Category Archives: Good Shepherds
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)
The SSPX took its stance about Traditionis Carnifices and it is, as expected, a devastating blow to the Church of Francis. I suggest that you read the letter in its entirety, because it is very instructive and Pagliarani does have a very entertaining writing style.
One aspect I would like to stress in a particular way, is that Pagliarani states that we are now done with the “Hermeneutic of Continuity”. Well, only six days ago I have written exactly the same, so it’s not that I wasn’t pleased.
The “Hermeneutic of Continuity” is the attempt to present you a cake made with cream gone off as something that you should learn to appreciate in a very selective way; either because it is said that the baker was actually good and the cream was, originally, not gone off, or because the cream was always bad, but there was also a lot of marzipan, and nuts, and strawberries that were actually good.
The reasoning, as I have said many times, does not work. It is, in fact, a way to perpetuate the problem instead of working towards its solution.
First of all: the cream was already going off at the time the documents were written. As Archbishop Lefebvre and others pointed out, the vague formulations of several of the Conciliar documents were such that they allowed heterodox interpretations of Catholics truths concerning several aspects of Church life and Church doctrine (you can find a detailed explanation everywhere, so let us cut it short here). It is good to notice, here, that the good Archbishop wasn’t even a hardliner. In fact, he signed all the documents, whilst a number of bishops actually refused to do so.
Secondly, and most importantly, once it has become clear that the documents of the V II have been abused to try to fundamentally change the way the Church thinks and operate, it is clear that the cake must be thrown away in its entirety. To put in a different way, this cake now stinks so much that it is criminally stupid to try to save any part of it.
Nor does this mean that we, who take this position, do not recognise the validity of the Second Vatican Council. Of course we recognise it, we aren’t Sedevacantists! We don’t go around believing that some magic potion hypnotised the Conciliar (Step) Fathers to do something that they did not want to do. We do not say that the Council was illegal, or invalid. We say that it was bad, and spread the seeds of heresy, and these heresies have now grown to become a horrible, poisonous Argentinian plant.
You can make another comparison with the “little shop of horrors”. At the time of the council, the plant was still very little; Archbishop Lefebvre and others did not trust it, but it could still have grown to become a normal plant. Fast forward six decades, and the plant has become a monstrous organism, asking to be fed blood in every possible way, with Catholic life eroded in every aspect and even with schism now officially underway in Germany.
This plant must be killed and incinerated. There is no way we can now try to keep “what is good in it”. There is nothing good in it. It has to go.
Of course, the many parts of Catholic doctrine that the documents reiterate will stay. The fact is, they were already there. There is no need for the documents of a purely pastoral council to repeat them. Therefore, the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the entire, damned aggiornamento experiment can be thrown away without any damage for anyone.
Vatican II has grown to become an evil plant. It really has to go. All of it.
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.
The motu proprio is out and, to add insult to injury, it’s called Traditionis Custodes. Make no mistakes, this is another way how Francis is mocking you. The title, however, means “Butchers of Tradition”, and I find it far more appropriate.
The attack on the TLM is massive.
No new masses to be added. No new personal parishes.
All existing masses to be re-examined, means most discontinued.
The Novus Ordo as the unique form of the Liturgy. This openly contradicts Benedict XVI’s obvious statement concerning the Mass. and, also obviously, the original statement of St Pius V. It is, if you ask me, the most diabolical part of the document.
One priest, versed in Latin, in every Diocese where the Latin Mass is celebrated. He will have as task to tell the faithful who insist in attending how bad they are, and how much they displease Francis, the Butcher of Tradition.
This is seriously, seriously evil.
If you were one of those who have still insisted in not seeing the evil of this man, and this does not open your big, blue eyes, I am frankly worried for you.
I read around that Padre Pio was an example of obedience when he was suspended from saying Mass in public. This would be, I am told, in sharp contrast with the behaviour of Fr Altman; who would be, in this perspective, just another man conquered by pride.
I think a couple of words are in order.
Padre Pio was not forbidden from celebrating mass in public because he was suspected of being Catholic. He was, at various time, suspected of being a charlatan and suspected of having molested a woman. His acceptance of the measures taken against him was the perfect reaction of the Saint in the making. In time, truth came to light and everything was fine.
However, we also know that Padre Pio also threatened to refuse to celebrate the New Mass, no matter the consequences. We will never know whether he would really have done it, of course, because he was – like thousands of old priests who shared Padre Pio’s feelings – exempted from celebrating the New Mass with the usual excuse that he would be too old a dog to learn Protestant tricks.
Still, you can see where I am going with this: Padre Pio was a lamb when what was insulted or slandered was him personally, as a friar and priest, but had a quite different attitude when the offended part was Christ. The easy critics of Father Altman should keep this firmly in mind.
Besides, the argument is self-defeating. Most serious Catholics know the episodes of disobedience of, say, Saint Athanasius, Saint Eusebius and Cardinal Lefebvre. Athanasius was, in fact, excommunicated for refusing to obey an order deeply offensive of Christ. I would, therefore, very much know what the apostles of blind obedience think of the sainted people above.
They will not score many points with those who take Catholicism seriously. Blind obedience whilst forgetting Christ generates monsters like Nazism.
Better not, I say.
It is Tuesday today and it looks like the biggest gift to the SSPX in decades is coming on Friday, with restrictions to – the already restricted – Summorum Pontificum meant to keep those pesky Catholics away from the proper Mass.
It is difficult to understand why the Evil Clown would do this now, in the ninth year of his disgraceful Pontificate. One hypothesis is that he is simply stupid and, with the addition of age to it, can be more easily manipulated to do the bidding of his homosexual sponsors. The other hypothesis is that Francis was patiently awaiting for Benedict to die; but as Benedict seems not intentioned to do him the favour anytime soon, Francis wants to act now , lest the old man buries him, too.
In both cases, it would be another step towards the self-dismantling of the Vatican II Church, now on Her way to become even more disfigured than she already was.
I have not had access to a Tridentine Mass for many years now; but if I had had access to a Summorum Pontificum Mass and I had been deprived of one now, I would start paying a lot of attention to what the SSPX says about the spiritual dangers of attending the New Mass.
If, then, I decided to attend the New Mass after I have been deprived of the Tridentine one, I would pay attention that my V II Diocese does not get one penny, not one, from me anymore, whilst continuing to use the V II Church for my sacramental life. The money I would, then, have given to the V II Diocese, I would donate entirely to the SSPX, and more than that.
If, then, anybody would question me about why I attend at church without contributing to it, I would answer that it is because I have been deprived of the Tridentine Mass. Asked, furthermore, whether I do not think that I have an obligation to contribute to the upkeep of the Church, I would answer that I do, and I actually do, merely choosing a truly Catholic institution for the task. Actually, I would be tempted to become the one to whom the basket, out of experience, is not even handed to, in the hope that someone, at some point, actually asks.
Everything that happens, everything, is providentially ordained to, in the end, increase God’s glory. Everything, even the little, petty vengeful acts of the Evil Clown we must currently endure as Pope. Every little or big evil acts turns against those who perpetrated the evil, like a Divine Boomerang ready to land of Francis’ sanctimonious, lewd old head.
A man, this one, who consorts with, and openly supports, clearly homosexual priests promoting their perverted agenda, but insists in not kneeling in front of the Blessed Sacrament; and a man who, being clearly on the side of the Devil, loathes the Tridentine Mass.
He does not know it but, whatever he does, he will end up unwittingly working for the glory of that God, and of that Church, he so much hates.
Pray that the evil may not happen; but pray, before all, that God’s will be done.
We have already won.
It is difficult enough to see that a person with a clearly evil intent, and possibly a homosexual, is trying to damage the Church in all he can.
It is even worse to see a person who should be on our side, and – without the “possibly” – a former homosexual, attack the best that Catholicism has to offer in this fairly depressing climate, for reasons that are not easy to discern, but must have more than something to do with personal gripes, or old wounds.
Look, we all carry our wounds and we all can have, at times, personal difficulties with this or that person, with this or that organisation, that cloud our ability to interact with them in the proper way or appreciate to the full what they are doing for Catholicism.
However, I think that it is really the pits when personal insults exchanged on Twitter (a place I suggest to all my readers to avoid unless, perhaps, to follow news from organisations and people they like) are abused to colour the entire organisation with the smear of the loss of patience of one of his members.
For the record: I do tend not to insult people in a very harsh way (though, when it is deserved, I do not pull punches, either; if, say, a woman deserves to be called a very harsh expletive, we can disagree about the choice of words, but we will agree on the general message), but if Christine Niles is insulted by people who are really fed up with her and her sanctimonious wannabe crusade against the SSPX I for myself tend to side with the insulting party, not the insulted one; because for me, being the one who insulted first does not make the guy on the right side of the discussion wrong, but merely intemperate.
In the end, whoever engages in Twitter exchanges has to know that these exchanges can become extremely heated extremely fast, and they do not, as a whole, represent a person’s character as known to his friends, relatives and acquaintances. Really, Twitter gets out the worst of everybody at lightning speed.
How can it be that Niles and Voris don’t know this? How can it be that they don’t know that such exchanges – the medium being what it is and the discussion being what they are – will perforce happen?
Mind, the two of them are journalists, that is: professionals of communication. The (in most cases, I am sure) devout Catholics who engage with them generally aren’t. I understand the occasional slip from a non-professional more than the deliberated exploitation of it from the professional.
Therefore, to take some “SSPX loyalist” who loses his patience and is likely having a bad day and take it is an example of the SSPX values and aims is profoundly disingenuous and, in fact, dishonest. It is bad enough from the side of Niles, it is even worse from the side of Voris, who then uses a single episode to tarnish all the followers and supporters of the SSPX as “cult members” .
Utterly and completely unprofessional; and yes, Twitter will get the worst out of those two, too; but they are professionals, and should know better. Plus, Voris should really examine his past, and what baggage he may well still be carrying from it, before he crucifies other people’s much, much smaller, present faults.
It’s a mystery to me how Voris can think that writing that the “cult” is “a reason for Francis to blow up their idol of the Latin Mass” can win him serious Catholic souls as allies. I used to like the guy, but I now see in him a man who, probably for personal wounds of his own, has lost the plot and can’t see the forest out of the trees; the trees being, here, the SSPX supporters – even the angry or the emotional ones.
It is very easy to get emotional when people attack what you love – but the SSPX supporters still are, as every sensible person should be able to see, good people who love Christ and His Church.
Finally, a consideration about “racism”. I have been called racist names in my life. I can say, hands on heart, that whenever I knew that the offender did not intend to express any belief in my supposed racial inferiority, but was simply angry at me for his own (wrong) reasons, I never held the accusation of racism against him. I am, in fact – and by the grace of God – utterly unable to play the race card and use it against my opponent, whenever I know that the problem is simply not race.
I don’t think this is difficult to understand. But I think it requires some intellectual honesty, and the willingness to renounce to a weapon used all too often today.
Long live the SSPX, and his emotional supporters. Even their excesses and angry moments show me that they may be wrong in the moment, but are right in their hearts.
Good hearts get angry at times. May the Lord overlook their communication mistakes and reward their faithful zeal.
I would not believe this if the source weren’t very authoritative: a Priest of the SSPX was refused entry to a French jail to visit one inmate.
One can only imagine the security guards there at the entrance, saying: “What is this? Could this man dressed in this strange garb trying to introduce knifes, rifles, perhaps even small nuclear bombs below it? Can we run such a security risk? Mais non!”
You will think that no-one is as stupid as that. Well, there’s always one, isn’t it?
Unless the refusal to the priest to allow him to enter the jail was motivated by hatred for the Catholic religion; which, I am pretty sure, makes for discrimination on the base of religion and, possibly, a hate crime.
The jail authorities have apologised, after a mature reflection of, apparently, five days. Someone must, during those 120 hours, have remembered those strange men in black, many years ago, when priests were still straight, wearing that thing that was.. yes, a cassock! Alternatively, some superior of the couple of cheese-eating, small-time Social Justice Warriors (there were two involved), must have realised that this was about to become quite a merde situation, and decided to defuse it at once.
This time, everything went, er, “well”; but this tells us both how ignorant of the religion the French might have become (Let us be frank here: if the junior jailer was, say, a fairly recent immigrant from Maghreb he might, well, just not have known what to think of the strange guy) and/or how deep anti-Christian resentment runs in the Country (one would think that at least one of the two guys would have known that, in fact, there are, somewhere, priests in cassocks).
This used to be a Catholic Country. It has now become the poster boy for failed integration and the troubles of multiculturalism, and is not unlikely to become the battle ground (in abstract, or in concrete) of the culture wars that await us.
For the moment, though, it looks like the cassock isn’t a security concern.
So, is the Pope under demonic influences?
I think I will say a word or two about this. However, please consider that I am not an exorcist, and my thoughts are the fruit of common sense and the sensus catholicus in the middle of which I had the misfortune, but also the grace, of growing.
We are, all, at all times, under siege (and may it be a soft siege) of demonic influences. Sin tempts us from every side. Our fallen nature, whilst helped by the many graces God constantly pours on us, is still susceptible to attack. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”.
The devil walketh about, as a roaring lion, seeking to devour… me. I had better keeping this in mind, if I want to achieve salvation.
The common knowledge, and parlance, reflects this at all times. The image of the demon on one side and the angel on the other when a person is in front of a difficult, but right, choice is omnipresent. Even as children, we used to end our squabbles with the well-known nursery rhyme, “e mannaggia al diavoletto che ci ha fatto litigare; pace, pace, pace!” “Darn the demon (“little devil”) who made us bicker: peace, peace, peace!”. The little devil profited of our weakness and made us bicker. But we understood what’s happening, and chose to make peace instead. The temptation is always around us, the demons will try to use any way they can to gain entry in our soul.
It seems to me another of those proto-Protestant absurdities (for some reasons, I have noticed that a number of converted Protestants go from the refusal of the papacy to the exaggeration of both its role and the moral qualities of the current occupier of that role) that the Pope would, because of some sort of vaccine, be exempt from this kind of temptation and, happily protected by his white habit, be protected from demonic attack. Of course he isn’t. None of us is, why would he? If anything, it is reasonable to assume that, even in normal times, a Pope would be under a graver, more sustained attack than most others.
These, however, are not normal times. They are, in fact, so abnormal, that the earthly institution of the Church is now soiled and, even, disfigured like, very likely, never before in Her twice millenarian history, in which She was soiled and disfigured many times already. These are times in which we see countless Bishops and Cardinals under the same demonic attack, every day acting in a way that clearly shows us that the devil has made inroads inside them; not, mind, in the sense that they are now willing Satanists; but in the way that they, in the many way in which they betray their function and the Catholic Church, clearly bring water to the devil’s mill.
The Pope is, of course, not exempt from this. Paul VI was, in recent times, the first clear example of a Pope with something demonic about his actions. A Pope clearly able to see all the ways in which the Church is being attacked, and (with one big exception) unwilling to act about it clearly shows all the signs of being, all too often, influenced by the demon on one side of the shoulder rather than the angel on the other. The oh so saintly John Paul II gave us the abominations in Assisi, not once but twice. The one who asked us to pray that he may not flee for fear of the wolves likely did, as it becomes increasingly more evident, just that.
As to Francis, you know already what I am about to say: a man clearly without a shred of Catholic faith, and without any wish to even learn it, he is the most unworthy occupier of the See that we can, at least up to now, imagine. He is, so to speak, the turbocharged consequences of many demons whispering stupid things to the ear of many stupid, or utterly corrupt, or outright evil Cardinals. In a word, Francis is what happens when God wants to – as St Francis of Lerins said – “punish” us with a Pope.
Yes, of course a Pope can be under demonic influences; not, hopefully, of the “satanist” kind; however, socialism, communism, environmentalism, “inclusion”, and all sorts of pretend worldly do-goodism actually taking people away from God ***are, all of them, of Satan***, and Francis is very big on all of them.
I cannot see how anyone can deny this without denying the very reality around him.
“Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous”: Some Reflections On The Imprecatory Psalms
Like the quotation in the title? No?
The one in the picture here above? Neither?
What about this:
Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.
What do you say? Unchristian? You know this is called, and rightly so, “the word of God”, right?
Or perhaps you think these are single statements taken out of context? How about this:
Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison: 10 Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth. 11 Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb: yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna: 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession. 13 O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind. 14 As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire; 15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. 16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD. 17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: 18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
You have already understood that I could go on for very long, but I think I have made my point. Any search for Imprecatory Psalms will give you a wealth of quite robustly written, testosterone-laden but, crucially, Divinely ordained and Divinely inspired quotes to impress your friends at a party, if we will ever have parties again.
As you might have noticed, this little effort delights in distributing little Catholic red pills around, and in shocking and scandalising his new readers before it makes them, hopefully, think smartly about Catholicism for the first time in a long while. Therefore, I would like to spend some words on these beautiful, if nowadays studiously avoided, Imprecatory Psalms.
Preliminary consideration: do not think that this is all Old Testament “stuff”, and Jesus started “to do things differently”. The New Testament is the completion of the Old one, it is not in contrast to it. The truth remains the truth, and does not change with the Incarnation. The Old testament is as much the word of God today as it ever was, but now it is inserted in a completed, perfected frame of reference. If you have any doubt, have a thorough read of a Gospel of your choice and looks for the many times Our Lord expresses Himself on several occasions with such brutality, that every milquetoast PC guy of our times would not hesitate in calling him all sorts of vile names, obviously in the name of “lurv”, or “peace”. I have written often about this, so feel free to scour this blog for the fruits of my efforts.
Once made clear that this stuff is not “outdated”, let us reflect on why what we know must be right is, in fact, right. This will require, alas, the ingestion of a number of red pills that I have just here with me, and that I will proceed to give to you now.
You are welcome.
- The Imprecatory Psalms were seen as totally normally, and logical, in manlier times. But we now live in the Age Of The Concerned Man, and this man will look for a shallow “goodness” in all the wrong places. Yes, it’s the lack of testosterone. All that soy milk, and no red meat at all. Terrible. If you suffer from the soy milk affliction, I suggest the introduction in your diet of copious quantities of red meat, fairly rare – actually, dripping blood – for a while. Just for the experience, you know.
- The Imprecatory Psalm caused no scandal in times in which people got angry at those who offend God. Why? because they loved Christ. In modern times, people love themselves first, second, third and 237th, though they call this “tolerance”, “inclusion” and many other fashionable but hollow sounding names. However, they don’t love Christ. Imagine asking your garden variety parish priest around, say, 1931, whether the Imprecatory Psalms have a place in the Bible. Note: those priests didn’t drink soy milk, either.
- As we aren’t Proddies, we read Scripture within the frame of Catholic doctrine. It is obvious that the punishment called upon the wicked is not the fruit of an unguarded moment, or even of a Friday night escapade. It is, rather, the fruit of hardened, insisted, ideological enmity with God. It is, so to speak, what you know is going to happen to Reprobates who are quite bad even as Reprobates go. We pray for our enemies. I pray even for darned Francis. The Imprecatory Psalms describe, evoke and call for what happens when that fails.
- The Imprecatory Psalms are not personal. David is not calling for God’s vengeance upon his dishonest plumber, the mailman who keeps opening and reading his subscriptions, or the guy who stole his smartphone. His (and God’s) anger is (and shall, at the appointed time, be) directed at God’s enemies. Hostility against God makes the good man’s blood boil. See above: red meat. Also see above: love of Christ.
- With their very existence, the Imprecatory Psalms alert us to a simple facts: at times those who seem “rude” or “violent” or “hateful” are, actually, on the side of Christ. Those, on the contrary, who preach their fake gospel of lurv, inclusion and – most popular nowadays – “niceness”, are those who make the work of the devil. This is very interesting, because niceness has now – in parallel with the disappearance of the real article – become a veritable religion, with his very own priests. You have, I am sure, met many of them.
There. Five Red Pills to swallow with some water and digest calmly.
I think they will be very useful.
There is far too much soy milk around.
What we have experienced in the last days is nothing short of a stunning demonstration of the media power of the Media Phenomenon of this Century, Donald John Trump.
Trump gets the Chinese Virus. You would think he uses it to rest and collect his energies for the last spur of this, likely victorious election. This is what, frankly, I would have done.
But Trump is just an extraordinary media guy. His supersized brain starts to think about how to use the forced pause, and make it work for him.
When he has to go to the hospital – a prudent, and very wise decision – he does so as a strong man, walking to the helicopter, and leaving a TV message to the Country before going. A great message of strength and statesmanship. Also, a message of manliness, meant to engender in his viewers comparisons with the old, frail, bumbling Creepy Joe.
Once in, he immediately starts to think how he can use the madness of the rabid left against themselves. Just as the Leftist start to spin their fantasies of a rapidly worsening, perhaps dying President, he puts out a video showing him in a very good shape (for a 74 years old with a nasty flu; operative words here are nasty flu) and destroys the narrative with a show of rugged resilience.
Then, the first Meisterwerk: the SUV run. Make no mistake: when Trump decided to go for the run, he knew that the Left would find some reason to be outraged, and did it anyway. In fact, I think that he did it – besides wanting to thank his supporters – exactly in order to cause a collective leftist meltdown. Punctually, the left covered themselves in manure accusing Trump of endangering the same people that are near him 24/7. Boy, are these people dumb.
At this point, Trump had lived in everybody’s head – particularly the libtards’ heads – for two days already. Biden was totally cancelled; gone; forgotten; a pathetic non-entity forced to give way to the only person the Planet loved talking about, one way or the other: Donald John Trump.
Yesterday, the President executed another masterful move: the return to the White House, with the grand, solemn, public taking away (almost a ripping out) of the mask, for all the world to see, and the strong, manly, sane message about the Chinese Virus many people, like yours truly, have been repeating for months.
Again, the entire world had to watch, love, hate, criticise, adore; but in the end, no one could be indifferent. Once again, this great Media Master had the planet in his spell. Once again, he knew that his gesture would be controversial, and that the Left would find some way to criticise him, making themselves a laughing stock in the process.
An obvious comparison is the one with Aikido, a self-defense discipline by which the energy of the attacker is used against him, causing the latter – if the attacked person so wants – extremely serious damage as the attacker’s energy leads to the breaking of his own tendons, etc.
Another spontaneous comparison is the one with an instrument player.
Trump plays the media like Paganini played the violin.
But Paganini’s violin did not hate him. The press hates Trump with a passion. And still, they are addicted to him; they can’t live without him; they are damned to make their entire existence about him. He plays them like a violin; and they can’t avoid being played, because they live of just that.
Truly, this guy is without equals.
Heresy, Sodomy, And Corruption: Bergoglio’s Deep Church At Work And Why Trump Should Get A Closer Look At It
This long Marco Tosatti interview to Archbishop Vigano’ reads like a horror tour of all the major plagues of the Church in the XXI Century: doctrinal subversion is fuelled by sexual perversion, amplified by corruption, and the three work together in trying to destroy the Church as the Bride of Christ. In the mind of Bergoglio, Cupich, & Co, the Church should be nothing more than a convenient, comfortable place whence atheist, communists and sodomites promote all the causes of Globalism, as they lead a cushioned, often outright perverted existence themselves.
I invite you to read the article in its entirety (it is not short) because, not for the first time, Archbishop Vigano’ exhibits a lucidity of thought that helps the layman to understand the mechanisms currently at work in the Church better than many denunciations made by outsiders. This is a guy able to explain to you in simple words, say, why an administrative procedure instead of a criminal one is chosen, what the practical consequences are, and why this inserts itself in a broader plan of general prostitution of the Church to the interests of the world in exchange for money and protection from the Western press; a press, I add, which is clearly unwilling to investigate too much about the dirty laundry of an organisation so aligned with them and their secular agenda they can’t even believe it.
Speaking of prostitution: the alleged payment of billions of dollars to the Vatican by Chinese authorities could become a very interesting topic in the next years.
On one hand, you would not expect the United States to embark in a deep review of the internal affairs of another Sovereign Country (the State of Vatican City). On the other hand, the last years have certainly caused the White House to look very, very attentively at the traditional – and less traditional – ways in which Peking (see what I am doing here?) is seeking to gain influence in the West.
Remember this: Archbishops Vigano’ has President Trump’s ear. In fact, it seems to me that this detailed interview had as its main addressee – besides the denunciation of Bergoglio’s schemes to an authentic Catholic audience – the White House itself.
“Look closely at what is happening there”, Vigano’ seems to say. “Look at the way the Chinese have bought the Bergoglian apparatus, and have been corrupting the Church for many years, in order to promote an Anti-Christian and anti-American agenda in the West”.
The way the Archbishop describes the Chinese influence within the Vatican, and the many reasons why this influence is welcome (in order to line the pockets of many), practically expedient (in order to keep the attention of the press away from sodomites and pedophiles), and politically charged (in order to decrease the American influence over the West) will, I think, find attentive ears in Washington; because at this point this is not merely an internal affair of the Church, but an important square in the chessboard of the Sino-American relationships (or, hopefully, lack thereof).
Archbishop Vigano’ is God’s gift to the Church. I do not agree with everything he says, but there can be no doubt that we have in front of us a man of great integrity, vast competence, and in possession of a very, very sharp mind.
Let us pray for him today, then. Like President Trump, he is one of those sent to us to help and comfort us in these times of distress.
The Pittsburgh Diocese is going from 152 parishes to 106 in one go. It’s the usual story of slow death and decrepitude. No link, because evil publication.
My first reflection: what about starting to consolidate Dioceses instead? With all that they cost in personnel, PR, press office, and assorted people running around their corridors, perhaps this could be a good example?
Say: every Diocese which has lost 25% of the parishes it had 20 years ago will be merged with another one. The bishops in surplus will go back to being useful (one wonders if they ever were) and work as parish priests (one wonders if they ever did). If this plan were to be implemented, it’s not unlikely that the number of dioceses in the US would be cut in half, with great savings that could then be used for things like, say, restoring churches to their pre-VII splendor, start celebrating Tridentine Masses in them, and see how that goes.
The second reflection is that the Virus will, obviously, accelerate the trend of the live Mass on streaming. After the US Bishops have told their faithful that Mass is something they go to only if absolutely 100% safe, you can be assured that the slightest hint of the beginning of a cold will be used to decide that one does not have to attend; this, whilst the televised/streamed Tridentine masses of the Traditionalist orders keep increasing the number of viewers. No, the live streaming does not satisfy the Sunday Mass obligation. But hey, if I might have a cold? How can I condemn the 96 year old I am sure I will have sitting near me to an “early” grave? Has the Bishop not told us all that safety comes first?
The US Bishops, and not only them, have hoisted a petard under their own cathedra. They have told us that Mass is basically superfluous. If even the Mass is superfluous, how useless are they? And if the idea starts to spread that a very bad Mass does not have to be attended, how will the Bishops prevent the rapid increase of Tridentine Mass attendance via streaming? That is like the Internet: universally present, easily accessible, and basically unstoppable.
Prohibit your own Traditional Orders from streaming their Mass, and the SSPX will get this cake all for themselves! Voris will be so savage, he will eat his new platinum wig!!
We might be about to live interesting years…
I normally don’t like to intervene in inter-Catholic squabbling. My reflection on this is that the anticlerical element will use everything it can to smear Catholicism as a whole, claiming that we are a bunch of sectarian fanatics.
In the case of the (new) attack of Church Slandering against the SSPX, I have not intervened for the additional reason that doing so would make it look like the accusations of Church Slandering have some merit and deserve to be discussed; which they haven’t, and don’t.
However, once the SSPX issues a statement on the issue, I think it proper to call your attention on it. The statement can be found here. There is nothing to add.
As a last observation, I would like to inform my esteemed readers of a policy I have: whenever one slanders the Society, he is banned either immediately, or after a warning shot. For the future, I think I will dispense with the warning shot.
The use of the word “schism” in connection with the SSPX will also likely get one banned, then life is too short for people with little understanding and a big mouth.
God cannot allow Himself to be scorned with impunity. Now if the pains of hell were not eternal, the obstinate sinner would persevere in his revolt, since no adequate sanction would repress his pride. His rebellion, we may say, would have the last word, would be the triumph of iniquity.
These words are from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Life Everlasting”, one of those books I go back to again and again and that remain fresh, insightful and instructing after many readings (either because I forget things, which I do, or because it throws a fresher light on what I already know).
The reflection below strikes me anew every single time as absolutely logical, but often neglected in conversation. It is a simple point, that cannot be refuted.
You certainly have, as I did and still do, come across Sunday Theologians who improvise a theology of niceness for reasons peculiar to their own but, generally, fruit of the desire to have things their own way. They invariably reject eternal damnation as not being good enough for their lofty spirit.
Memorise this simple argument and keep it in store for when the circumstances require its use.
This is how we remain Catholics and work (with God’s grace) towards salvation in these atrocious times: absorbing the religion of our fathers as best as we can, and using the knowledge so acquired both for our salvation and, when prudence allows, for the instructions of those in more or less dire need of it.
Catholicism is all there already. There is nothing to know which we need Francis, or any other bishop or cardinal. Conversely, not making an effort to learn what we know to be true is not likely to be treated kindly when we die, then a bad pope is no excuse for being a bad Catholic.
We work on our salvation with fear and trembling whatever Francis goes around blathering.
Athanasius is a pious Bishop in the time of the Arian heresy. The controversy is raging, and our Athanasius is deeply afflicted by it.
He would like for this to stop. Alas, it seems that even the Pope is on the wrong side. Certainly, the vast majority of his peers are. Some say, ninety percent.
What is a pious bishop to do? Denounce the heresy and go against the Pope?
He would be excommunicated, don’t you know? He would be forced to go into exile. He might even be killed!
And the schism, the schism! The Church would be torn asunder! And for what? There is obviously no chance of prevailing. An open conflict would only consolidate the heresy, make it even more official!
The numbers are just not there, says the good, pious bishop to himself. It will never work. He would only be doing the work of the devil.
And then there is the matter of the disobedience. He would be disobeying the Pope! How can a Bishop disobey the Pope? This can’t be right, surely? Surely?
And so our good, pious Bishop Athanasius kept praying, and did nothing. Well, he uttered here and there some words about this or that issue; but in the essentials, he did nothing. The unity of Mother Church must be preserved, you see.
Let us put everything in the hands of the Lord.
He will sort it out.
Say it again?
Are you sure?
You are saying that Athanasius did, in fact, exactly the contrary of what I have stated?
Openly fighting heresy, not fearing excommunication, exile, threats to his life? Appointing his own Bishops? Not looking at all at how many were on his side, because Christ was on his side? Not caring one bit whether the fight between right and wrong would cause a schism, because it is infinitely preferable that the Church is right than that the Church is united in heresy?
Are you sure?
Oh well, I suppose the book I have just read, History of Arianism, Francispress, 2019, foreword by Cardinal Cupich, must have been somewhat inaccurate….
I was browsing in my library yesterday, and spent some time in the company of that excellent book, Fulton Sheen’s “Life of Christ”.
The first chapter is titled, apparently predictably but actually not so, “the only person ever pre-announced”. It has a long list of testimonies not only from the Judaic, but from the non-Jewish world (from the Romans to the Greek, to the Chinese and the Japanese; and we can add the Druids), of the Saviour that was to come.
I think we tend to lose sight of some aspects of Christianity at times. To us, Christ’s divinity is a given. We were (most of the readers of this blog, very probably) given it almost together with the maternal milk. It was, and is, part of the landscape like the sun and the moon. Also, some of us grew up in an environment in which Christianity was the omnipresent norm, only interrupted by the strange presence of the occasional Jew here and there, and with even atheists fully embedded in – and many times, fully approving of – the moral system of Christianity.
Still, as adults, and in a changed landscape, we need to recover, or to nurture, a more logical approach to Christianity; one that will help us, when the occasion arises, to actually explain Christianity in a logical way to the staggering number of non-Christians around us.
Christ is, in fact, the only person ever pre-announced. No one, ever, predicted the advent of a paedophile, blood-thirsty bedouin who would suddenly create a religion that is, in fact, nothing more than a monstrous deformation of the true one. And these announcements are the more impressive, because they were spread outside of the Jewish world eagerly awaiting for the Messiah. Among others, think of Cicero, who dies 43 years before Our Lord’s earthly birth, and knew about him already.
The argument for Christianity – a superfluous one in my youth, but an urgent one in these disgraceful times – should rest on a robust logical basis instead of relying on the “Jesus loves you” and “share the joy” platitudes one hears all the time in church and outside.
I suggest to all those who have not done it already to read this book. Fulton Sheen’s writing style is extremely easy to digest and at the same time exact and compelling. This is not your typical theology book. This is Christianity for the masses.
God knows we need something like this in these disgraceful times.
I have read around the hypothesis that Pope Francis The Heretic, aka as The Evil Clown, might have dropped the bomb of the formal heresy concerning the Capital Punishment in order to deflect the attention from the paedoscandals of his various friends from the USA to Honduras.
I do think the man could be, in fact, as stupid as that.
However, there is a problem (for him): outside of our Catholic circles people really do not care what the Pope says. They do, however, care for the prosecution of pedophiles, and so does the police; at least, if you live in the UK, as long as the paedophiles aren’t Muslims.
The day after the biggest heretical bombs of the last 700 years I went to work in what used to be the Dowry of Mary, and no one said one word to me about the Pope. Nothing. Not one peep.
The Pope could dance the lambada with Cardinal Cupich in St Peter’s Square and this would get him a 10 seconds clip on the BBC between a reportage about “global warming” and an interview to some feminist bitch about the “glass ceiling”. No one who is not a (fairly interested) Catholic would care a straw after the short amusement. It would be forgotten within three minutes.
McCarrick and Co’s problems are in a different league. Prosecutors in Honduras, Chile and the United States are going to go at this and I don’t think there will be much of a cover up at least in the last two of the three States. This is going to stay with Francis for years (if, alas, he lives that long), and no heretical stunt is going to get one prosecutor off his back.
So yeah, if this was the calculation, is was just as dumb as the rest.
The astonishing (if we did not know the man) episode of formal heresy concerning the Capital Punishment teaches us some lessons that may not be pleasant but are, in my eyes, very salutary.
Pope Francis the Heretic, aka The Evil Clown, has not emerged from the earth like some satanical mushroom. He is the product of a mentality that has belittled and undermined Catholic teaching for decades.
Pope John Paul II the Not-So-Great has given us a horrible Catechism. This Catechism already had in itself the cancer cells that have now metastatised in Pope Francis The Heretic.
JP II’s Catechism does what the Church of Vatican II has done for decades: it tries to accommodate the world and to hush inconvenient truths about the Faith. The paragraphs about the Capital Punishment are an egregious example of this mentality pandering to the world instead of teaching it.
One Pope comes and says that yeah, the teaching of the Church cannot be changed; but hey, our sociology and psychology is now so much more advanced than Christ’s that we can now put this teaching in the darkest corner of the Barque of Peter; in theory, still available for use; but in practice, never to be used. Is it so surprising that, a quarter of a century later, another Pope comes and says that this unused instrument can now be thrown overboard?
Whilst there is still a huge difference between JP II’s and the Evil Clown’s approach – a difference in nature, not only in degree – no one can deny that the first paved the way for the second. JP II’s Catechism is the gateway drug to the Evil Clown’s Satanical Crack Cocaine.
Again, and as stated in the linked blog post, there is a silver lining in all this: the possibility for very many to react to this obvious heresy by embracing truth in toto rather than in the adulterated V II fashion.
Throw away your JP II Catechism, NOW! Decide that you will, from now on, have nothing to do with any watered down Catholic teaching. Plenty of traditional resources online (example here: you only need a short research) and in brick and mortar or online bookstores.
One thing will Pope Francis the Heretic teach to countless Catholics: that it is time to throw away the entire V II balderdash with it.
How can, it might be asked in these disgraceful times, the Church be true and Francis the Pope?
My answer is another question:
How can the Church be true and allow us to choose who is Pope?
Bad as this crisis is, one thing is sure: we cannot put an end to it with our own private decisions. Not only is this fully un-Catholic, it also leads to absurd consequences.
So I and several thousands Mundaborists decide that Francis is an illegitimate Pope. Three weeks later he proceeds to appoint nine Cardinals. Are they legitimate Cardinals? Obviously not. Then other seven Cardinals are appointed, and after that eleven more. In the meantime, hundreds of dioceses, including a dozen of major world capitals, have illegitimate bishops.
A Conclave follows: how can anyone who questioned Benedict’s abdication, much less anyone who denied Francis’ legitimacy, accept the new Pope as legitimately elected, and be he Pius XIII? And at this point, what happens? This Pope will elect new Cardinals, and the problem will become inextricable.
Now, if we had a formally heretical Pope the matter would be simpler: with God’s grace, the See would be declared vacant and however many Bishops and Cardinals are available to side with Christ would proceed to convocate an imperfect Council, declare the Pope self-deposed, and elect a legitimate one. But again it would be them, not us, who do it. It would be up to them, not to us, to decide that the Pope has deposed himself. There is simply no mechanism within the Church based on which laymen decide who is Pope. If it were so, we would be all Protestants.
The reality is sad, but part of the sadness is this: that we will have to live with obscenely bad Popes for as long as the Lord decides that it is fitting for us to be punished with them. And when the Lord in His Goodness has decided that it is time to put an end to this, then he will let us know through signs that are in conformity with what the Church teaches: for example, the SSPX declaring the Pope a formal heretic and calling for an Imperfect council, which then – by God’s grace – also happens and leads to the Pope’s deposition.
To decide that the Pope is not legitimate and then unavoidably deny legitimacy to everything that happens later is like stabbing the Church in the heart to cure Her (admittedly, very bad) fever. It is, as I have written already, Sedevacantism on instalments. It is just not the way the Catholic Church and the Catholic mind work.
Take Francis as a penance and use this time to pray the Lord that He may, in His Goodness, pave a way out of it; a way which, as we all know as Catholics, will invariably be a Catholic one.
When I was a child (many, many years ago) the only shops you saw open on a Sunday where a restricted number of purveyors of everyday goods, or goods serving the social needs of the Sunday.
Sunday was the day of family visits; therefore, the pasticcerie (the French say patisserie) were open as cakes and assorted sweets were typically bought for the occasion. Places called bar (an Italian institution not comparable to anything I have seen abroad) were also open. They had generally more than one licence, and many of them sold a variety of goods ranging from cigarettes to alcohol in bottle, to dairy product and alcohol on the premises (at the, well, bar). Some of them were also rosticcerie (French: rotisserie) and/or pasticcerie, but I honestly can't remember whether the rosticceria part of the business was allowed to open on a Sunday, I'd rather say not.
Then there was another institution always open on a Sunday morning: the newsagents, as it would have been utterly cruel to leave the Country without the latest news concerning the football games in the afternoon. The reading of the newspaper and discussion about the choices for the afternoon were the object of typically animated discussions among friends of all ages. It was, well, all very Italian; though at the time it was, to me, simply normal.
In the afternoon everything was closed and the entire nation resembled a place under curfew.
It was all very intelligently made. It made profound sense. It was highly efficient. It was, in a word, Catholic.
Catholics aren't Puritans. To them, Sunday is a day for worship and celebration, joy of life, innocent fun. Therefore, sports games were played on a Sunday. I remember my shock at hearing that in, say, England, football was played on a Saturday, because Sunday would not have been appropriate. France, Spain, all other Catholic Countries followed, if memory serves, the Italian (actually, Catholic) system to a man.
The rules about Sunday shop opening followed this intelligent Weltanschauung : you could buy a newspaper for yourself and Topolino (Walt Disney cartoons) for your children; you could buy pastarelle in the omnipresent pasticcerie for your family and in-laws, to be eaten at lunch after abundant roast or lasagne with all the enlarged family. You could grab some milk whilst you were there. Even the occasional bottle of Cognac would have been available in a pinch, though it was invariably more expensive than in the grocery store (which was, though, always closed). Restaurants were, in many cases, open, again mainly in order to cater to the needs of families. But as a rule, you could buy or use a lot of what you could need on a Sunday and nothing that you didn't.
Blessed times of common sense and sanity!
In those days, the idea of buying your groceries, or an ironing table, or a TV set on a Sunday would have been considered most certainly off, and very probably impious (we don't know, because the possibility wasn't there). Sunday was there for worship, family, and fun. The shop opening laws reflected this, and aimed at allowing the biggest possible number to enjoy their day whilst making essential services available, for a limited time, to everyone.
It made, again, sense. It was the proper way to organise a Catholic Country. In turn, it helped the Country to keep its Catholicism alive and kicking.
Poland is now about to phase in Sunday opening legislation, restricting the way and hours in which shops are open. When I read it, memories of sunny Sundays, newspapers after church, loud football discussions and visit to – or visits from – a half army of relatives – followed by big lunches and big discussions until the football took every male's attention – became very present for a moment.
It was a happier time. More serene, more balanced, more natural. More Christian, too.
It is good to see that, in the afternoon of my life, it is the former Communist Countries that now try to come back to those sunny morning, and to that more Christian life.
I found this message in my comment box:
Apologies for using your comments box (this isn’t for publication as a comment, obviously) but I couldn’t seem to find an email address to contact you by. I wonder if I might be as bold as to ask you to ask your readers to pray for Father Dickson, please? I’ve posted more information about his condition in the two recent posts on our blog.
Please feel free to forward or copy and paste them.
Thank you in advance,
I have not followed “Catholic Collar and Tie” recently (there have been no new posts for several months), but I was aware of father Dickson’s health problems. For those of you who don’t know, Father Dickson is the “Collar” and Andrew McDowell is the “Tie”.
Father is now seriously ill with pneumonia.
I am sure my readers will join me in my prayers for this brave and sincere priest. My rosary of today is for him, and I encourage all of you to do the same (which means, actually, to also pray the Rosary as father certainly wishes).
You will have noticed that, whenever I demand from our clergy that they openly oppose Amoris Laetitia, my demand is addressed to bishops and cardinals.
Why not priests? Why not, actually, your own parish priest?
Because of the way I (and, I think, many others) see the role of the priesthood.
The way I see it, the main job of the parish priest is to care for the souls entrusted to his case, not to be an ambassador for Catholic orthodoxy urbi et orbi. The priest has a flock and this flock should be his first and last concern. If I had a good parish priest I would feel betrayed and abandoned if the man were to be removed, and taken away from me, because of his vocal opposition to Amoris Laetitia.
This does not mean that a priest has to accept Amoris Laetitia. His duty is – because otherwise, he is not a good priest – to instruct his sheep about the truth in no uncertain words. If this attracts persecution on him, so be it, as a priest is never justified in lying to his sheep or giving them a rotten doctrine. But it is not the job of the priest to be an internet or worldwide ambassador of orthodoxy. This is, exactly, the job of the bishops and cardinals.
Therefore, my suggestion to the good priests reading this is: keep doing your job in your parish, doing your best in the sphere of competence assigned to you. Draw a line where the work of your parish is concerned, but do not attract persecution on yourself when your parishioners need a guidance in these troubled times. If you want to blog, it might be smart to blog strictly anonymously. However, I will be the last one to advocate that even the small number of priests remained is sent to the most remote places where they can be useful to fewer people, or are deprived of a parish already.
Resistance can happen in many ways. Many priests, I am sure, stage their own resistance by being good priests for their sheep, and praying for better times.
Fr Aidan Nichols has, for the first time, publicly criticised Amoris Laetitia, and the attack was devastating. Nichols, a well-known name in England, not only points his finger on the many errors and heresies in the notorious documents, but he also states a very obvious, yet certainly one to be said, fact: it cannot be said that the Pope was negligent or unguarded in his language, because the CDF warned him about the dangers and he simply chose to ignore the warning.
This, I add, in addition to the relentless work made by the Evil Clown in officially promoting the heresies; with the letter to the Argentinian Bishops probably the most blatant, official among them.
Father Nichols will now, sadly, be persecuted, and he will not even have the protection normally afforded to a Bishop. Please pray for him.
It is very sad to see that priests feel the need to publicly criticise the Pope and undergo certain persecution when not one of the bishops besides Schneider, and no darn Cardinal at all, dares to openly confront and condemn this evil man and the damage he is causing.
Father Nichols also theorised a procedure, sanctioned by Canon Law, to discourage heretical statements of future Popes; but I frankly find the endeavour futile, as a heretical Pope would block such ordinary ways. By definition, a heretical Pope can only be an extraordinary event; which will, then, require extraordinary measures outside of the usual legal ways and channels.
The Extraordinary Council generally seen as the remedy for such actions is just this: a counter-revolution for Christ against a revolutionary Pope. There can be no manual for such things, which makes it wise for such situations never having been regulated by Canon Law.
But this is just side news. That even the Catholic Herald publishes such a scathing condemnation is rather more relevant.
Pray for Father Nichols. And for Bishops and Cardinals willing to do their job already.
The recent, tragic fire in London has not failed to produce the predictable amount of individual destinies and sob stories; something which in more serious times would have been considered very bad journalism for cleaning ladies and is now, actually, mainstream all over the West.
One of these stories is the one of the two Italian concubines living in the tower. At least, this is how a despicable fake Catholic internet publication describes them (without using the word, of course; “couple” is so much more XXI Century).
The horrible publication reports that the woman, in her last phone conversation with her mother in Italy (I know, heartbreaking; but I don't do cheap journalism for cleaning ladies so let's skip on this) would have said to her mother: “I am about to go to heaven”.
There is, in the horrible fake Catholic publication, no hint that the two would have needed to manage a perfect contrition to I do not say go to heaven straight, but – judging from what is plain to see – merely to avoid hell. The sob story is reported as a tale of hope and courage, with no one questioning the apparent self-evident truth of the public adulterer in a state of mortal sin committing a huge sin of presumption with her last breath, and still managing to be canonised by the whining press because hey, we are all teddy bear lovers after all.
Of course, we all wish the unfortunate people a perfect contrition and, one day, a place in paradise. But it is utterly indicative of our times that I might be one among very few pointing out to the extreme danger of damnation in this situation, and to the total absence – in the atrocious, fake Catholic publication reporting the news – of any sign that would induce one to have a reasoned hope that they avoided hell (something like the two kneeling together and praying the Blessed Virgin to forgive their sins with sincere sorrow; but you know how it works). Instead, we have the stunning “I am about to go to heaven” claim which, actually, sounds like the… perfect contrary of a perfect contrition.
This is what the Age of Stupidity has done to people. When they think of heaven, it is only the grotesque version they read about in cheesy Facebook posts. Even the very near approaching of death is – unless we have not been told something – not enough to elicit in people the fear of the Lord, that is: the beginning of wisdom.
Pray for the dead. But for heaven's sake, administer some truth to the living.
Let us imagine a lowlife is savagely beating a prostitute in the middle of the night, when he sees a major fire developing in a London residential tower and promptly alerts the Fire Brigade. Who would comment on this saying “thank God for wife-beating”?
The fact is, wife-beating is (if you are Christian or at least sensible; if you are Muslim it's different) objectively wrong. Therefore, you don't thank God for something objectively wrong just because it caused a chap to save many lives.
It is, therefore, entirely absurd to say “thank God for Ramadan” just because it caused people to be out on the street in the night and promptly alert the Fire Brigade and/or help the locals. Islam is evil, and Ramadan is its fruit. That's all there is to say.
This, even assuming that these roaming Muslims were so decisive in promptly alerting the firefighters and/or giving assistance ; which I don't believe a bit, because in London you always have people around at night (yes, even in certainly not glamorous North Kensington) and the flames attracted major attention and a huge crowd in very short time.
Let us stop with this PC nonsense. The Ramadan-followers are the reason why we are having major terrorism problems.
The attack in Manchester does have an element of novelty: that the Manchester Arena terrorists targeted children and teenagers. The Religion of Peace never ceases to surprise.
All the rest is identical: a tidal wave of sugary common places, always the same phrases, always the same official statements, always the same nonsense. As I write here, an idiot on Sky states “it does not matter who did it”. Go figure.
The root cause of the problem is not being addressed. Therefore, the problem will remain.
This time the dead are (for now) 22, and this is not only stolen lives, but broken families. Who knows how many they will be next time. That there will be a next time, there can be no doubt.
I look at all this not only with sadness, but with a clear perception of the historical processes that are happening: our Western institution have invited this cancer within themselves, and this cancer is now developing as it is designed to do.
Meanwhile, the praise of the multicultural society goes on unabated on all the major UK channels. It truly beggars belief.