Category Archives: Dissent
From Rorate Caeli, the translation into English of the most brutal takedown not only of Traditionis Custodes, but of the Pontificate of the Evil Clown ever come from the pen of a bishop.
The author of the text below (which I report in its entirety for posterity, in case the good auxiliary bishop is forced to delete it) is Rob Mutsaert, Auxiliary Bishop of a Diocese in – of all places – the Netherlands.
To say that it’s brutal does not really convey the real dimensions of this. This is the defence of Catholicism of a man who has had enough of seeing everything that is Catholic watered down, insulted or fought against by Francis. I had to make a “double take” at times, and make sure that this was really signed by a Bishop, and it’s not the first of April, and the source is credible. This is real.
I suggest that you read the text below not once, but a couple of times, savouring every detail. You have my permission (I am joking, of course), to accompany this with some good cognac and chocolate. It is obvious that this text is not the result of a momentary anger, as it is very carefully crafted. It is also obvious that the very strong accusations levelled at Francis (all of them true, by the way) are worded in such a way that no doubt is left, in the mind of the reader, about what the author thinks of the Evil Clown.
By the way, the good Bishop does not call Francis, literally, Evil Clown, but he clearly shows both that he is a clown (second paragraph) and that he is evil (ninth paragraph). Also, note the insistence of the bishop on a simple concept: this is not a mistaken document. This is not some technical detail that was not carefully considered. This is the product of an evil mentality and of an evil ideology.
God willing, the future won’t be so bad after all.
Text below. Italics in the English text. Bold emphases mine.
Bp. Rob Mutsaerts
Auxiliary Bishop of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
Pope Francis promotes synodality: everyone should be able to talk, everyone should be heard. This was hardly the case with his recently published motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, an ukase [imperial edict] that must put an immediate termination on the traditional Latin Mass. In so doing, Francis puts a big bold line through Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict’s motu proprio that gave ample scope to the old Mass.
The fact that Francis here uses the word of power without any consultation indicates that he is losing authority. This was already evident earlier when the German Bishops’ Conference took no notice of the Pope’s advice regarding the synodality process. The same occurred in the United States when Pope Francis called on the Bishops’ Conference not to prepare a document on worthy Communion. The pope must have thought that it would be better [in this case] not to give advice any more, but rather a writ of execution, now that we’re talking about the traditional Mass!
The language used looks very much like a declaration of war. Every pope since Paul VI has always left openings for the old Mass. If any changes were made [in that opening], they were minor revisions—see, for example, the indults of 1984 and 1989. John Paul II firmly believed that bishops should be generous in allowing the Tridentine Mass. Benedict opened the door wide with Summorum Pontificum: “What was sacred then is sacred now.” Francis slams the door hard through Traditionis Custodes. It feels like a betrayal and is a slap in the face to his predecessors.
By the way, the Church has never abolished liturgies. Not even Trent [did so]. Francis breaks completely with this tradition. The motu proprio contains, briefly and powerfully, some propositions and commands. Things are explained in more detail by means of an accompanying longer statement. This statement contains quite a few factual errors. One of them is the claim that what Paul VI did after Vatican II is the same as what Pius V did after Trent. This is completely far from the truth. Remember that before that time [of Trent] there were various transcribed manuscripts in circulation and local liturgies had sprung up here and there. The situation was a mess.
Trent wanted to restore the liturgies, remove inaccuracies, and check for orthodoxy. Trent was not concerned with rewriting the liturgy, nor with new additions, new Eucharistic prayers, a new lectionary, or a new calendar. It was all about ensuring uninterrupted organic continuity. The missal of 1570 harks back to the missal of 1474 and so on back to the fourth century. There was continuity from the fourth century onwards. After the fifteenth century, there are four more centuries of continuity. From time to time, there were at most a few minor changes—an addition of a feast, commemoration, or rubric.
In the conciliar document Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II asked for liturgical reforms. All things considered, this was a conservative document. Latin was maintained, Gregorian chants retained their legitimate place in the liturgy. However, the developments that followed Vatican II are far removed from the council documents. The infamous “spirit of the council” is nowhere to be found in the council texts themselves. Only 17% of the orations of the old missal of Trent can be found [intact] in the new missal of Paul VI. You can hardly speak of continuity, of an organic development. Benedict recognized this, and for that reason gave ample space to the Old Mass. He even said that no one needed his permission (“what was sacred then is still sacred now”).
Pope Francis is now pretending that his motu proprio belongs to the organic development of the Church, which utterly contradicts the reality. By making the Latin Mass practically impossible, he finally breaks with the age-old liturgical tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Liturgy is not a toy of popes; it is the heritage of the Church. The Old Mass is not about nostalgia or taste. The pope should be the guardian of Tradition; the pope is a gardener, not a manufacturer. Canon law is not merely a matter of positive law; there is also such a thing as natural law and divine law, and, moreover, there is such a thing as Tradition that cannot simply be brushed aside.
What Pope Francis is doing here has nothing to do with evangelization and even less to do with mercy. It is more like ideology.
Go to any parish where the Old Mass is celebrated. What do you find there? People who just want to be Catholic. These are generally not people who engage in theological disputes, nor are they against Vatican II (though they are against the way it was implemented). They love the Latin Mass for its sacredness, its transcendence, the salvation of souls that is central to it, the dignity of the liturgy. You encounter large families; people feel welcome. It is only celebrated in a small number of places. Why does the pope want to deny people this? I come back to what I said earlier: it is ideology. It is either Vatican II—including its implementation, with all its aberrations—or nothing! The relatively small number of believers (a number growing, by the way, as the Novus Ordo is collapsing) who feel at home with the traditional Mass must and will be eradicated. That is ideology and evil.
If you really want to evangelize, to be truly merciful, to support Catholic families, then you hold the Tridentine Mass in honor. As of the date of the motu proprio, the Old Mass may not be celebrated in parish churches (where then?); you need explicit permission from your bishop, who may only allow it on certain days; for those who will be ordained in the future and want to celebrate the Old Mass, the bishop must seek advice from Rome. How dictatorial, how unpastoral, how unmerciful do you want to be!
Francis, in Article 1 of his motu proprio, calls the Novus Ordo (the present Mass) “the unique expression of the Lex Orandi of the Roman Rite.” He therefore no longer distinguishes between the Ordinary Form (Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine Mass). It has always been said that both are expressions of the Lex Orandi, not just the Novus Ordo. Again, the Old Mass was never abolished! I never hear from Bergoglio about the many liturgical abuses that exist here and there in countless parishes. In parishes everything is possible—except the Tridentine Mass. All weapons are thrown into the fray to eradicate the Old Mass.
Why? For God’s sake, why? What is this obsession of Francis to want to erase* that small group of traditionalists? The pope should be the guardian of tradition, not the jailer of tradition. While Amoris Laetitia excelled in vagueness, Traditionis Custodes is a perfectly clear declaration of war.
I suspect that Francis is shooting himself in the foot with this motu proprio. For the Society of St. Pius X, it will prove to be good news. They will never have been able to guess how indebted they’d be to Pope Francis….
(Published in Dutch at the bishop’s blog)
This article from the American Spectator is, in my opinion, interesting not only for the good exposition of a little part of Francis’ evil shenanigans, but for another important consideration: this is not a specialised publication, but a mainstream conservative outlet.
Of course, mainstream conservative outlets have reported about the Evil Clown many times already; however, it was generally in order to condemn his positions on social issues: his relentless support for illegal immigration, for example.
This time, we have a mainstream outlet writing something that, to a mainstream reader, sounds like something technical: the liturgy.
The message is very clear: “dear lukewarm mainstream Catholics, you need to realise that Francis isn’t just a “good guy” with a sometime inappropriate “social justice streak”. No, this guy is evil. He hates you. He hates your religion. He hates your rites. He hates everything you are trying to keep of your faith”.
I imagine your mainstream, perhaps not even churchgoing Catholic reader reading this from an outlet he trusts, and stopping a moment to pause. Perhaps, this lukewarm Catholic will, now, be curious to know more about the old rite; perhaps, he will resolve to think twice before he sends money to the diocese at Christmas. Perhaps, he will just stop and reflect that the fact that orthodox Catholics are so violently opposed to the edicts of this man means that the figure of the pope is just not what his lukewarm parents thought (and taught him) he was. In fact, the most important effect of such article is, if you ask me, of making Francis’ heresy, not only his outlandish “social” stances (JP II wasn’t bad at easy rhetoric, either) a mainstream event.
Go on this way, Frankie boy. Keep doing this, and the jokes along the lines of “is the Pope Catholic” will spread way beyond conservative Catholic circles, making of you the most universally appreciated Great Joke after Greta Thunberg.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. He may use, to touch hearts and intrigue minds, ways that are not the usual ones. He might, in fact, be using the Evil Clown to allow the Tridentine Mass to be more widely known among people who have lost, a long time ago, interest in the clown masses they grew up with.
As Francis becomes a mainstream heretic, the Mass of the Ages becomes a wider topic of conversation. This helps us in both ways, helping us to recover proper Catholicism as it direct the attention on the proper liturgy.
Do not get discouraged. Do not be despondent. Do not give in to defeatism.
Providence is at work all the time.
Even through heretical popes.
The less young among my readers will certainly remember the many parodies of Hitler talking to his generals in the 2006 movie “The Downfall”. I never really enjoyed them (because I understand the German that is spoken “behind” the subtitles) but it must have been hilarious for those who saw the movie with subtitles without understanding the language.
Why am I reminding you of the parodies? Because I see the time rapidly approaching when such a parody will be put online, with Francis in the role of Adolf and his generals all explaining to him, sweating and greatly embarrassed, that the offensive has failed, the Traditionalists are advancing on all fronts and even General Cupich has disobeyed his orders and has refused to launch the offensive; at which point Adolfrancis launches into an extremely angry tirade against everybody.
And this, my dear readers, is exactly what we learned today: that even Cupich does not dare, at least for now, to touch the TLM in his Archdiocese.
I have written some days ago that I had the impression that a number of Bishops would calibrate their answer to the Motu Proprio according to their expectation about the residual duration of this rather satanical Pontificate. I have the impression that Cupich sees a Conclave approach in the not too distant future, and does not want to get in there as the useful idiot of the late Francis Of The Evil Circus.
You might say: for now. Hhhmm… not sure about that, and it seems to me that Cupich is just protecting his leftist backside against retaliation from the Evil Clown. The moment to attack is when the general orders the attack. “Perhaps in three months’ time ” isn’t really the answer said general wants to hear, but is still better than “I refuse to carry out the order, mein Fuehrer!”.
Plus, Cupich has the advantage of living in an actual diocese, rather than in a hotel run by a sodomite he protects. Therefore, he can get the temperature and the mood of his sheep (however much he despises them) much better than said Evil Clown, who is so blinded by his fanatical hatred he could not even see a wreckball rapidly advancing towards his nose, much less something imponderable and distant like the anger of Catholics.
Nor is Cupich the only one refusing to attack. Cardinal Mueller has written a long answer to the document which, whilst containing an awful lot of V II delusions, is such a complete takedown of the measure that you would think Mueller is a teacher giving a thorough, utterly humiliating dressing down to the most asinine of his pupils. Many others were less articulate in the detail, but pretty much aligned in the substance. They know what they’re doing, because the acceptance of the very principle that Francis asks them to swallow – the Adolfrancis holocaust of the Mass of the Ages – is a factual impossibility that could utterly ruin them once Francis is six feet under. It is, to continue with the comparison, like Hitler ordering to destroy Paris. It’s not happening, Adolfchen, but we will be making excuses for as long as you live, anyway….
Of course, this military operation is only at the beginning; but it seems to me that it could not have had a worse start for Satan’s troops.
Adolfrancis screaming in rage at his general could, in fact, be not a parody, but a reality just as I write this.
I have written yesterday about the fall (as a man of power; not as a priest!) of Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill. I have, also, written about the appalling “casual” way in which the US Bishops seem to treat the problem of homosexuality. The idea that transpires is that the guy had to fall not because of his perversion, but because he was “not chaste”. This is making an equivalence between sins that go with nature and sins that go against it, whereby every 5 years old should know that the second category is a different matter altogether.
And it’ snot only the Bishops, either! This article quotes at length a “catholic” scholar, Dr Janet E Smith, who is retired (and therefore not the youngest) and, at her age, should really know better.
Obviously wary of alarming the “gay gods”, Ms Smith’s solution is this one:
“Shouldn’t the bishops welcome this data? Msgr. Burill has a bishop who is his spiritual father. Msgr. Burill’s soul is in mortal danger. His father should want to know what he is doing and help him stop and recommit himself to a chaste life,” she concluded. “For let’s not forget, this is all about souls.”
Heavens! The bishop should not (I repeat: not) defrock this damn pervert. He should “help” him “stop” and “recommit himself” to a “chaste life”.
There is no idea of disciplining the man; kicking him out; getting rid of him. No, he should be “helped”. Helped to what? To remain a homosexual priest! But, let’s try to be “chaste”, hey?
If this is the mentality, I just understood how paedophile priests could roam the sacristies for decades! “Dear Father Paedo, as your Bishop it is my duty to take care of your immortal soul; please stop what you are doing and recommit yourself to a chaste life, OK?”
Let us make some things clear here:
There can be no real chastity in a homosexual, because there can be no purity in a pervert.
If a homosexual priest does not engage in sodomy, this does not make him suitable for the priesthood.
Moreover, we have seen countless times that homosexuality is such a strong perversion, such an all-invasive diabolical rot, that the idea of “Father Fag the chaste” is nothing more than a PC fantasy.
The rot is not only in the priests and bishops. The rot is in these so-called “scholars” who perpetuate this PC tale of homosexuality as just one way of being, and thinking that some priests are straight, some priest are “gay”, all need to be chaste, end of story.
Fantastic. You can now send your children to Mass to Father Elton, who will consecrate the host in a somewhat shrill voice, will give you a homily about the evil of being “judgmental” and will, no doubt, want to stay near your children.
We need to fight for our sensus catholicus, and tell everybody that we expect from them that they defend it instead of undermining it. The likes of Mons Burrill must be defrocked, all of them. There is nothing less that can be done if we want to protect the Church from these people.
Let Mons Burrill care for his soul after having been defrocked. The faithful don’t own him a robe (which, I am sure, he does not wear) or a living.
I have read many a stupid thing in my time, and in “catholic” blogs and publications not less than elsewhere; but in the last days we have been reaching a level of idiocy that even I thought hard to fathom.
The idea that the TLM would be rightly persecuted because Traditionalists aren’t nice is the most blasphemous sacrifice ever made on the altar of the religion of niceness that I have seen up to now.
Once again, we see the attitude at work that puts Christ last, and virtue-signalling first. It also shows that the detractors of the Traditional Mass have a flirt with Satan that has been going on for a while, and which now manifests itself in the usual ways of the world: you haven’t followed the rules of the religion of man; you are, therefore, rightly deprived of that which we have grown to hate.
If these people had the first idea of the sacredness of the Mass of the Ages, they would not even think of taking the Mass as a hostage in their stupid fight against proper Catholicism. But the problem is, that the very concept of sacredness has abandoned them, substituted for the religion of tea and biscuits, of easy compromises, of all half and full concessions to the world Satan wants from them and suggests to them.
It’s too dumb even for words. It’s like saying “you deserve to die because you never say good morning” (true or not), but it is, in fact, infinitely worse because the Mass of the Ages is more important than any human life.
The “It’s your fault” party shows that they are, utterly and completely, sold to this world and have completely forgotten the other one.
Let’s hope they repent. I don’t know if they realise it, but they really don’t want to die on the side of the Evil Clown.
What does a Communist dictator do when he sees that the people do not want Communism and desire to free themselves from its joke? He reacts with… more Communism, and with the suppression of all opposition.
This is exactly what we have witnessed in the last days.
The Traditional Latin Mass is constantly increasing in popularity, showing with increasing clarity to more and more faithful that the future is.. the past. This cannot be tolerated by one who, like Francis, hates the Church and the faithful with all his might. A Castro in white, this man is incensed at the “rigid” faithful; faithful who, in his eyes, are nothing but “counterrevolutionaries” who stay in the way of the edification of Socialism within the Church. He will not have any of that.
As always in these cases – and a lot of Communist dictators have experienced this directly -, the imposition of a wrong ideology against irresistible (and, in our case, supernatural) forces can never work in the long term. In the same way as the injection of more Communism into a social system causes this system to become even more inefficient and even more of a failure as it smashed its head against the irresistible forces of the free markets, the attempt of Francis to simply suppress the most authentic expression of Catholic life, the Traditional Latin Mass, is unavoidably destined to smash its head against the irresistible forces of Christ, His Angels and His Saints.
If Francis had some sense, he would understand this. In fact, even I, who consider him nothing more than an ignorant, stupid, arrogant, lewd old man, thought that he had, at least, understood as much in his days of lucidity. As turns out, though, the man had simply been waiting for Benedict to die, and had to act when it became clear that Benedict is much better at staying alive than he is at resisting the wolves.
In fact, the funny part of me can’t but imagine Benedict feverishly dancing in the gardens of the Vatican, day in and day out, his white robe jumping to and fro with youthful enthusiasm, at the refrain of
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ aliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive
whilst an angry Francis watches and decides that yes, he will have to act NOW before those pesky Catholics end up subverting his Socialist plan and decide to take Catholicism and the Liturgy seriously, en masse!
And this is, in a joking and imaginative way, the root of what has happened here.
Benedict did not want to die, and Francis couldn’t wait any longer before he makes the work of the devil.
Both of them, as it is well known, hate the Tridentine Mass with a passion.
I found in my comment box this excellent comment from Anita O.P.
I can see why people would rather that Francis be an antipope. For one thing, they have a faulty understanding of the scope of a Pope’s authority. Some people think, wrongly, that we are bound to obey a Pope even when he orders us to do something evil, and therefore Jesus would never allow someone to be Pope who would do such a thing. For another, it would be more comforting to think a bad Pope is no Pope at all than to acknowledge that a true Pope can be bad.
But: Francis is the true Pope. He is a typical cleric of his generation: mean, nasty, brutal, vulgar, and contemptuous of all things Catholic. The hierarchy is chock-a-block with guys like him. It was only ever a matter of time until one of them got his kiester onto the Throne of Peter.
This comment is so right, because it photographs a reality that I have seen, from a distance, for many years now, and which was unknown to me until I started reading the blogosphere in the English language: the canonisation on earth of the pope.
This mentality existed, when I was growing up in Italy, only among the peasants, and I am pretty sure even they had their doubts. Whilst the popes were treated with great reverence, they were not considered endowed with any superpower. I was informed about the boundaries of papal infallibility in elementary school; therefore, all Italians of my age were.
I think that there is some perverse mind process at play here. Countless Protestants grew up listening to the tired criticism of their own against Catholics: that Catholics consider the pope “God on earth” and therefore omnipotent, omniscient, and always right. When they converted to Catholicism, they took some of this into their conversion, thinking that their allegiance to Catholicism meant embracing a concept of papal authority that is, actually, not at all Catholic.
In addition, Anglo-Saxon people are, it seems to me, not accustomed to the nuances of the language of traditionally Catholic Countries; a language that makes a much bigger use of hyperbole and, in general, loves powerful images and colourful expressions, but where there is no expectation that these expression and images are taken literally; which, alas, Anglo-Saxons (perhaps ruined by decades of sola scriptura-obsession with words) tend to do a lot.
When I came to England, I discovered that everyday Italian expressions were considered contrary to the second commandment by… Catholics! Lookey here, pal: if one of the most traditionally Catholic Countries on earth puts the word “damned” (as in: damned this, damned that) even in movies for children, and with the censorship office firing on all cylinders, perhaps you should stop and think!
The same mentality is at work concerning the pope. Some convert reads about the pope called “the sweet Peter on earth” and thinks, being a Northerner, that this is what a Pope is, every single time, and no questions asked. Then, when he is confronted with an evil clown like Francis, his head explodes as he wakes up every morning with “sweet Peter on earth” talking like “bitter Satan in hell”.
In fact, I had a woman, once, writing a comment in my box along the lines of: “Mundabor, how can you write such things? Don’t you know that the pope is sweet Peter on earth?”. I think she was a convert.
The second observation of Anita is also completely spot on. The exaggerated role attributed to the papacy sees all these people (many of them Anglos, and many among them certainly converts), twist themselves into a pretzel in order to decide that Francis is not the pope. This is another case of exploding heads, but resolved with a total escape from reality; a reality which, at that point, becomes inexplicable. Meanwhile, Italians read about the corruption of the papacy (which, in Italian history, happens every two and a half steps) and go to church to take part in the novena, without as much as a peep.
Last example: I remember once reading a comment on Father Z’s site, where a reader (in good faith, of course) asked whether it is allowed, on days of abstinence, to eat a certain sauce, which had a certain ingredient with a certain colouring that might have contained minuscule animals which are, in fact, meat. The guy was serious. Father Z answered politely inviting the guy to recover his sanity. I thought this was another result of the combination of Protestant rigidity and conversion to Catholicism.
The last point I also found absolutely correct. People like me, who don’t believe that the Pope has ecstasies upon being elected, saw this coming from far away. One pope starts the process of aggiornamento, the next one does not want a tiara, another one stages ecumenical crap in Assisi, his follower calls Agnostics “seekers”. At some point, this had to happen. Perhaps not so soon and not so harsh, but the direction was clear. Reflect on this: even the allegedly oh so rigid JP II was trying to abolish the death penalty without saying it.
The rot has been deep, and festering, for decades.
Around nine years ago (Benedict was still the pope) I wrote a blog post about Our Lady of Quito, also called Our Lady Of Good Success.
The blog post is here.
There is no denying that, since then, the situation has deteriorated considerably, and we have further proof that the historic cycle described in the apparition is in full swing now.
I have no idea for how long this will go on, or at which point one can say that “everything seems lost”. Still, I think that us trying to gauge when the crisis will come to an end is a fruitless exercise. We will know that the mess is at an end when it ends, or at least it begins to end.
I recommend to my readers that they do not lull themselves in illusions that 1) the solution is near, or 2) Armageddon is near. Both stances expose one (particularly one so easily impressionable) when neither comes.
This mess will go on for as long as God wants allows it to go on, and it will end when God makes it end. We can only reflect on the apparition, do our part, await the solution of this chaos (and be prepared to die waiting) and do our job of being Catholics in an increasingly more hostile world.
Patience is a virtue, those who long for justice will be rewarded, and we were never told than our sojourn on this planet would be other than a vale of tears.
Enjoy the reading of the blog post at the link, and do not allow Francis to depress you.
We have already won.
One positive result of the evil clown’s brazen attack to the Mass of the Ages might be this one: that more and more people will now understand that the problem is, in the end, Vatican II itself.
John or Paul, John Paul or Benedict, in the end you end up with Francis. There is simply no way one can enter the slippery slope of Modernism and not end up with an atrociously deformed Church.
An awful lot of halfway attentive faithful will, after the motu proprio, finally realise that there is no scope whatsoever in trying to reconcile Modernism and Catholicism. Vatican II is the carrier of the extremely dangerous, mortal virus of heresy, and it must be completely expunged from the body of the Church if She is to become healthy again.
Francis has not come out, all of a sudden, from under a cabbage. He is the inescapable product of the heretical mentality that came before him and carried him to prelacy and papacy. This mentality, once it has started, will not stop until it is completely destroyed.
Vatican II must be eradicated in toto, and those who decry the motu proprio must finally understand that every pope, from 1958 on, was part of the problem. Yes, even their beloved Benedict, the man who was so good at pretending he cared.
The Hermeneutic of Continuity is now officially dead. Francis has amply demonstrated that there is no continuity between devil and holy water. When this mess has come to an end (very likely, not in our lifetime), the faithful who will support the restoration of the beauty and the dignity of the Church will understand that the cancer must be removed in its entirety.
From every evil, God makes a good.
Pray, and trust in God’s Providence.
In days like this one, even I can understand (emotionally, I mean) the reaction of the people stating that, at this level of evil, this guy cannot be pope.
However, this is exactly that: an emotional reaction. It is like a boy of 6 saying to his father “you are not my father” after the latter deprived him of the bicycle pending better school notes. The fact is: the guy is the father, and Francis is the pope.
Why is the guy the father? Because the law says he is.
Why is Francis pope? Because the entire planet says he is, and there is not even one cardinal, and not even the guy who supposedly should be the real pope, who says that Francis is not pope.
This is the reality under the sun. It sucks. It sucks in what can now be safely described an unprecedented way. But it is what it is. We can’t deny reality because we don’t like it, like boys of six deprived of the bicycle.
Besides, I don’t see much consolation even in the abstruse theory that Francis would not be the pope, but the pope would be a very old guy who approves of everything Francis does.
In difficult times it is, I think, important to keep our feet planted on the ground. Better still, it is important to stay planted in reality, but take refuge in Christ in the middle of the storm.
I am not one of those (mostly converts) strange Catholics who make all Catholicism hinge on the character of a Pope, with the consequence that a bad pope cannot be such, or they would stop believing in the Church. I grew up in Italy, where the fact that there have been very evil popes is known to every well-educated person. That this one here is more evil is a difference in the degree, not in the substance, of the fact.
If you look at the papacy in the decades before and after the Synodus Horrenda, what you see is chaos and corruption. There must have been an awful lot going on. Even if the records are scarce, it appears that the Popes were, largely, the instruments or even the leaders of warring bands and family clans that were little better than criminal organisations. This went on, in various degrees, for centuries. We as Church Militant have been in the manure before; this time it merely stinks more.
So, is Francis evil? The answer to this is, I think, obvious to every properly informed Catholic who wants to look at reality for what it is. Yes, the guy is extremely evil. He is, clearly, a tool of Satan.
But… does this evil… unpope him? No, it doesn’t. Francis may, with his actions, certainly make himself worthy of being deposed. You can question the ways of his election until the cows come home. But it is not you or I who decide whether he is, because of this, pope or not.
Let us go back to Pope Formosus. Formosus has been, after decades of controversies, definitely been condemned by Sergius III, who issued the definitive condemnation of Formosus and the definitive rehabilitation of Stephanus VI, the pope who carried out the synod. Therefore, we have the official stance of the Church: Stephanus VI good, Formosus bad.
Formosus papacy was, by Stephanus, retroactively declared null. Why was this? Because we are not a protestant sect and, until a synod or other official organ declares the pontificate null, the pontificate remains valid.
It’s not for you and me to decide that this horrible man is not pope anymore. What we can hope and pray for, is that such a decision is made by those who have to power to make such a decision. I for myself would welcome a trial of Francis’ after his death. As far as I am concerned, feel free to exhume his corpse and put in on a wheelchair, and I would not mind a bit how gory the details become (In fact, I always thought that Stephanus was what we today call a master communicator; so much so, that his synod survive in the memory today, after so much of that age is covered in darkness. Before newspaper and radio, tv and internet, twitter and facebook, Stephanus knew how to make news travel fast, and hit hard. Quite remarkable, that people don’t get the brilliancy of his policy, and focus merely on the macabre details).
Still, as I write this, the situation is the following one: the evil clown is pope and the church sees him as such. Until that changes, this is the pope we get, exactly as the contemporaries of Formosus got him as pope between 891 and 896, withotu even dreaming of saying: “No” I, the village baker, officially declare that Formosus is not the pope”. I actually think that, no matter how bad the situation is, it is the height of arrogance, and it endangers one’s salvation, to make of oneself a micro pope-maker and decide who is, and is not, the pope.
I would be overjoyed to see Francis toppled in life, for example via an extraordinary council, or excommunicated and declared a heretic after his death.
I would certainly be satisfied with a sensible, but representative minority of Cardinals declaring him a heretic, deposed, and in schism.
I would even, in my obedience to proper Catholic doctrine, believe Francis not the pope if the organisation I trust most in matter of theological decision, the Society of Saint Pius X, were to issue such a formal declaration.
But neither I, nor you, nor bloggers, nor journalists can decide who is, and is not, pope.
I am trying to gauge the consequences for the people having access to the TLM after the evil clown’s latest motu proprio.
I very much fear that the TLM that do not have a serious competition in (somewhat) nearby SSPX chapels will be closed down. Why? Because most bishops will simply not resist the pressure, will cave i to the Vatican and will close them down, quoting the need to be obedient to the evil pope.
How many are those? I don’t know. I have never seen a map with a comparison of locations of SSPX chapels and other TLM churches. It’s difficult to say how many faithful are left without a SSPX chapel at reasonable distance if (actually, when) those are closed.
However, I think this: that it is not naive at all to suppose that an awful lot of locations for traditionalist orders, (the likes of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or other vetus ordo, but V II organisations) have been chosen exactly with regard to existing locations of SSPX chapels. Honestly, I doubt that much will happen with regard to these locations, even if these organisations aren’t anymore under Ecclesia Dei and can be targeted easily in future. It would be simply suicidal to shut them down and deliver the vast majority of their faithful to the SSPX.
The biggest issue, at least for now, appears the future (actually, the lack of future) of the diocesan TLMs. How many of those there are? I have no idea. Seen that they have been ostracised from the start, and that they seem to be very rare in my neck of the woods, I do not think that there are very many. However, it can be that in certain Countries there are more than in others, and certainly there will be losses in that respect.
The most interesting development until Francis dies (which I hope happens today, but I am not holding my breath) is, in my eyes, the future of the V II Traditionalist orders now orphans of Ecclesia Dei; particularly so, as Francis seems not to have any idea why they should exist in the first place or any justification for their existence. But again, these organisations exist to, more or less, ostracise the SSPX. If they die, the SSPX will thrive even more. If they live, not much will change for them. If I remember correctly, some traditionalist orders already celebrate both masses anyway, at least in some locations. I might be wrong, though.
Be angry at the evil clown, but in good cheer overall. In Italy we say that “the devil makes the pots, but not the lids”. This is a huge pot; but, like all pots that Francis makes, it has no lid.
In god’s appointed time, things will be adjusted.
Pope Francis, without a doubt the most ridiculous piece of work ever to unworthily sit on the throne of Peter, has, once again, piddled outside of the pissoir. We are now informed that “Jesus becomes bread”.
I would like to examine the man behind this utter piece of theological crap from several angles.
First: this man is deeply, profoundly ignorant of everything that has to do with Catholicism. A child of six might buy the “Jesus becomes bread” heresy (“impanation”, I learned today; it’s amazing how many stupid people have preceded us; however, they weren’t Popes); a child of ten would understand that something is deeply wrong with the concept, and a confirmed boy of fifteen would think, probably rightly, that Francis smoked too many illegal substances during his wasted life.
Second: the arrogance. This is a guy who, being Pope, does really not care a straw if he says something deeply heretic concerning the Transubstantiation. It is obvious that he does not allow anybody to correct him, or to check him when he wants to say something that sounds cool to him. Too proud to ask for review of his theological stunts, but also – and very obviously – too arrogant to care anyway.
Third, the heresy: Francis has stated something officially sanctioned as heretical. That’s it. It’s on record. It’s official. Even if the heresy was unintentional (I am persuaded it was due to ignorance, arrogance and stupidity, not the will to spread the heresy of “impanation”), when a Pope expresses himself, unintentionally, in a heretical way (something that would, in a sane world, not ever happen in the first place) he should at least immediately have an unequivocal statement issued, possibly apologising and begging Christ for forgiveness for his appalling mistake, as a Pope. But no. The guy does not believe in “doctrinal rigidity”, you see.
Last: the stupidity. I have said many times, and repeat today, that this man is deeply, profoundly stupid. Even not believing in God, as he certainly doesn’t, and hating the Church, as he certainly does, a man with a better intellect would simply avoid making an ass of himself all the time. Francis isn’t like that. He doesn’t care for what he says, he is too arrogant to ask for help in not looking dumb, and is too stupid to realise he does.
I always have this image of Francis: that it is as if the cranky old man every rural village in Italy has (the godless, arrogant, stupid, ever complaining dumbass giving everyone a piece of his mind and treated with mild, half-amused contempt by the villagers) would suddenly become Pope. Upon becoming Pope, that guy would think, talk and act just like Francis, as countless examples of his boorish stupidity have shown to us.
In Francis case, he has gone, in some mysterious way, through many years of theological studies. At this point, I’d say he has clearly spent them playing cards with some buddy of his, or smoking pot, or doing who knows what else, certainly not caring to learn the first thing about Catholicism.
This guy joined the Jesuits to scrounge an existence. If you still haven’t got it, I wonder how you can go through life without being taken advantage of by everybody, starting with your dog.
The Evil Clown has given us another example of the completely Catholicism-free way he sees the Church. It seems that for this guy, the Church is a sort of meeting place, where everybody feels good just because nobody is left out.
Like so much that this man spouts, this is claptrap that will likely sound good to non-Christians (like Atheists, or Father Martina), but in the end means absolutely nothing.
So, let’s say we all gather in the same Francisspace. We “celebrate around Christ”. We don’t leave out anyone.
Soon, the issue will arise: what if some celebrate Christ by believing the Creed, and some think they can “celebrate Christ” but don’t? Will we keep “celebrating Christ” with those who, say, reject Christ’s Divinity? Would this not, to any Christian, be an offence to Christ?
It obviously goes on from there to every aspect of life. Shakinna is a transsexual, pansexual Fruitarian betrothed to her female dog, Arafatta. She thinks that Christianity is pure evil, and Christ was very cruel in eating carcasses of dead animals. She also thinks that he was homophobic, transphobic, and pansexualphobic. Still, she demands admission because she thinks that everybody should be included everywhere, in the spirit of Pandyka, the Great Dyke In The Sky, and Francis’ words about not letting anybody out (she obviously likes Francis, as men go) impressed her. What do you have in common with her? Why would you want her to breath the same air you do? Isn’t telling her to to stay the heck out, at least for as long as she keeps her opinions, the Christian things to do?
You see: words like inclusion are very easily said, and never fail to impress those who don’t believe in anything. But it isn’t so easy.
If you love Christ, you will have to exclude. If you don’t want to exclude, you don’t love Christ.
Francis clearly doesn’t love Christ. I actually thinks he does not even believe in Him, or he would be utterly terrified of what happens to him after his death (hopefully, today). I don’t think he is a Satanist, either, though there is nothing, absolutely nothing that would shock me in this human being. The way I see it, he is most of all an ungrateful, atheist scrounger who resents the hand (the Church) from which he got a comfortable, respected, well cared-for existence whilst not believing in anything he was taught about Her. Now, come to the top, he can’t resist grating all those pesky Catholics, whom he hated all his life, just out of spite and evil spirit.
Still, my dear readers, and as tragic as the event is, this guy is, actually, the Pope, whatever fantasies you may want to sooth your pain with.
What we learn from the events of this tragic Century is not that we should, now, all become mini-Popemakers. It is that this state of things must move us to reflect on the cause of the mess, and the cause can be described with one word and one word only: Aggiornamento, the harmless-sounding Trojan Horse of all heresies.
Francis is the vomit meant to make Catholics understand that the poison of Vatican II is not good for them. The more they keep not understanding, the more they will have to vomit and the worse the impulse to vomit will become. At some point, by God’s Grace, things will start to change.
The escape into parallel realities is not the answer. The answer is the lucid examination of what is happening, and the reasoned, sensible, logical conclusion as to why it is happening.
What Do Miniskirts-Wearing Heretical Women And Priestly Formation Have In Common?
One answer to the question in the title is, obviously, “nothing”.
One other answer is “Cardinal Woelki”, as the man has appointed a miniskirt-wearing, heretic woman to the head of the “Direction of Studies in the Formation of Priests and Deacons”.
The miniskirt-wearing lady will, therefore, have some sort of say, and certainly some sort of influence, in what seminarians study.
You might say: “come on, Mundabor. Don’t be that guy! She might be wearing miniskirts at times, but she is a right-thinking woman, surely?”.
Well, is she? Let us examine this quote from the linked article:
..her answer to the question what beliefs about death she has thrown overboard, “The old doctrine of the separation of body and soul
Let us pay attention here: the interviewer is clearly posing a faux-fashionable question, something that must be quite OK in German “catholic” circles: where is it that you deviate from what all generations before our have believed?
The miniskirt lady does not even think of answering to the interviewer whether he/she feels well, considering that she is a Catholic and she will obviously believe (forgetting miniskirts for a moment) all that all generations before hers have believed. No, she actually feeds the interviewer with something meant to indicate that she is, you see, an independent woman!
The idea that, at death, your souls stays in your coffin, or in your urn, or at the bottom of some ocean is quite in contrast with what the Church has always believed: that at death, a soul goes immediately to its judgment, up or down as they case may be. This is, besides being logical, so foundational that it is a mystery to me how any woman who is not thinking with her legs may disagree.
But hey, these are the people whom Cardinal Woelki think should have a say in how priests are formed.
One thing we know: Germany is in deep, deep doodoo.
“Keeping the truth doesn’t mean defending ideas, becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas, but remaining bound to Christ and being devoted to his Gospel”,
I don’t know if I have ever read anything as stupid as this.
Sadly, yes, it comes from that guy.
Let us examine the egregious piece of excrement that Francis has just deposited all over Catholicism; enjoying, no doubt, the scandal he creates.
By definition, being a guardian of doctrine and dogmas is (at least for us Christians; and we are talking of truth here, so we are not talking about… Hindus) keeping the truth, because, get this…
the dogmas and doctrines are there exactly so that truth be kept.
In fact, there is no way in which a Christian can better defend the truth than by – you guessed it – becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas. There really isn’t. No amount of mental retardation or senility can ever justify wannabe emotional rubbish like this. This really is Satan at work.
One wonder what kind of filth must inhabit the mind of a person that does not seem able to see the most elementary logic in the religion he is called to, actually, defend; yes, including the dogmas and the doctrines!
The only way to try to give a meaning to the blabbering of this nincompoop is by assuming that what he means is that doctrines and dogmas are not suited to defend the truth, because lurv does it. I really, really cannot find any other explanation for the nonsense that the man spouts.
What this is is, simply put, not Christianity. It is a novel religion in which you “keep the truth” by denying it, as your lurving heart persuades you that being “bound to Christ” and being “devoted to his Gospel” is whatever makes you feel good or, better said, is convenient to you today.
What a piece of work our not-so-holy father is!
He can keep his strange lurv religion.
As for me, I will keep trying to guard the doctrines and dogmas as good as I can.
How many times have we seen it? “Progressive” priests and prelates (what I think about their motivation is here) organise a schismatic event in that most schismatic of Countries, Germany. The homo event is promoted by the Diocese. How many people show up? Frankly, it was clearly only the perverts and their closest accomplices.
This must be atrociously embarrassing, at least for people who are still capable of embarrassment. In fact, it is the natural consequences of Catholic thinking still being, in some way, still present among Germans.
Consider this: the Germans are an extremely, atrociously gregarious people. They don’t really “do” independent thinking. They will, as a whole, go with what other people think, or with what they are told by people they see as in a position of authority. The inability to accept a position that makes one isolated in the group is quite scary, and – besides having been encouraged since the time of the Denazification – has a strong tradition in Germany. Your average Georg Zimmermann has a very, very strong dislike for being, on a hot issue, the only one with a contrary opinion in the room; which is what, for example, would greatly please many Italians.
So, let us look at the ingredients here: the German government, the local parish, even the local Diocese tell you that perversion is good and must be supported if you want to be a good Christian/good human/part of the group. Still, German Catholics refuse to take part to this game. If you have lived in Germany, and know how scarily gregarious Germans are, this gives you all the measure of how much Catholics must feel betrayed by their own priests and Bishops.
Now please mind this: whilst both the parish priest and the bishop might well be homosexuals themselves, in Germany there might be a simpler explanation for this pandering to the public opinion: the notorious Kirchensteuer. These prelates might, as a rule, simply be looking for a paying public for their impious, godless circus, thinking that by being godless more people will want to pay the price of admission. However, it can also be easily said that a priest, or prelate, that reduce himself to such a state is clearly giving Satan a huge opening, and who knows where that will end; in many cases, methinks, it ends in sodomy.
Still, what we keep seeing is this: that even the atrociously gregarious German Catholics refuse to follow their “betters” (the civil and religious authorities) and do not collaborate with the worst of the anti-Christian propaganda pushed by both.
I don’t know how long this will go on. But boy, it is good to see that, as we write the Year of the Lord 2021, the homo agenda of the German Bishops is going absolutely nowhere.
You know that feeling, when you read about powerful prelates espousing some strange, distinctly non-Catholic cause, and something inside you knows that things aren’t right?
Yes, I mean those powerful Bishops and Cardinals. The “concerned” ones. The ones who speak “for the poor”. The ones who are always ready to espouse the easy causes.
Then you remember the curas villeros in Argentina, who disappear in the dirty slums of Buenos Aires to get the most disgusting sexual favours from all sorts of desperate perverts. At that point, you start to connect the dots, observing that the advocacy for the “downtrodden” can, very easily, hide a predatory desire for people either already totally corrupted, but which the “social work” gives easy opportunity to approach; or else, the ability to attack the vulnerable and to blackmail them because of the important position the powerful “social worker” slash priest slash prelate has in that already very corrupt environment; a position that can be the difference between, say, getting a decent job or remaining destitute.
There seems to be a common theme, is it not. A lot of these “social workers” appear to have had different motives than simple social work. How many of those corrupted curas villeros has the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires protected? How many are, like that archbishop, zealous apostles of the “social work” of the priest themselves? What is it, that these powerful men are hiding?
Could it be that all that social preaching is just a huge covert operation to allow an entire mafia of perverted priests and prelates to protect each other and climb the ranks of the Church through the net they have created; some of them, in time, becoming powerful and continuing to serve the same mafia-style organisation of which they are part, to which they have been linked all their lives, and which could destroy them if they stopped working for the “group”?
Am I being a conspiracy theorist here?
I don’t know.
I might be right.
I might be wrong.
But then I read this, and I know what to think.
Every First of April, when I reflect on what to write for April’s Fool, I am confronted with the increasing difficulty of writing something wittily absurd about Francis.
We have now come to such a level of absurdity in real life, that every joke about the next impossible stunt that Francis could be mocked with is very, very difficult to find. The man is such a factory of absurdities that the reality of his pontificate has long surpassed anything that could have been considered a joke only a few years ago.
In the last weeks only, we had “clericalism is a perversity” and the openly homo man appointed to a Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.
Both of them would have made for excellent April Fool’s stunts only one year ago, and both of them would have been impossible to think, and no joke to be seen anywhere, until 2013.
Imagine the April Fool’s line “Pope Francis appoints homosexual man to commission meant to protect children”. Just one year ago, it would have been so hilarious you would have split your coffee over the keyboard! The other one, “Pope says clericalism is perversion”, would have been an excellent mockery of Francis favourite Marxist play, “this is that”. Impossible, of course, and therefore so funny…
Alas, with this guy reality has gone far beyond the joke a long time ago. I discovered that it is, in fact, not easy to make fun of a clown.
The matter is, though, not a very funny one, even if we try to take these things with some sense of humour in order to protect our liver. Each one of Francis’ heretical, perverted, or Marxist stunts is another whip lash against Christ. In fact, it is not easy to picture Francis happily whipping Our Lord, like the Roman soldiers so brutally did in reality, and as realistically rendered in the movie, “The Passion of the Christ”. Only, the Soldiers weren’t Christians, Francis is actually supposed to.
It always incenses me when, after the latest stunt of this monstrous individual, some follower of the religion of niceness writes some inane comment about it not being nice to write these things about a Pope.
Today we remember Christ humiliated, flagellated, and crucified.
Do you care for Christ? Do you care for the Church? If you do, I bet you will be very angry!
If you don’t, I question your love for Christ and His Church.
Mr Pentin has a detailed article about the way the German Bishops are defying Church doctrine and try to make their own protestant “mini me” church of Heresy at home, whilst pretending that they are still Catholic.
The issues are many and all of them known. What, however, struck me most in the article is the revealing statement of Bishop Baetzing (the leader of the heretical movement). The statement is framed as follows:
Bishop Bätzing said he was “convinced” we are living in a “time window in which we can really change something,” and that “we have to use it.”
It seems clear enough to me. The Bishop is saying that as long as Francis is in power, they can and should push as hard as they can. If the man kicks the bucket (which, at his age, can be any day), you don’t know what happens next.
It seems, to me clear enough what is happening: Francis is culpable of either direct or indirect complicity with these heretics, by either sending signals to them that they should push their agenda forward and nothing will happen to them, or by refusing to do anything after the Germans have decided to give it a try and push anyway.
This is another example of how Francis acts against the Church. It is not only what he does, it is what he refuses to do.
Some observer might even comment that Francis did not feel strong enough to contrast Ladaria on the CDF answer to the “dubium” (he is evil and of mediocre intelligence, but not entirely dumb: he knows that he is still on time to die humiliated and deposed, in a Jesuit cell, forgotten or despised by everyone, and not one journalist in sight! He will, therefore, avoid going into waters that he deems to hot for his liking). Therefore, what he does now is to take every occasion and every pretext to oppose the people he hates (that is, my dear readers, all of you).
I suggest that my readers are not discouraged by what they read daily on the Catholic “press”. It behooves every one of us to take a bird’s eye approach and evaluate the events of these years from a broader perspective. Twenty of forty years of such a mess will likely be forgotten when, in 800 years, the Church is still going strong and all his opponent of today have long become dust.
This Baetzing guy will be totally forgotten in I don’t say 800, but possibly 8 years. Francis will be remembered, if he does, as one of those “bad Popes” people actually know nothing about besides the fact that they were bad. What, I think, will be remember is that, in the XX and XXI century, there was a people of great turmoil and of great corruption, like the Church had never been before, and from which the Church recovered, as always, in the Lord’s good time. Same as we, today, only vaguely care to know the details about the big mess in the X and XI Century. Even the Western Schism is, today, but a note in Church History.
This will, I think, help to put the Baetzing guy, and all those like him, in the proper perspective.
This note precedes an article published in a once Catholic magazine (no link):
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this piece had a reference that appeared insensitive and inappropriate in light of recent events in the United States which the XXXXX deplores in the strongest possible terms. Readers are also cautioned that this series of Improbable Hagiographies offers: Scandalously irreverent and theologically imprecise briefs on heroines of the faith, written by a recovering Protestant agnostic seeker with practically no training and exactly zero filter.
I do not think that the readers of the magazine have, on average, half the fear of the Lord of the average reader of this forum. However, it is not difficult to imagine that, among them, there must be a number who, actually, care. They must have wondered what on earth “scandalously irreverent and theologically imprecise briefs on heroines of the faith, written by a recovering Protestant agnostic seeker with practically no training and exactly zero filter” have to do with a Catholic magazine.
I have, predictably, not read the article, as I am not interested, at all, in what way exactly a person who is not part of my faith (or of any faith) wants to help me progress in mine.
However, at the end of the article there was another note: the author of the piece is, we are told, the founder of a secular pro-life Feminist organization.
Ye gods! Feminist, too? I know “feminist” is interpreted according to convenience nowadays; but, whatever kind of feminism this here is, Catholic it is not. Why? Because it’s feminist, Dr Watson!
I make an easy prediction here: every publication which keeps playing with “modernity” and thinks it “cool” to publish un-catholic, scandalous material from faithless people with zero filter may discover, one day, that these games were fatal to its existence.
Anybody who wants to read this stuff can do it, nowadays, literally everywhere else.
It really bespeaks a desire to make itself superfluous and go bust.
The CDF has, today, made known the answer to a Dubium, whether homosexual so-called “couples” can be blessed.
The answer is, of course, “no”. It is still full of PC, inclusive, milquetoast language. But in the end, yes, it is an undeniable “no”.
One sees with I do not say satisfaction, but a certain sense of half relief that at the Vatican they have not become all completely insane. Instead, insanity remains, for the time being, confined to merely dozen of the most important aspects of Catholicism, from the Pachamama scandal to the oblique, wink wink green light to the sacrilegious abuse of Holy Communion, to the persecution of sound Catholics, to the sellout of the Church in China to a communist dictatorship, and so on until tomorrow morning.
Let it not be said, therefore, that the stating of the obvious is something for which the appalling FrancisChurch should be praised. Rather, let it be said that not even the appalling FrancisChurch desires to be sacrilegious and heretical all the time.
What will be interesting now is to watch what kind of reaction this complete and utter banality and stating of the obvious will cause among the perverts and their friends, aka “progressive Catholics”. Methinks, Francis already knows what favour he will do them next, in order to appear like a “middle of the road” guy (being pro pervert half of the times probably counts as “middle of the roads” among the Polllyannas) and get more praise from the mainstream media.
In fact, yours cynical truly cannot but think that this answer to the Dubium has been released exactly in preparation of the other event. I could be wrong, of course. But in the case of Francis, thinking badly of him is just being realistic.
In fact, the most appalling reflection in all of this is that in this day and age, the Vatican makes headlines merely for stating that two and two is four.
It tells you a lot about the state of the Church in the Age of the Socialist Popes.
From Father Hunwicke’s blog, I read this quote of Bobby Mickens:
” … it’s not clear what Francis actually does want. And not just on his birthday, but on many things. … Oh, he’s written and said a lot. An awful lot. But that doesn’t mean he always reveals what he’s really thinking. And, at times, he says things that are hard to square with things he has said and done at oher times. In a word, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is somewhat of an enigma. He rails against clericalism, yet he can also be as clerical as anyone.”
Well I think I can help.
Francis is not an enigma.
He is just plain stupid. And childish. And Arrogant.
Think of Francis from the vantage point of his most evident traits: hate for the Church, childishness, arrogance, stubbornness, and total lack of profundity of thought. Put all of this in the blender, switch on for 30 second, and what you must perforce have is, well, him.
The over-rationalising punditry try to construe a system in Francis’ actions, but this is just the same as wanting to unlock the deep meaning and life philosophy behind the tantrums of a spoiled child. Francis is not interested in coherence. He does not care for the opinions of people he despises. He has no philosophy beyond what pleases him on the day. Therefore, all his contradictions and gaffes and provocations and factual blasphemies do not follow a pre-conceived project.
With Francis there is no plan, only a pram.
Look at him in this way and, suddenly, everything he does and says makes perfect sense. His petty revenges, his hatred for Christ, or his contempt for faithful Catholics do not follow a planned strategic plan. No person with a brain would create a long-term plan and have such a stupid, contradictory, utterly embarrassing, and totally self-defeating one.
Imagine a child of twelve given absolute power over the Church, and you are pretty near to a full understanding of what is happening. Add a life of scrounging and resentment, and you get even nearer. Throw in the mix a long life, also marked by defeats and “exile” in unwanted positions, and you will get nearer still (the twelve years old would canonise chocolate and declare spinach heretical; Francis is smarter than that).
The contradictions, hypocrisies, countless embarrassments of this men are an enigma only to a person who wants to explain them away! Francis lies like you breathe. He clearly does not believe in life after death, and is not intelligent enough to care for the way he will be remembered. Does a very obnoxious twelve year old stop and think how he will be remembered if he dies today? No, he doesn’t. What he cares for is his gripe for the day, and how he can be obnoxious to others now. Tomorrow, he will have a new gripe, and a new way of being obnoxious. He will not care for any coherence today with his actions of yesterday. He will only care of what he can get away with. Francis is that child, with the addition of a peculiar mark of shamelessness, apparently due to Argentinian heritage, according to which being caught lying is a sign of smartness.
Every time that I read about these people trying to figure out Francis, I have this image in front of me of a piece of dog’s excrement, in the middle of the walkway, with influential journalists and pundits all gathered, in a neat circle, around it, pensively smoking their pipes.
How is it that that thing stinks, they wonder? How can that object have that peculiar shape? Isn’t it baffling that the object would have that particular consistency, and likely texture, that makes it so difficult to understand what is going on with it?
Gentlemen, open your eyes: it’s brown, it stinks, it has the appropriate consistency and form. It’s a piece of shit, period.
Francis isn’t difficult to understand. He is, actually, extremely easy.
You merely need to apply common sense and basic life experience.
I am late to this party; but the party does not want to end, and it might be useful to spend a word or three on this.
Some Bishops reported that the Evil Clown was “displeased” that James Martin, aka “Martina”, used the meeting of the two months ago to promote his sodomitic agenda. Others deny or disagree.
In my view, the truth is in the middle; or rather, both sides are right.
Francis will say what his counterparts want to hear. This is what he always does and will always do. A man able to say “soon, soon!” to the parents of a persecuted FFI friar will obviously not have any qualm in saying to visiting Bishops a couple of words that makes them believe that he is actually not actively helping Martina to push his agenda. This makes the poor nincompoops happy, and avoids the awkward moment for Pachamama pope.
The real news in this is not what Francis may or may not have said. It is the fact that, after seven years of speaking out of three corners of his mouth, there should be any Bishop who gives any importance to what this evil man blathers.
A short internet search will reveal to everybody that the meeting between Pachamama and Martina happened on the 30 September. The alleged conversation with the Bishops happened in February, which means that the Bishops and Pachamama Guy were talking of something that had happened more than four months before.
You would think that, if the matter had had any relevance to Francis, he would have made known his opinion before February? Even if Francis expressed his disapproval in strong term to the Bishops, what value does this have, if this disapproval is four months late and expressed in private conversation? It would clearly mean that Francis himself does not attach any importance to anybody exploiting him for his purposes.
Make a mess!
Francis is a born liar. He lies just as easily and automatically as you breath. He does not attach any value, or dignity, or manliness to his words. To him, a man is as good as his Socialist credentials. It is really dumb to believe that anything that he says in a private conversation would have any value to him. If you were to say to Francis that the earth is flat, he would answer to you that there might be some merit in what you say, just to avoid the awkward situation. Why wouldn’t he? He lies about everything anyway!
This is the guy who boasted of lying to his mother, who was sending money to him, about studying Medicine whilst he was paying his studies in the Seminary (which, by the way, tells you a lot about the lack of Catholicism in the allegedly oh so pious home of Mother Bergoglio). If one is able of lying to his own mother about what the money she sends him – and, no doubt, the fruit of her sacrifices – is being used for, what would he not lie about? If he is able to even boast about it, what does this say about the attitude of this scoundrel?
I report less and less about what the man says in his almost daily heretical exercises in bloviation. The fact is, once you understand a guy is – as the common parlance goes – full of shit, you cannot give any value to any word he says, period.
Francis is – besides being a heretical pope, who would have been deposed and trialled for heresy a long time ago if our Bishops and Cardinals had some testosterone in them – a compulsive liar with no self-respect, no decency and, quite possibly, homosexual tendencies. How any Bishop can give any value to anything he spouts is beyond me.
Francis is a cancer that has now spread to the very limbs of the Church. To excise this cancer will require the amputation of one or more limbs. But this does not make this amputation less necessary, if we want to avoid that the cancer, albeit never terminal for the patient, keeps spreading everywhere for who knows how long.
The Bishops and Cardinals need to move and force this guy to retract everything (it would be a long retractation), or be deposed and trialled for heresy. This should be the daily issue of conversation among them.
What the old, lewd liar might have said to some of them is really neither here nor there.
The Society of St Pius X has issued a statement about the Synod on the Amazon.
It is, no doubt, the strongest statement ever come from the SSPX concerning the troubled times we are living. They also state:
On Sunday, November 10th, 2019, each priest of the Society will celebrate a Mass of reparation, and in each chapel, the Litanies of the Saints, taken from the liturgy of the Rogations, will be sung or recited to ask God to protect His Church and to spare it from the punishments that such acts cannot fail to draw down upon it. We urge all priest friends, as well as all Catholics who love the Church, to do the same.
I invite all the faithful to participate to this initiative.
The statement of the SSPX is very apposite. Still, I allow myself to explain here what else I would have wanted from this statement, and what I hope future statements will contain.
- An open accusation of Francis as an apostate or, at least, a heretic, and
- The call for an imperfect Council declaring that he has deposed himself.
I do not think for a moment that behind the choice of not doing this may be the fear of losing whatever “privileges” Francis has accorded to them. No follower of the SSPX could ever care a dried fig whether Francis recognises the Sacraments imparted by the SSPX or not. In my eyes, the SSPX is fearful that, if they start with this Crusade, they will stump it, as every Bishop and Cardinal who dares to say half a word against Francis will be accused of being a “schismatic” like those pesky Traditionalist people. In short, it might colour the entire movement with the kind of tinge that the mainstream avoids.
Still, it seems to me that extreme times call for extreme measures. If no other Bishops and Cardinals call for the events mentioned above (Bishop Gracida, in a way, does; but he has fixated himself on the Conclave. This is a dead end of dubious chances, and impossible to push through without the real argument, which is Francis’ heresies and, at this point, open apostasy), then I think that it is for the SSPX to do it and put themselves, as people used to say, “at the head of the movement”.
I understand that this would not be something going on from inside the Hierarchy (whilst the SSPX has valid orders, they certainly are not a part of the Church command structure). Still, at this point I would prefer a call for an imperfect Council from the SSPX, even if not followed or attacked and discredited for the very reason that it comes from them, to no call at all. And if you think that Cardinal Burke and Brandmueller could wake up from their King Theoden-esque slumber – and actually do something more than some encouraging talk and some praise for people with far more courage than them – I have a bridge on sale that I would like to offer to you first, but you have to act fast.
We live in disgraceful times. In front of such an apocalyptic pope, I think that the following generations of Catholics, and the Saints and Angels above, will be pleased with every call to depose this satanical guy, no matter how little the chances of success.
It would be very sad if history would record this pontificate in the same way as the one of Honorius: open heresy, and no action.
In case of Honorius, the action came after his death. In case of Francis, I doubt even that. One reason more to shoot with every available weapon at this Pontificate, and the SSPX would certainly be a massive tank in itself.
I remember the days when pope Francis’ scandals were emerging in the matter of, say, one a week.
Ah, blessed times of innocence!
Nowadays it is much, much worse than that.
Michael Voris has cared to make an extensive list of all the scandals which came to light in the last weeks alone, and they are… a lot!
Besides the obvious lack of faith of this satanical pope, what I find really staggering is the degree of incompetence of the man.
Francis always reminds me of one of those Central and South American governments that were not uncommon in the Seventies and Eighties. They were, as a whole, glaring examples of thieving attitude, arrogance and economic incompetence.
Francis has taken everything from them. He just does not manage to do anything right. It does not make sense to try to ascribe the chaos he has engendered to some astute plan. There is nothing astute in looking a cretin every day that God sends on earth. No, this is just another example of an idiot put an the top of a big organisation by thieving bastards, and in cahoots with them, helping his clique of sodomites and thieves to do whatever they want, from sodomy to embezzlement to heresy. As in the governments I mentioned before (but I could make other non-Southern American examples of staggering, thieving incompetence: Taylor in Liberia, or Mugabe in Zimbabwe also come to mind), there is no intention or desire to even try to run things properly. It’s party time, and the clique in charge will party to the end, probably thinking that, with the Cardinal appointments made by Francis, the party ill have no end.
Similarly, criticism is countered with aggressive attacks (as in those Governments mentioned above). It’s not their fault, it’s us being Catholics, and actually normal.
Even an idiot like Francis must, at this point, recognise that he just cannot do jack without botching everything. His plan to remake the church in his image only had sense (in its own perverted logic) if the man had had the ability to introduce change “on the sly”, in a very subdued and gradual manner, boiling the frog of popular piety in a very slow way.
But this is not Francis.
Francis is arrogant, impious, and ignorant. But most of all, he is – by God’s grace – so damn stupid.
The idea that he can transform Catholicism into a sort of Santeria cult openly, publicly, and get away with it is too dumb for words. One must be blinded by Satan to even think of that.
Francis is one blinded by Satan, who never had a properly functioning brain to begin with. Satan’s fool, this is who Francis is.
The day will soon come when he discovers it; and who knows, he might even like it, then I want to be on record with stating that I do not consider satanism beyond the reach of such an evil, stupid mind.
Francis’ downfall is certain. We are seeing it even on this earth, as he demolishes himself and his disgraceful papacy day by day.
The recent open apostasy of Pope Pachamama, with a pagan deity brought around in procession, makes every discussion about the validity of the Conclave even more superfluous, useless and counterproductive than it ever was. I see in this obsession the remnant of those papolatrous instincts unfortunately spread among converts, particularly in the Anglo Saxon world.
The Holy Ghost has never promised that the Pope would be a holy man. Therefore, when confronted with a monstrous Papacy like Francis’, one does not have to conclude that he could never be Pope. If a guy like John XXII – whose abstruse theological convictions put him square at variance with the words of Our Lords in the Gospel – could be validly elected Pope, so can Francis.
The apostasy of Francis stares us in the face. Francis now openly mocks us with it, because he has seen that the likes of Burke & Co. are such cowards that they will never react with a call for an Imperfect Council.
Notice the dynamics here: Pope Francis provokes Catholics only one step at a time, because his innate cowardice suggests to him that he should not try to do what could prove fatal to him. Every time, he sees that no reaction comes. Every time, he is emboldened to do more, because he hates all of us and there is no end to the humiliations he wants to inflict on us all.
Pachamama is the fruit of the cowardice of Bishops and Cardinals on Amoris Laetitia. Without the latter, we would never have had the former. At the same time, Pachamama is such an open, obvious instance of pagan idolatry, that all discussions about Amoris Laetitia must be overshadowed by this new scandal; which is so obvious, so much in-your-face, so openly insulting that every doubt about the real intentions of this Pope must be rejected even more strongly than before.
Bishops and Cardinals: Pope Pachamama is provoking and humiliating you as he spits in the face of that Christ he hates.
Will you finally man up?
It’s getting cold again in this part of the world. Another summer will soon be gone, and the Evil Clown is still in place.
I reflect on the years that have led to this, and what I always think is this: it was the fault of Cardinals and Bishops, from day one.
The Cardinals elected* a man whom they either did not know (desperately trying to be charitable here) or knew to be evil and, at the very least, Catholicism-free. They also clearly followed the counsel or suggestions of Cardinals of whom they had to know that they had nothing holy in them. The decision to offer Francis the Keys is unjustifiable however you look at it.
Francis is obviously vain, and not very deep. He starts with the easy platitudes and the easy gestures on day one. This alone should have alerted our shepherds about the real goings inside the mind of the man. Many were accomplices, I know. But how many just chose not to see?
It got worse pretty fast, as Francis started to preach a strange fake gospel made of a lot of socialism mixed with a lot of social envy. Almost no one, among our supposed shepherds, reacted.
It was, therefore, not a surprise when Francis started the brutal persecution of a staunchly Catholic order, the FFI; for petty personal reasons, certainly, but also to send a signal of what will happen to those who are not in his graces. Again, no reaction.
The heresies came pouring in. For a long time, only on aeroplanes, with the entire world wondering whether there is some strange virus in the their AC, or whether the poor man just cannot stand altitude. All sorts of excuses were fabricated. Again, no condemnation.
Is it not the most natural, obvious thing in the world that a vain, stupid, impious, devilish man like Francis would feel encouraged by the cowardice he saw all around him? Francis is evil, but he is not so reckless that he risks a heresy trial. Like every bully, he is first and foremost a coward. When the Bishops condemned the instrumentum laboris of the synod on the family (the first attempt to make heresy official), Francis backpedalled like a professional athlete, before starting a systematic work of covert, or overt, oppression of Catholics. Before he kicks you in the teeth, Francis wants to be sure he will be able to do so with impunity.
Amoris Laetitia came, and the heresies were now, in the immortal words of Yes, Prime Minister, “officially official”. You would think that now, surely, a strong reaction would follow?
What we heard was… crickets, but this time, they were special crickets, in the form of four Cardinals mounting the greatest grandstanding operation known to man, just to fold like the cowards they all are when they were required to, actually, act. God forbid, the last eighteen months of their lives should be marred by a slight decrease in the comfort they have become so accustomed to. The youngest one of them, Cardinal Burke, is now considered “persecuted” because his extremely comfortable Roman existence lost some of the extremely comfortable perks. I wonder what St Stephan thinks of him.
It went, predictably, downhill from there. Once the bully is assured that he can bully everyone with impunity, his insolence will keep growing.
The current phase is the one of spitting on several sacraments at the same time, as even priest celibacy is put into question and Catholicism is, so to speak, invited to learn from the tattooed savages of the forest. There is some moaning here and there, but make no mistake: this is just because Francis has not yet officially put his seal of approval on the new heresies. Let him make so, and watch some faint, respectful meowing as the only reaction.
This is where we are now: homosexual Cardinals, rampant heresies, and Cardinals and Bishops living a comfortable existence and doing, as a whole, nothing.
Many of them, on day, will be gnashing their teeth in hell.
And if Cardinal Burke is not terrified for his eternal destiny, and for the destiny of his small band of grandstanding cowards, he is the greatest fool alive.
- The Holy Ghost does not elect the Pope. The Cardinals do. It is a blasphemy to think that God would choose an evil man to lead His Church. Disabuse yourself of this blasphemy, if you want to understand what is going on withing the Church.
A non-catholic publication has a non-catholic article about the Amazon Synod. No link, obviously.
The picture, however, says it all.
The caption: “Isidoro Jajoy, a shaman from Colombia’s Inga tribe, blesses people in Bogota Aug. 14, 2019, during a preparatory meeting for the October Synod of Bishops for the Amazon. (CNS/Manuel Rueda)”
Very near to the “shaman” is what can only be a nun, in a reverent gesture as she is receiving the so-called “blessing” from multi-coloured Isidoro.
My take is that all the present, including the nun, are Catholics ready and willing to have a representative of some savage cult – who, in order to remove all doubt, is also dressed like a savage – give them some sort of “blessing” in order to experience the alleged connection with the earth of the cult of the savages, or something of the sort.
It is too appalling for words, and no polite words can really describe the prostitution of Christianity that is happening here, and which the nun in the foreground so crudely and shamelessly represents.
These people are selling our religion to the cult of earth, the approval of the world, and the rituals of savages. They are led by a number of bishops, and you can be assured that neither the nun, nor the other present, nor the bishop or bishops at the event will offer any apology for this act of implicit apostasy – or, at best, religious synchretism – that comes from thinking that a savage cult can improve Catholicism in any way, shape or form. And may their ignorance be a partial excuse for the uninstructed people out there – some of whom might simply not realise the meaning of what they are doing – the nun and the bishops certainly do not have any.
I’ll put in a polite way.
Where is the Inquisition when you need them….?
The satanic America Magazine has gone full homo with an article titled, if you can believe it, “the Catholic case for Communism”. No link.
I have perused the extremely stupid bloviations of the author of the article (may the Lord have mercy on him, though I have my doubts) and would like to make a point or three of my own in the time I have at my disposal.
- There is no “good communist”. Even in the case where a person might think he is moved by the desire to help the suffering world, Communism is godless at its very roots. Therefore, a person who embraces communism has been infected by the same evil. If I want the end of the suffering of the baby seal but do not believe in God, I am not good, in that I lack the fundamental ingredient of true goodness. What I have is merely… fluffy feelings. A Communist, who embraces a demonstrably evil, ideologically godless movement, is much worse than that.
- The desire to see the end of economic inequality is not goodness, it is envy. God has made rich and poor, and Christianity has never condemned the rich qua rich. The desire to put an end to economic disparity is, again, a godless endeavour. By the grace of God you are born rich. By the grace of God you are born poor. By the grace of God you are given those opportunities that allow you to, if you so wish, improve your condition. But always, a Christian recognises that he must not desire other people’s stuff. To all of us, God gives those graces that are good for us. We do not resent the graces given to others, we are grateful for those given to us, be they material (like financial prosperity) or immaterial (health, beauty, intelligence, resilience, inventiveness etc.). Communists are envious people first, second, third, and last.
- Communists are no labourers for peace, nor are they agents of economic justice. To depict them in this way shows a complete ignorance of the root of both true peace and true justice: Christ. Communism has brought death and devastation without end. It had to be so, because a godless “religion” must perforce transform itself into a killing machine as its devotees will have all the determination of the Christian without any of God’s goodness. In Italy we had one of the most atrocious examples, as it is proven beyond doubt that, towards the end of WWII, Communist partisans killed as many anticommunist partisans as they could, in order to make a Communist revolution easier in the unstable phase that would follow the end of the conflict. Make no mistake, those partisans killing other partisans did so because they followed their godless religion, and “wanted a better world”. Come to that, you can say the same of Dr Goebbels, too…
- Catholicism and Communism do not have a “complicated relationship”. They are, literally, like the devil and the holy water: totally antithetical. To even suggest otherwise indicates a total lack of faith in Christ. The continuous attempt of the article to minimise the evil of Communism and try to discover similarities is the work of the devil.
I could go on for much longer, but firstly I do not have the time, and secondly even perusing the damn article made my blood boil, so I will leave it at this.
Communism is of Satan.
Those who don’t see it are of Satan, too.
Matteo Salvini, the Home Office Minister, Vice Prime Minister and de facto strong man of the Italian Government, has seen a strong increase in support at the European Election.
This is relevant not only for the obvious political implications concerning the authoritarian project called “European Union”, but also because it gives a very clear idea of the power Francis has in Italy, that is: very little.
The background: during the electoral campaign, Salvini stressed the Christian and Catholic culture of the Country against the dangers of you-know-what. He was seen holding a Rosary. He even entrusted the Country to the Blessed Virgin. Not entirely unpredictably, he was savagely attacked by Francis’ hounds. Defending Catholicism is now seen an Uncatholic. There is no doubt on earth – and no one doubted in Italy – that Francis was, and is, openly against Salvini.
In a Country with still an awful lot of Catholics, you would think that Salvini would be punished at the ballot box. You would think so, because 1) Salvini’s electorate is just the one more likely to be linked to Catholic values, and 2) there was at least a perfectly valid alternative to Salvini, sending pretty much exactly the same message on the whole if you don’t like the EU in its present form.
Well, guess what: the good Italian people have, collectively speaking, told Francis what they think of him and of his one-world caricature of the Faith, deciding to support and make stronger the very same man the Vatican has so strongly attacked. And if you read the Italian newspapers (and know a bit about Italian politics) you know that this is not only an EU affair: as of this morning, the balance of power within the Government has clearly shifted, and Salvini is even more its numero uno. Well done, Frankie dear!
It gets worse.
God knows Salvini isn’t a model Catholic by any stretch of the imagination. In the presence of a Catholic Pope, he would be in an extremely difficult position. But the fact is this: correctly, the good people of Italy have recognised that even Salvini is way more Catholic than the Pope.
Francis is finished. He is finished as a Pope because no sane Catholic respects him, and he is finished as a figure of influence because even those only vaguely culturally Catholic just don’t care a straw about what he says.
The only ones who agree with Francis are those who don’t need him, and to whom he can be of no use: environuts, third-worldists, and assorted atheists and enemies of Christ.
Keep sinking, Evil Clown.
It will be a joy to watch.