Category Archives: Catholicism
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 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.
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.
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.
In Europe, we have been living – in the last decades for sure, but the more so in the last few years – in a strangely poisoned democracy.
Starting with the Referendums about the EU in the Naughties (by which, whenever the result was not the desired one, a massive propaganda barrage preceded…. a new vote, meant to give the intended result; at least, you could say the votes were counted fairly!), there has been a constant deterioration of the quality of the message coming from the “experts” (who have become not only servants of the Governments, but at time their own masters, pushing a political agenda, like “climate change” or “Covid”) and a correspondent decrease in basic ethics standards of said governments, who have started lying and obfuscating like never before in democratic times (the illegals wave in the Mid-Tens, then the mountains of lies about Brexit all over Europe, then the throttling of democratic freedoms with the “pandemic”).
The propaganda is, by now, so deafening that less and less people believe it. They do so because they have seen wilful lies, masked as “science” or “statistics” or “expert data”, too many times. The vaccine controversy is the last example, with our “betters” now lying shamelessly every day, as every day shows more clearly that they have been lying all along. In the meantime, it appears the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and her newlywed husband will recommend that we wear those stupid pieces of cloth in front of our mouth and nose even after “freedom day” (Monday the 19th), just in case we start to taste more freedom than they have decided it’s good for us.
Still, this is not only about the “pandemic”. It’s everywhere. We are, everywhere, surrounded by propaganda and manipulation meant to not allow us to see the truth, as our Government keep treating us like children (and too many showing that they are, actually, children). Just an example among many: Migrant violence data in Germany. This is just another beautiful example of information “the children” had better not known, because it does not help the globalist agenda of those in power.
It truly is no surprise that, after years of this, the very fact of the Government telling you that the vaccine “is safe” is a very reasonable argument to believe that it isn’t. This, apart from the fact that the same Government telling you to get the vaxx then also tells you how ineffective it is (which is why you need to, obviously, follow instructions from your betters forever).
Make no mistake, this is not only an issue with the European Government: almost all Bishops, and most certainly the Pope, have been in it from the start and continue to put their desire to please the globalist elites in front of Christ and the faithful.
I’d like to have a truthful statistics of how many vaxx bishops (and vaxx popes) are homosexual or have a mistress, and how many politicians end up getting jobs with liberal multinationals.
I think this kind of data would tell us a lot about why certain things happen both in our Governments and in our Church.
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.
And it came to pass that yours truly wanted to click on this article, from the Canada Free Press, and was “warned” by the Great Nanny that the site I wanted to visit was dangerous and potentially harmful. I had to click “visit anyway” in order to read the article.
You can agree or disagree with the content of the page, but there can be no doubt that it is legitimate.
Am I very bad if I think that these kind of warnings are not due to some coding mistake or defect of security protocols, but are slapped on certain sites in order to dissuade the public from visiting them? It’s not that there is anything here that can really be seen as suspicious.
I opened the same page with another browser and there was no warning. This tells me that there are some people within Google Chrome who really don’t like the site, whilst other browsers just don’t have any issue.
Makes one think, doesn’t it?
I am not saying that this has to be a case of sabotage, and these technical matters are way above my programming pay grade (which is non-existent). Still, we live in times in which one cannot avoid thinking that there is some bad actor at play.
I think that all sites like Canada free Press should actively monitor the way all major browsers react to an attempt to contact their site, because they should not be surprised if they discovered that some SJW has decided to signal his virtue (notice here the conspicuous absence of the pronoun “they”) by playing censor. This can easily extend to all our post concerning religion, to all facets of academic speech, etc.
Beware of woke people, always. But beware of them particularly when they act as gatekeepers in the free flow of information.
I thought the words were a joke.
Then I saw them in print, in a tweet citing in quotation marks the Evil Clown himself.
This will be dealt with very fast.
If there is something that is not supposed to be “open to novelty”, it’s the Catholic faith. in fact, this is one of the few contexts in which the word novelty has negative connotations, and rightly so. It’s difficult to be more openly a Modernist than by saying that you should have “openness to novelty”.
Then let us talk about the litanies. Yes, the world uses the word litany with a pejorative connotation. However, it is quite bad that a pope should do so himself. A pope is supposed to having lived in the midst of litanies for decades, he is supposed to have recited a countless number of them, he is supposed to be very affectionate to them! But no, this guy who, really, always thinks and talks as if religion were the farthest thing from his mind, uses (not a coincidence, I think!) exactly the words that a secular mind would use, and it uses it to criticise, as always, us, the “rigid” Catholics.
Finally, the guy still owes us an explanation of the very meaning of the phrase: if the faith dies out without “novelties”, how could the Church go on for 2000 years?
Really, not one word of this makes sense. Better said, every word of this makes sense if you read it as just another anti Catholic rant of a disgraceful, faithless, lewd all man who hates all of you.
By the bye: someone should tell the guy that all these tweets actually invigorate Catholics, as they make it increasingly more clear to a growing number of them that this one here is as unworthy a pope as they come, and blows out of the water all those horrible, corrupts popes of the X and XI Century; whilst, in comparison to him, a Renaissance Pope would be as a colossal improvement.
Francis’ Angelus should be renamed “the Diabolus”.
It’s very clear that the devil is the one he is working for.
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.
Victoria’s Secrets is the last Company to give way to the – already tired – wave of wokery and third-rate feminism (this, assuming that there can be a first and second rate of feminism; which is debatable) and embark on a “courageous” journey towards financial hurt.
Instead of beautiful women representing – at least for the world – the canons of beauty, femininity and sweetness, they will, in future, give space to atrocious parodies of dykes like that Rapinoe person (“woman” is a compliment she has not deserved), to some representative of exploded fatties like every American corner has by the dozen, and – it is rumoured – even to trannies, in order to really, really push out any only half maddened woman who might still have wanted to give them some money.
I am not a woman, and it is difficult for me to fathom what goes on in the mind of any of them (for example, they seem to actually find men attractive; something, I assure you, inconceivable and inexplicable to most men…). However, one thing is very easy to understand: that, as long as the sun shines, women will want examples of other women who represent the best of what they find in themselves: femininity, sweetness, grace and, of course, beauty. Yes, beauty, then the young girl, even the very little girl of four or five, who does not understand how important beauty is in a woman must be, even at that young age, very, very thick.
Not as thick, though, as the people at the helm of Victoria’s Secrets; a company who had become the very epitome of female beauty and has now decided to sacrifice a marketing campaign (and embodiment of female aspiration) gone on for decades for some sort of virtue signaling which will not fail to have a disastrous effect on their (no pun intended) bottom line.
You may criticise the scantiness of Victoria’s Secrets bikini-clad models. What you must see, though, is that the campaign touched a very obvious nerve in the female psyche, exactly because it went at the very root of what every woman, whatever her feminist claims, desires to be: beautiful, feminine, sweet, desired by worthy men.
Fatties, trannies and dykes are neither beautiful, nor feminine, nor – sorry to bust your bubble – desired by the men the other women want. I concede that a fatty might be, in a way, sweet and feminine, but let us be honest with ourselves: this is not the kind of femininity any woman aspires to. I never saw a beautiful, slender woman wish she were a fattie. I never saw two beauties look at some hippo crossing the street and murmur to each other, with a mixture of admiration and envy, “she is so beautiful”. I never saw the high school beauty look at the local fattie and sigh a resigned “every man must be in love with her!” It’s just not the way it works.
In short, even the “model fatties” (or turd of other kind: see the “model” at the top) on the billboard will only smash their own ugliness in the face of the ugly potential clients of the brand, whilst the model dykes and the model trannies will positively repel them. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not how you sell lingerie, or bikinis. Actually, this is a good way to let your clients run away in disgust, then – if these idiots really keep their word, which I dare them to do! – there will not be many women willing to willingly associate their idea of themselves with the ideas of trannies, dykes, and fatties.
Not understanding much of women – which is, in fact, reassuring in a person of my sex – I think I can still easily understand this: Victoria’s Secret sold to their, in the vast majority, not stunningly attractive clients exactly that: the aura, the momentary illusion, the stardust of exceptional beauty, femininity and grace. If that goes away, and the stardust is substituted for a turd, it’s an easy bet that this turd will not be found as an inspiration by many; then if this were the case, it would mean that absolutely everyone, from the beginning of time to now, and most certainly from the beginning of advertisement to now, got absolutely everything, and I mean ab.so.lu.te.ly e.ve.ry.thing, wrong.
I must say that, meanwhile, I enjoy this kind of woke antics. Besides being funny in that mockingly terrifying way in which the cannon woman and the bearded woman were funny, it has something to see these woke companies crush and burn. Nickelodeon is almost extinct. CNN is well on the way of the dodo. Coca Cola managed to seriously harm themselves before partially waking up. Countless other companies have seen the consequences of woke thinking, and my funniest example is always the shop that practised a surcharge of 18% or 19% to men, to be donated to wymyn’s charities, and thought that they would thrive. Alas, they went bust, and I wonder if they ever understood why.
If they follow up on their promise and keep spreading dykes, trannies and fatties around, the jokes on Victoria’s Secrets will be many, and brutal.
They will deserve every one of them and, if this blog post has not contributed to it, be assured it has not been for lack of trying.
Victoria’s Turds are coming to a billboard near you.
Start making popcorn now.
The sad news reached me today that Father Finigan had a stroke.
Many of you will not know, or will barely remember, The Hermeneutic of Continuity, a blog much followed in years past. Father Finigan was his writer, and a very good one he was. He was, also, always good to this little effort. I liked his blog as a blog, and him as a priest.
At some point, Father started to write less and less, and the suspicion was not far that he was… ordered to, as his blog was clearly outside of the usual Vatican II narrative, albeit not as militant – understandably so, seen the position of the author – as others.
Gradually, I stopped visiting the blog, whose posts were becoming less and less frequent. I always thought that something was going on there, “under obedience”, that could not be said openly.
I always kept holding a high opinion of the blog’s sincere, faithful, worthy author.
It is sad to hear of a stroke, it is worse to hear that he can write “fairly” fluently, and “has considerable difficulty reading”. Bad stuff.
Whether you know him or not, whether you used to read his blog or not, I ask all my readers, in charity, to say a Hail Mary for the good Father.
God knows I think that both Francis and many of his – particularly progressive – Cardinals have no shame. But even I wasn’t prepared for the resignation debacle that we witnessed in Germany.
First, a cultural note. Germans aren’t Argentinians. If you pull a stunt like a resignation when you think you will remain in office, they will think (much) worse of you. “What we say, we must also do” is a liked quote over there.
Cardinal Marx resigned as a “gesture”, and remained in office. This will stay with him forever and he will, forever, be seen as a trombone, at least in Germany and by the people with some morality left, whatever their religious persuasion or lack of it. Something has gone wrong here, because this is not how you do it in Germany. In fact, I have seen third party video commentaries about Marx’s resignation, giving it as a fait accompli. This is how your typical German journalist (and citizen) thinks. You resign when you know your resignation will be accepted, then this is not a pro forma resignation. If this is not the case, you don’t resign.
So, I am thinking what might have happened here, and I have come up with some hypotheses. None of these is flattering for Marx, Francis, or the Vatican at large.
First: Marx wants to move to Rome. There are a couple of appetising Congregations available, and he tries to force Francis’ hand. He stages a grand resignation that makes him appear, after his “courageous” act, oh so suitable to lead from the front, in Rome. In this scenario, Francis ruins the party, as it appears Marx will be forced to stay in the shadow of the Theatinerkirche (and what a beautiful shadow it is!).
Second: Marx wants to go NGO, in order to hobnob with the really powerful of this earth. He will resigns and undergo self-martyrdom, then ask Francis for whatever authorisation and dispensation he needs to jet around the world. Again, if this was the plan, Francis wasn’t in agreement. The guy might have put him a bit in the shadow.
Third: Francis might have had plans for Marx in Rome, but he was peeved that Marx wanted to force his hands. So he decided to make him stay in Munich for as long as he pleases.
Fourth: Francis, who is – emphatically – not a German, does not care about stuff like, you know, doing what you say. Therefore, he suggests to Marx that he makes the grand gesture, in order to strengthen the progressives in the ongoing German Schism Saga. Perhaps Francis leads Marx to believe that he is exactly what is needed in Rome in order to move him to resign. Then he screws the guy, with a stunt that looks very stupid in Germany if Marx does not go, but is probably quite the event in places like South America, or wherever people without integrity live.
I still have the impression that something went wrong here, as this is so cheap it’s even below Francis’ standards.
Still, they have no shame, so you don’t know what they invent if they are bored.
Marx looks, as it stands now, very stupid as if he knew that Francis “needs him at his place” and would make him stay, with whatever excuse, he should not have resigned in the first place.
Francis looks like, well, Francis.
We all look like we can’t wait for these people to go away.
The golden words (also cited by Father Z) in the article (which is long and very instructive, in an alarming way) are:
No one wants to wife a sex expert.
I have written about this several times, and have tried to imprint in the minds of my younger readers (particularly female readers; but also male readers, if they are tragically blue-pilled) the following concepts:
First: every sexual partner of a woman diminishes her value in the eyes of the following partner
Second: the ideal number of sexual partners for a woman is either zero (if unmarried) or one (if married).
Feminists don’t get that, because they are, fundamentally, childish and stupid besides being great, great sluts (more about this later). Feminists are like cats who want to bark because dogs do it. What they don’t understand is that a barking cat is an impossibility, and a cat pitifully attempting to bark (which cats don’t do, being smarter; but feminists do, being dumb) becomes a ridiculous object of pity.
At the root of the issue is this simple fact: that men can sleep with a variety of women and (sinful as it is) feel great, whilst women cannot sleep with a variety of men without feeling cheap, used and, in a word, sluts. That’s the human nature, boys ‘n girls. You can protest as much as you want, you won’t change the basic facts.
Feminism rejects basic facts. The desire to bark (because dogs do it) and the desire to have multiple sexual partners without feeling slutty (because men do it) pushes them towards a promiscuity that they see (because, remember: they are stupid) as a reaction to an oppressive, patriarchal society, and as a prejudice that can be fought against, and conquered, by creating the Age of the Slut.
Once sluttishness has been deprived of its stigma, they reason, Prince Charming will gladly marry Mud Black, happy in the certainty that she is the woke, better version of the Snow White of his ancestors. Alas for them, it does not work in that way, because sex roles and sex differences are in-built and divinely ordained, not the product of a social structure artificially created by religion and “male oppression”.
So, Feminist becomes a big, big slut, and desperately tries to overcome her feelings of sluttishness (which are, clearly, human nature being what it is, still there…) by being more of a slut and condemning slut-shaming.
Here, my friends, lies, if you ask me, the crux of the matter; an issue, in fact, which the author of the linked article has just been unable to see.
Simply put: Feminist slut will introduce her daughter to Xtreme Sluttishness is order to avoid that her daughter realises what a miserable slut she is. She will just not run the risk of her daughter telling her, one day, “dear mum, I want to be the woman of one man and be happy in my monogamous marriage; both because I feel that I was born for it and because I see what a wretch of a woman and a sad, pathetic human being you, yourself, have become”. This is, for every feminist, the horror scenario, the total destruction and demolition of her entire life; made worse by that nagging, unconfessed feeling that, in fact, such a daughter would be right.
This, I think, and no other, is the reason for the early sexualisation of the feminists’ daughters. It’s nothing to do with abortion, because a feminist thinks nothing of an abortion. It’s to do with the total and complete annihilation of her reputation in the eyes of the person they – in their own selfish way -love most.
Therefore, daughter will have to become a big, big slut, the sooner the better. The rising “cock count” (yes, girls: this is how men think; as well they should!) of the younger slut will then bind mother and daughter with a chain of lived feminism and shared filth (for whose feelings of guilt “Patriarchy” and, who knows, “White Supremacy” will be easily blamed) that will last a lifetime.
It’s not abortion. It’s the terror of growing a sane daughter.
One who knows that no one wants to wife a sex expert.
“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.
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.
Francis has stated the planet only has ten years to avoid catastrophe.
In my mind, the real catastrophe would be ten more years of Francis.
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.
Well, the reading of this article was not as depressing as I had thought. It appears, as we write the Year of the Lord 2021, some Jesuits are still Catholic.
They are still ostracised by their organisation, of course, and one wonders what they had to stomach during their formation. Still, and encouragingly so, if the rumour is confirmed not all the new recruits are obvious fairies like that Jemima Martin guy. In fact, the article mentions not one, but several orthodox Jesuits in one go.
Shall we say: unexpected.
But no worries: the place is still a cesspool. Substituting “for God and His Christ” with “men and women for others” only points out to the obvious: the loss of faith means the religious becomes a social worker. At the same time, the faithless “social worker” environment becomes an excellent destination for the Jemima Martin of this world, who get to scrounge an existence at the expense of faithful both dead and alive whilst indulging in their favourite social work: sodomy.
You might ask me how to deal with this. My answer is very simple: abolish the order. Then, set on the calendar the year 2121, or perhaps 2171, to examine whether the order might be started again. But seriously, there is no rush, as the stink spread by these people will take a while to disperse.
Of course, the abolition should be accompanied by a veru close examination of the activity of these people, ending with the fast defrocking of the Jemimas and the slow defrocking of those who are found to have all or some of his afflictions after more careful examination. For example, a guy like this one was clearly born not to turn lives, but to flip burgers.
Let us not forget, by the way, that the toxic Jesuit environment gave us the most toxic Pope, ev-ah. This alone would merit them abolition.
Still: 25 new Jesuits this year in the US and Canada.
Who knows, the majority might be straight?