
Rorate Caeli has a blog post about not one, but two events which very much give a picture of the times.
1) Francis’ visit to Strasbourg is barely noticed. Empty street where once oceanic masses would, everywhere, be a witness to the event of a papal visit. This, by the by, before and after his visit to the cathedral of Francis’ religion: the dratted European Parliament.
2) The complete un-Catholic character of the visit. Nothing Catholic was on the agenda. Not a meeting with faithful, not the visit of a parish; not even a visit to the wonderful Cathedral in Strasbourg.
As to 1), I can’t avoid thinking that the Argentinian children are going home to roost. The utter banality of this man was entertainng at the beginning, because a Pope making a clown of himself will attract the attention for a while. But at some point the novelty will fade away, and what remains there is simply a clown. People don’t wait for hours in the cold to greet a clown, and say “I was there when the Clown visited, and greeted him as he drove by! How solemn, sovereign, saintly he looked!”.
Pope Clown was good entertainment for a while. Now he will sink into second-row “celebrity” status.
As to 2), this reminds me of the episode in Caserta, where Francis went to meet his Proddie friends without, initially, planning anything concerning those obnoxious Catholics. In Caserta, though, he was persuaded to change his mind in the end. Here, it appears he was determined to have it his own way, and Catholics can get stuffed.
The Pope goes abroad, and doesn’t even visit a Church. The world is his only concern. A stage for his stupid rhetoric, and a place among the Great Statesmen. Forget the Cathedral. Visit the Parliament.
The Pope goes abroad, and the faithful don’t care. If they want to see a clown, a circus visit is more convenient. Forget the Pope. There’s better and more comfortable entertainment everywhere.
As I have recently stated: if you are a Catholic, Francis hates you. You are not even an afterthought. No, you will be openly snubbed instead. Because this is what Francis is.
This man will snub a Cathedral in the same way as he snubs Christ before the altar. But he will visit a Parliament with the same enthusiasm with which he genuflects to wash the feet of women and infidels.
Start seeing reality for what it is and you will see more and more signs of this. You will see that in this perspective, everything Francis does makes perfect sense.
So what do we have? A Pope slowly sinking into irrelevance among the heathenish masses, and slowly but certainly despised by more and more Catholics. A Pope playing Social Warrior, and now slowly noticing the world has had enough of “Pope Che” already. A Pope sinking into ridicule as he tries to profile himself as anything but a Pope, rather he wants to be a sort of Global Advocate For The Poor. Gee, Eugenio Scalfari will be so pleased…
This will go on. Francis’ antics will become more and more trite. Bigger and bigger doses of “novelty” will be required to focus the attention on the Humble Pope. If these doses come, he will be at war with Catholocs the world over. If they don’t, he will be forgotten.
This cannot end well; but whether Francis understands the dynamics currently at play is to be seen. Never underestimate the damage that can be caused by a nincompoop believing he is a great mind.
Some good news for a change. Cardinal Sarah – the outspoken defender of the Sacrament of Communion and of Catholic teaching about sexual perversion – has been appointed head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (note the last words well). As V II Cardinals go, Sarah is certainly orthodox and conservative, i.e. Catholic.
Thankfully, I have not noticed anyone (up to now) trying to persuade us that this appointments shows that Francis is A Good, Orthodox, Conservative Pope People Do Not Understand. That time has, I think, gone forever.
Personally, I am not ready to give the man the least shred of credibility, whomever he may appoint. The man obviously hasn't changed, so our view of the danger he represents will not change, either. Why has Francis, then, chosen Sarah, of all people, for the position? My spontaneous thoughts:
1) He needs some prestigious African prelate near him to avoid the accusation of ignoring that Continent. Therefore, he puts an African at the top of what Africans do worst: liturgy. It minimises the damage for Francis, at least. How bad Sarah is in liturgical matters is also to be seen. Tornielli seems to trust him in liturgical matters too, which is a good sign. But this here is also an anti-Kasperite in the middle of the Vatican, which can never hurt.
2) Francis wants to show that he can reward outspoken prelates, as long as they do not criticise him personally. Burke out, Sarah in. A conservative in the Curia like before, but a less uncomfortable one for Francis. For now, at least.
3) He wants to divide the anti-Kasperite fraction, sending them partly to the wilderness and partly to Rome. I do not think it will ever work; but he might think so. A genius, he ain't.
4) He has given up on his revolutionary project. He is old, and it has become clear to him he will not be able to attempt any “revolution” without a huge, long conflict; a conflict which would doom his papacy for all centuries to come. He will continue to talk rubbish, of course; but no revolution. This seems to me, for the moment, only a possibility; but I do not consider it such a remote one.
Old, he is. Hypocrite, he is. Vain, he most certainly is. This one isn't the born and bred ideologue, the hero uncaring of the consequences, the Che Guevara of doctrinal demolition. This one is… a Jesuit. He will be strong with the weak and weak with the strong with the same easiness with which you breathe.
Time will tell. Let us not get too enthusiastic. The one in power is still TMAHICH. But he is clearly in the defensive now.
Today, we did get some good news. I cannot imagine any way in which bringing Sarah in can be seen as a sign of Francis' strength. No, it is a sign of Francis' weakness. He must appease the Catholics, lest he ends like the turkey at thanksgiving. He must bring in some African. He must give signals of normality. The bombardment of criticism since the Synod has not ceased, and in the meantime even the readers of the “Huffington Post” know he has put himself in a lot of trouble.
At the Synod, Francis has taken a pump gun and has shot himself in the leg. He is now trying to regain the face he has lost. It won't be easy.
It's too soon to say that Francis has thrown in the towel. But it is certainly enough to say that he is under great pressure, and must now act to avoid that the pressure becomes intolerable.
One of the unlinkable dissenting sites report of an openly homosexual Jesuit Seminarian who has now, after ten years trying to become a priest, decided to leave the Seminary because of the firing of several perverts from Catholic schools and institutions in the last months. “I can't be a Catholic right now”, or words to that effect, is the comment of the little fag.
Let us observe all that is wrong here; because, as so often in the case of Jesuits, the mistakes here pile up like as many strata of Satan's shit cake.
1. Ten years of attempts. Seriously? Are Jesuits of the opinion unless one is old one can't receive orders? Or did the man not even manage to become a friar in all this time? What happens with the money of the faithful? I am, here, hoping this is not the normal case, and the extremely costly exercise was due to the perverted nature of the little faggot. Which leads us to the next point…
2. How can it be that a man who openly proclaims his own perversion is allowed to remain in the seminary? Officially? For how many… ten years? What part of “deeply rooted homosexual tendency” was unclear here?
3. What does this say not only of this pathetic nutcases but of the deciders in that seminary? What does it say of the rector? Is he homosexual, too? Why on earth would anyone, upon being told one is a pervert, persist in trying to make of him a friar, or even a priest? I smell faggotry from a mile here. Diffused faggotry. Faggotry unashamedly practiced, defended and promoted under the thinnest of veils. These chaps (or girls) have allowed an open faggot to stay in the seminary for many years: how many closet faggots walk along the corridors of that seminary? What positions they have? How can it be that the rot has not set at the top of the institution?
4. The unlinkable site reports, with more than a hint of sympathy, an astonishing affirmation of the little Jesuit fag: he can't be a Catholic right now, because of the treatment of the above mentioned perverts.
This beggars belief: a man able to put his own faggotry before his very own Catholic identity was allowed to stay in a Jesuit seminary all these years! What does this tell us about the quality and sexual orientation of the average friar – or priest – going out of that particular seminary?
Jesuits are a plague. Not 100% of them of course. But in general, Jesuits are a plague. An order fully in the thrall of Satan, spreading error and sexual perversion from schools, universities and seminaries; letting out in the world, without a doubt, a number – limited, thankfully, because they are dying – of either open perverts, or closet perverts, or people so accustomed to perversion and malformed in a perverted sexual climate that they are a real danger for the souls of those around them.
The little faggot has written a letter to Francis: TMAHICH, “who am I to judge”-Supremo, and Great Merciful Protector Of Worldwide Faggotry.
Now: TMAHIC is notoriously affect by logorrhoea, a phone addict, and a first-class double-tongued Jesuit. It will be interesting to see whether Francis does respond to the letter in writing, ignores the little fag altogether, or prefers one of those ominous phone calls at the end of which the little faggot will tell the world that Francis told him what a hero he is, and Francis does not deny or confirm any of the content. Scandal is spread, plausible deniability is attempted, the Pollyannas are happy the oh so holy Father did nothing wrong, the perverts exult, the Catholics are confused.
Just another Jesuit's day.
A new dissenting, ultra-liberal, “I will follow my conscience”- “c”atholics publication has just started making damage around, and confusing the faithful.
No link, obviously. Not even the name. Suffice it to say that the name is, in a diabolical twist of things Catholic, the word Cross said in Latin.
Ironic, that those who make superfluous in the great scheme of things either the Cross Itself – because The Great Merciful Divine Person saves pretty much everybody anyway – or else the rest of Christianity – because it is the Cross causes everyone to be saved, so there's no need to convert – should abuse of the Cross to spread their diabolical confusion. But then again this is an old trick of the Father of Lies, so one is disgusted, but not surprised.
I invite the three bloggers reading me to never, ever link to that site. When you read about their work – which as a blogger you will have to do if you want to oppose their work – you do not need to say where exactly you have read it, or to even lead your readers there.
I suggest you explain to your readers what the wrong point of view is, and correct it for the benefit of Truth and the instruction of those among your readers who should be, as the Italian says, in the middle of the ford, and just now slowly starting to have a solid grasp of Catholic Truth.
I have already written about the unintended consequence of helping bad sites to live just as you tell your readers that they should not be around at all. It is like helping a communist newspaper to prosper as you say to your readers what horrible Communist propaganda it contains.
In this case, the problem is amplified by the fact that the cross-abusing thingy seems an operation in rather big scale, and we should most certainly not help them to establish themselves. Therefore, the best thing to do is to ignore their existence, and to speak of their delusions in a way that does not incite anyone to feed the pigeons.
The demographics speak against them, and I wonder how long any “Francis effect” may last.
This cross will pass, too. The sooner, the better.
The battle lines are forming. Many whom we thought more or less our friends will betray us (bishop Tobin is the last; no doubt, many will follow). Our lines will be very, very thin compared to those of our enemies. And our enemies will try to impress you with their white, red or purple robes, and will tell you with smiling faces and soothing voices that you see, we have now decided to “be merciful”; which, of course, we never were before.
On the other side are the few who think that what the Church always thought right is right, because it's what… the Church has always believed. Their number is small, and it is going to become smaller in the foreseeable future. They are, truth be told, very polemic and very assertive. They must be, because they are the few besieged in Fort Alamo, whilst their besiegers can smile and relax, looking at their endless cohorts, and play the nice guy whilst they line the cannons against the fort.
“Look at how bitter those people are!”, the besiegers will tell to their plauding soldiers. “So bigoted, so unpleasant, so uncharitable, so… un-merciful!” So, or in similar word, they will cry, and the many public adulterers among their troops will be those who cheer the loudest.
“Compare with us, with our serene and profound theology, approved by the Holy Father himself! Aren't we the nicest bunch! Please applaud us, and remember us in your Will!”
Yes: we are few, and besieged. We hold a little fort of sanity, surrounded by the huge army of “give me an excuse” – “c”atholics, who possibly believe that as long as the numbers are with them, heaven will be too.
There's nowhere in Church teaching that salvation is earned by siding with the bigger side. The road to perdition has always been very wide, and with TMAHICH it is being enlarged and made to a superhighway as we speak. A generation that betrays Christ is a generation that Christ will discard, and not many might be those able to claim sufficient ignorance to at least make it to purgatory. May God have mercy on as many as He thinks fit among the deceived. May He punish the deceivers with all the might of His Justice.
What I see around me is an army of purpled puttanelle offering easy excuses, and cafeteria “c”atholics pretending to accept them; well knowing, all of the former as well as very many of the latter, that this is not what the Church has always taught; that it cannot be that Christ allowed the Church to deceive the faithful these two thousand years; that what they are being offered is the potion of some ecclesiastical Dulcamara, promising them the remission of sin and the obliteration of guilt against continued support.
The battle lines are forming. Fort Alamo on one side, and TMAHICH's immense and growing army on the other. But this Fort Alamo has Christ Himself defending it. It will be battered, gunned, left to hunger and thirst. But it will never be defeated.
Cheer up, then, and do not become despondent at the sight of the immense army around you. We have Christ's promise:
This fine Michael Voris video puts at the centre of our attention a very simple concept: some clergymen will not allow a small nuisance like Our Lord to get in the way of their own marketing effort.
This is very evident in the effort of Father Barron to downplay or even deny the existence of hell as a concrete possibility for the likes of you and me – and, very obviously, for the likes of him -.
Voris makes an obvious point: when you start to doubt Hell as a concrete possibility for everyone of us you have undermined the very core of the message of Christ. But then again, there are a lot of clergymen around (and I do not except the Bishop of Rome; most certainly not) who truly seem not to have any idea of what Christianity is about.
One must not agree with Voris’ every word, but it is very difficult to disagree with the message.
Personally, I am more optimistic than he is concerning the chances of salvation of baptised Catholics, following the opinion of Garrigou-Lagrange and his serene confidence God’s efficacious grace irresistibly takes many baptised Christians, and a bigger number of Catholics, out of the worst; but then again, when Garrigou-Lagrange thought of a generic “Christian” or “Catholic” in 1950 he had in mind a much different person from a generic “Catholic” in 2013; a time when, if you observe reality for what it is, not even the Pope gives a damn for orthodoxy.
I doubt Francis is any better than Barron. I truly do. I think the main difference between the two is that Francis is Pope and Barron isn’t, so the former can only clearly hint at what the second feels free to openly state.
The fact is that the Barrons of the world have created a fertile ground for Francis, but Francis’ Papacy in turn creates the conditions for many little Bergoglios (let’s call them the Bergoglini) to go on with their work of destruction undisturbed. Give Francis ten years (Lord: please, please not!) and you will see an astonishing number of Barrons around.
Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. It seems to me Francis’ and Barron’s way leadeth straight to the wall; or much, much worse.
You probably have already read about this interview, in which the mother of all deluded nuns calls Francis “teachable” on issues like so-called same-sex marriage and wymyn priests.
It goes without saying not Even Francis would openly defy Catholic teaching in such matters. True, we will never know if he, having the possibility, would decide differently; but he must be rather aware of the fact he is the Pope and not, say, the wannabe Archbishop of Canterbury, so we can be confident the matter is closed. Still, the rant of the mad nun is not only self-serving (a clear “look at me” headline), but at the same time points out to how nearer Francis is to her than all his predecessors. Again, in looking at him as a sort of promising material the female is certainly wrong is we consider the Pope’s attitude concerning the negotiability of infallible teaching, but is certainly right if we measure the Popes since Vatican II with the liberal-o-metre; in which case Francis is, simply, off the chart.
Please count how many times the mad nuns have called Benedict, or JP II, “teachable”. Yes, exactly.
Please forget all the rest, that isn’t worth your time (the mad nun idea she is now in favour of perversion because she has the pervert in the family; and the Cardinal Newman Society telling us the half truth that the Church calls for compassion towards homos without telling us what the Church says of unrepentant sodomites).
What I would wish you to get home from this interview is that for the first time since marijuana opened its way into nunneries, a Pope is considered at least interesting material, a man that might have good surprises in store for mad nuns.
Please don’t say Francis isn’t culpable for this perception. Of course he is. His shameless desire to appear modern, tolerant and not obsessed instead of orthodox and, well, obsessed is the reason why everyone on the left, dissenting or revolutionary camp (operative word here is: “camp”) lavishes praises on him. Even mad nuns, at least to the extent a mad nun could ever praise a Pontiff.
Again, count the times Pope Benedict had such headlines from such people. It will tell you something many don’t want to know.
Francis continues to collect headlines for the wrong reasons. It’s every day now. He does too little, too late and too quietly to counter the tsunami of praise from atheists, abortionists, dissenters, and liberals of all kind. Do not think this is a coincidence. And please do not swallow hook, line and sinker the tale of the courageous pope who now speaks against abortion just because of one single short intervention against abortion after a revolutionary onslaught of 12,000 words. When the world press starts insulting Francis for his abortion stance, than you’ll know the message has reached the intended recipients, both Catholics and not. Until then, you’ll know he’s just feeding his Catholic pigeons whilst he panders to the enemy of the Church.
I am sick and tired of reading such headlines day in and day out, and be informed that we should simply ignore what happens all over the planet and be happy and satisfied with the very occasional remark in a Catholic direction.
Does Francis want his message on abortion to reach the masses? He only has to give two dozen interviews in which he speak frankly about abortion and does not talk of anything else, and you’ll see how the Press changes attitude towards him. It doesn’t need to be 12,000 words either; though if one can find 12,000 words to scandalise Catholics all over the world he might as well find them to talk about what’s really important.
How do you say? He would appear “obsessed”?
Well, let’s say he would appear “Catholic” instead. But I understand for him it must be a stretch.
Funny, but truthful, observation from a former LCWR president, who is upset at the fact that Archbishop Sartain, the man with the task of trying to make of them something vaguely resembling Christians, is going to attend to their next meeting in Florida; whereby attending the event here means “following all of it”.
Now, I cannot imagine an orthodox Catholic group having any problem with an Archbishop attending the one or other of their meetings or conferences. It would, methinks, be a good way to show to the hypothetical Archbishop some sound orthodoxy. Just think how much said Archbishop would probably learn from, say, FSSP priests. A win-win, really.
The matter is different, though, when a group of people not even recognisable as Christian – much less Catholic – are informed said archbishop is going to be there during the entire exercise. Clearly, the nuns are afraid the Archbishop could profit from the occasion to tell someone in Rome – not Bishop Francis; “who is he to judge?” – the dykes nuns really do not want to learn and will have to be disciplined a bit more hardly than by flaying them with feathers as happened up to now.
In fact, it’s fair to say the very fact the females dare to openly protest the presence of the Archbishop is the best evidence that the latter is achieving something very closely resembling absolutely nothing.
I also allow myself to notice that the tortoise pace of the Vatican in reforming the viragos of the LCWR is in rather marked contrast to the speed with which real or imagined squabbles inside the FFI have been tackled.
You would have thought the good priests of the FFI would have been also allowed their, say, 40 years of “encouragements” and “suggestions” before getting a Visitation? Alas…
All very strange, in nowadays’ Church.
I can see the day when a Pope will come back from a trip and deposit a… beach ball on the altar. No, seriously. I can.
Ridiculous, you say? Utterly absurd?
I do not think the viragos have anything to fear. Another ten of fifteen years of “encouragements” at the worst; at the end of which most of them will have far serious trouble than Archbishop Sartain anyway. I wouldn’t worry if I were – uurghh!) one of them.
“Lio” seems pretty much in fashion.
Taken from here:
“Ever since Vatican II, the understanding of obedience and authority has taken on new nuances or concepts,” Sister Wirtz told Vatican Radio, “so I think it’s important for us to look at what does Gospel leadership mean today.”
“We’re very hopeful that we will have more open dialogue in the future,” she continued. “I think the LCWR are really using an approach of prayer and reflection, trying to open this channel of understanding from both sides.”
“I think in some circles it’s been recognized, but I think from the circles within the Vatican we don’t hear that recognition,” added Sister Wirtz, an American who also serves as general superior of the Franciscan Sisters, Daughters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
I was very excited (no, not really) at reading these words, because it is evident to me we are assisting to the birth of a new religion. Sister Mary Lou Wirtz, the head of Mad Nuns United (though they called themselves International Union of Superiors General) has launched a rather shrill battle cry this week, and is now hoping to rally sufficient mad nuns around them, or at least keep her position.
Read again the hilarious statement of the female, and you will see without any difficulty what we are talking about. Even Sedevacantists do not deny the obedience to the Pope, though they deny that a legitimate Pope is in charge. Even Protestants would recognise without any doubt that the absolute cornerstone of the Church is her being based on Peter. There can be no doubt this is a constitutive element of Catholicism: if you take it away, there is no Catholicism anymore.
Not since the, erm, advent (small a) of Msss Wirtz: not only obedience now takes “new nuances”, but actually it has taken a new concept. Obedience now is different than it used to be. The traditional understanding of the Papacy has clearly passed its sell-by date. Gosh, Luther could not have said it better.
Why would things now be different? Why, Vatican II of course. All that free flow of Holy Spirit, finally liberated from the tyranny of Pius XII and Pius XI, has clearly changes things forever. What do we have now? A strange concept named “Gospel leadership”. Let’s try: “And Jesus answering, said to it: Blessed art thou, Gospel: because ink and parchment hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art the Gospels; and upon this books I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
It is not only that it sounds stupid, it is that there is no Catholicism left in it, merely a vague “Gospeling” meaning nothing, and which can be filled with everything. There can be no leadership of the Gospels, because the Gospels aren’t any part of leadership, and never were able to justify or ground any. There were no Gospels in Jesus’ time, and it was the authority of the Church, led by Peter, that established the very Gospel whose “leadership” should now justify a rethink of the role of the Pope. In Catholicism, leadership is spelled Papa Echo Tango Echo Romeo.
Again: not only is this utter crap. This is crap not based on history or reason, and in obvious contradiction with Catholicism.
Does this deter our new wannabe Prophetess from spitting her bile? No, it doesn’t. The last phrase quoted is so hilarious you wonder what these people smoke in the morning, and can be rephrased as follows: “In some circles of mad nuns there is now a recognition that as you have a penis, we cannot obey to you on any account, and will even theorise a new religion to avoid that; but you, male chauvinist that you are, you do not agree with this”.
Sister needs a doctor and the doctor must, first of all, check her for cocaine consumption. Such outlandish statements clearly denote either that the woman makes use of substances creating a sharp loss of reality, or either that the Vatican is being once again so astonishingly incompetent, deaf, blind and generally faineant that she thinks she can launch provocations like this one without any fear of consequence.
It is high time this bunch of hysteric females were really punished. Kick all those with such idea out and deprive them of the habit (that they don’t use) and of the money on which they scrounge. Let them fend for themselves, if they are oh so social they’ll find local authorities willing to pay for their social activity.
Unfortunately, Sister Wirtz might not be on cocaine, and know very well what she is doing: bitch without end for a small correction, and you will avoid the exemplary punishments.