Category Archives: Traditional Catholicism
The Cowardinals Reblog
How many are like this one?
Seriously, how would a Conclave look like, from the inside, today?
Screeching, bitching voices? Wrists dangling in the air? Old men in drags? Lewd acts between old “lovers”?
How many Cardinals are homos? How many do not ever care to hide it in their circles, sure of impunity? And how many (hopefully the majority; but at this point, who knows?) are straight, but too afraid of doing anything?
Remember when Paper Tiger Cowardinal Burke started to talk of a correction due anytime from (please don’t laugh) January 2017? Could it be that Paper Tiger roared because he thought he had the support of a couple of dozen other Cowardinals, and the Vatican Gay Mafia silenced them because they were all compromised, many of them with sodomy?
Seriously, we must pose the question now: in a world in which a McCarrick is given the highest…
View original post 51 more words
I am a deeply flawed human being. My fallen nature catches up with me with shocking frequency. I am, as a whole, unworthy of the many graces God keeps giving me (by keeping me alive, and healthy, for example) day in and day out. But… But….
Is hating a hateful individual like the Evil Clown among my (manifold) flaws? Certainly not!
Francis has never done anything to me personally. He never kicked my cat, or took my place in the queue, or disrespected me in any way. I am positive that he never even neglected to pass me the salt! I have no reason to have any personal resentment against him!
Still, I wish he died today. This very moment. As I write this. I actually pray (though, being a deeply flawed individual, not with anywhere the frequency I should) for the Evil Clown’s painless death. Mind, I wish him Salvation, with all my heart, with all the charity I can muster. Still, I hope the guy reaches room temperature as soon as may be.
Why is that? And does this make me bad?
The first question is easily answered: because I love Christ and His Church and I see in Francis, like everyone with a brain, an enemy of both.
Do you love your Country? Do you wish death (not damnation!) on those who have declared war to it, have attacked it and want to destroy it? Yes, I am sure. If you didn’t, I would question your patriotism. You can, of course, wish that the war goes to an end and the attack ceases. Still, as long as the war goes on, you want your enemies’ skulls to be introduced to the bullets of your soldiers. Does this, then, make you bad? On the contrary: it makes you a Patriot. Has the soldier, whose skull you wish to see introduced to a bullet, done anything personal to you? Certainly not. It’s not personal, you see. It’s about what we love.
Now: how more important is Christ and your Church than your Fatherland? My answer: infinitely so. Therefore, I should, most certainly, wish for the (earthly) number one enemy of the Church to die. I should do so because it is about what I love, and if I wished this guy a long Pontificate because I love to “feel good” in my supposed humanitarianism, this would unavoidably mean that Christ and His Church are less important to me than my own desire to “feel good”.
It’s not difficult, really.
Get your priorities straight, and such questions will be answered automatically. Get your priorities wrong, and your answers will be just as flawed.
Francis is at war with Christ and His Church. I wish he ended the war; but, as long at the war goes on, I will wish the death of the enemy.
It turns out that the Dutch auxiliary bishop who wrote that courageous denunciation of the entire Pontificate of the Evil Clown does not celebrate the TLM himself. You see, this is a young prelate who grew up in that Catholic desert called The Netherlands. It is also an easy assumption to make that the man, as an auxiliary Bishop, has no power to decide about diocesan Traditional Masses in his diocese.
What does this tell us? To me, it is another powerful demonstration that the Traditional Latin Mass is by now, in real life, impossible to eradicate.
When even prelates who grew up without it and do not benefit from it in their daily life get to understand its importance to the point of openly going against their bishops and pope, we know that something powerful is going on everywhere. This bishop may still retract. Other bishops may do all they can to eradicate the Mass of the Ages from their diocese. But the grip of the Traditional Mass on any sincere Catholic will stay and will, in fact, work on him even from a distance.
The good bishop could do worse than dedicating himself to the private study of the Traditional Mass he so eloquently defended. God willing, as the Bishop in charge of his diocese, he could, one day, have the honour of celebrating the first Tridentine Mass in his diocese in who knows how many decades.
Evil Clowns pass. The Mass of the Ages stays.
Francis starts to look like a little Julian the Apostate. He will not be, in the end, more successful than the latter was.
The Galilean always wins in the end.
It is well known that the Evil Clown does not believe in the miracle of the bread and fish. This is not surprising at all, then it is fairly obvious that this man does not believe in God in the first place.
Once you have decided that the Divinity of Christ is a fraud, you have to find some more or less plausible excuse for all that stuff you find in the Gospel; you know, all that stuff that says that Jesus is God.
Francis loves to give a Socialist interpretation to everything (everyone must have a religion, you know…), and he does it here, too. The “miracle” is in the “sharing “, he keeps saying. Therefore, the bread and fish was all already there and Christ did not actually multiply it at all. Rather, the present came out of their capitalistic, grasping attitude and showed that if the rich start sharing, there is a lot for everybody.
This means, of course, that the Apostles were stupid, as they did not have the faintest about all that accumulated bread Francis is so persuaded about. It makes Jesus Himself looked very gullible at the least; as if he were a middle class boy who lived a sheltered existence and has no clue about the greed of the wealthy. But hey, Francis knows best. Who are we to judge?
This year, though, Francis added a new element, associating the “multiplication” with, and I quote, a manifestation of “power and vanity”. Yes, dear reader: it would have been something denoting “power and vanity” if Christ had multiplied the bread and the fish. Two thousand years of Christianity have believed in a vain God. Thank Goodness we now have Francis, who, after improving the Our Father, also gives us a new and up to now unknown Christ.
I had hoped that the missing piece of colon would rarify the appearances of this guy. Alas, it turns out he only takes it as an excuse for the things and people he wants to avoid (celebrating the Mass with the Grandparents) , but has no problems at all when it’ s just him, a microphone and a camera, and no pesky altar with Blessed Sacrament in front of which he does not want to bow.
The click is ticking furiously for this guy, but he does not show any sign of repentance.
He will know about the miracle soon enough.
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 Evil Clown will *not* celebrate, tomorrow, the Mass for Grandparents’ World Day. More interesting still, this was made known two days earlier, on Friday. This, also, not because of more urgent engagements, but for “health reasons”.
Hhhmmmm. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
I am trying to reflect and remember the last time Francis cancelled something 1) for health reasons 2) two days in advance. There might have been such occasions, but I am sure they weren’t frequent.
So, what is happening? Let us try to make some hypotheses.
- Francis just has no desire to celebrate the Mass for the Grandparents. He does not like them, because they might be conservative. He decided to just show them a finger. It can be, of course; but Francis is a guy not below doing these things at the last moment. He could have just ignored any rules of decency and claimed a headache or tiredness on Sunday.
- Francis is so angry at the horrible failure of Traditionis Carnifices, that his bile has given him health troubles. Or perhaps he just does not want to see anyone and does not want to take part in any public ceremony, lest he begins to insult Catholics like a fishwife on a very bad day, with cameras on.
- Francis’ health is worsening. It is worsening enough, that the notoriously mendacious press office of the Vatican needs to tell us that he needs to cancel the celebration of mass 1) two days earlier, 2) for health reasons. It is as if the press office were saying to us: “Things will be different from now on; less appearances and more uncertain ones, according to the health of the Unholy Clown”.
The next days and weeks should be attentively observed. They will tell us a lot about whether this is Francis simply throwing more toys out of the pram, or getting nearer to his judgment.
I do not wish the man any suffering, in this life or the next; but he is missing several parts of his body (half a lung and a piece of colon, besides a good part of his brain and the totality of his conscience) and one has the impression that the devil’s augers in hell are now drilling frantically in preparation of the new home for the Evil Clown.
And now: this part is where I should recommend you, as I would in the case of any other pope, to pray that he may get well soon.
Not for this one, I don’t.
Pray that he dies. Without suffering, and for the good of the Church, and possibly repenting (highly unlikely).
But pray that he goes.
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 pro-Muslim Pope Reblog
President Trump has announced already several weeks ago his choice o Brett Kavanaugh as the next Supreme Court Justice. We all know that, in the end, this a battle about abortion and “gay” rights, sorry, wrongs. We all aldo know that whilst results might not be immediate, we are at a real crossroads with this.
You would expect the Pope to hammer the defence of life all summer, just to put some pressure on the US Senators.
Nothing too obvious, of course. But strongly enough that people get the message, and insistently enough that this is the talking point of summer 2018.
You would expect that, if Francis had a shred of Catholic faith in it. But the sad truth is, he does not care for the unborn at all. Living Muslims, and how they can destroy a Continent Christianity has shaped, is all he cares about. Such is his…
View original post 169 more words
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.
The scandal of the Grindr Monsignor is bringing up more information that appears extremely interesting. The organisation that procured the data maintains that the data is perfectly legal and free to buy, as Grindr actually sells it to everyone interested (normally, I suppose, for marketing purposes). It would also appear that they already have information about many more prelates.
(Here I must interrupt to make a service announcement: the unbearable droning you are hearing now is the whistling in Father Martina’s ears. Normal service can now resume ).
If we lived in sane times, our Bishops would – after verification of the legality of the information, then you don’t want the Law Firm of Mssrs Fag, Fudge, Packer & Elton suing you – buy everything and embark in the greatest clean-up ever seen in Church history since St Peter Damian’s time. However, we do not live in sane times, which is why we have so many Father Martinas, Bishop Georginas and Cardinal Marinas in the first place. In fact, I can well imagine that, since hearing of such data, many a Bishop fears that he is one of the tracked people himself; then it apoears extremely unlikely that Monsignor Burrill got where he got without a number of them knowing, and some of them knowing for all the wrong reasons.
The organisation that has the data should now make all of it public, and publicly shame the bishops who were offered the information and refused to use it.
As to Francis, something tells me he is now thanking Satan for being too old for apps like Grindr. I might be wrong, of course. Still, the time is rapidly coming when it is perfectly sensible to suspect every leftist priest and prelate to belong to the parish of Sodom.
Quite interesting, this stuff.
It’s almost as if a bunch of faggots had decided to go hard against the Latin Mass, and the punishment had followed very swiftly.
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.
The “hate speech” reblog
We had in the last few days another example of the way Facebook tries to control everything you say and, in time and unavoidably, the way you think.
Facebook’s apology for censoring the Declaration of Independence as hate speech does not make the problem go away.
In fact, it makes it worse.
If Facebook had stated that the censorship was due to a pot-smoking, White-hating, “Native American” (means “redskin” to you and me) SJW who has already been fired, this would have been scary indeed, but still in the realm of human error. But this is not what Facebook says.
The censorphip was automatic, software-driven, they say in their apology. Most probably, though they don’t say it in order to have their mistake more mercilessly exposed, because of Jefferson’s reference to “merciless Indian Savages”. This means that in that huge, sanitised leftist kindergarten called Facebook you can’t express a perfectly…
View original post 185 more words
Every time a high-ranking prelate is caught being a pervert, I can’t avoid thinking: 1) how many are they? And 2) Who protects them, who put them there?
This does not seem a strange reaction to me: in fact, it should sound very natural to everybody whose mind has not been perverted by the strange notion that, suddenly, sexual perversion would be ok.
You would think that I am not the only one thinking this. You would think that every right-thinking bishop or cardinal would have the same worry. You would think that a Pope would be most alarmed!
Well, it seems that sodomy does not rank anywhere near the top of the worries of our Heretic in Chief. Faggot priests certainly do not seem to faze him. He endorses Father Martina like Pope Pius XII endorsed Padre Pio. He lives under the roof of a notorious homo, whom he has even promoted to a higher position of power at some point. I wonder why.
Really, I wonder why. Don’t you, dear reader?
No. The problem of this Pope is not the widespread homosexuality within the Church. It’s the Latin Mass, and those pesky Catholics who keep resisting the call to conversion to socialism, global warming, and Pachamama.
Boy, what a disgusting, rotten individual Francis is. Not one bit better than a faggot Monsignor wandering around in “gay” saunas with an app allowing him to hook up with some other pervert like him.
I have more than an impression that, when this lewd old man dies, he will still be surrounded by homo priests; and by a great deal of “warm”, too.
Monsignor Jeffrey Burill, Secretary General of the Bishops’ Conference of the United States and, as such, the highest-ranking US priest who is not a Bishop, has just resigned.
The circumstances of his resignation are disgusting enough (the little faggot used the Grindr app to locate other perverts near him), but what really grates me is that, in the statement of his organisation, there is no mention whatever of sodomy being evil in a very special way, because a sexual perversion, in comparison to, say, the guy having a mistress.
It is as if this little faggot’s behaviour were a problem not because he is a pervert but because he was, very generically, not chaste.
What this shows, is the total lack of interest among too many in the clergy concerning what a priest’s tendencies are. I can well imagine that this guy’s inclinations were well-known to a number of people, but some of them thought “hey, he is chaste, surely?”, as if the perversion were not a problem in and of itself.
It could, of course, have been worse than that: it can well be – in fact, I can imagine this even more easily than the other hypothesis – that the guy was put in his place by the same powerful homo mafia that put many other people in positions of power: the Archbishop Paglias, or the Father Martinas, and, quite likely, the Cardinal Bergoglios, of this world.
The disfigured Church of the XXI Century does not seem to consider homosexuality a problem, and seems not to see in sodomy anything worse than lack of chastity.
Is it a surprise that Her leaders hate the Latin Mass?
The tattoo reblog
Tattooes are Grave Matter because they are a sullying and permanent disfiguration of your own body. This is what all generations before The Age Of Madness have believed.
People say to me that it is not in the catechism. This is not relevant. The catechism of JP II is bad, and before that age such a matter was too obvious to even consider.
Twenty Centuries of Christian civilisation have equated tattooes with the savages. Even when I was a child, only seamen (and pirates) were known to have tattoes, and they were the scum of the earth, linked with the dirtiest places, prostitution, dirt of all sorts.
As children, we were taught that tattooed people go to hell, as a matter of course. Hence, no adult was tattooed.
When the crisps packs had water tattooes for children to “play pirates”, we were given them very reluctantly and only after repetition…
View original post 150 more words
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.
As my affectionate readers know, I am guilty of always been robustly optimistic. My glass is, even when half empty, always three quarter full. Therefore, please take the following with a pinch of salt.
Francis is old. He is missing half a lung and an unspecified portion of his colon. He is fat, and does not give any sign, at least up to now, to want to change his diet (sciatica and colon issue point out, AFAIK, to excessive consumption of meat forming uric acid in the body and contributing to colon congestion, colon impactions and diverticulosis, which can degenerate into diverticulitis and make an operation necessary; I think something of the sort is at play here). I’d say that we are looking, in the not too distant future, either at healthy Francis, or at dead Francis. I know what’s more likely.
Unless I am mistaken, an awful lot of Bishops are making the same considerations as I write this. The old man is a maverick, and many bishops realise (from what I read around) that, once again, he has shot himself in the foot. They aren’t really keen to anger the most faithful part of their pewsitter. They know, in many cases, that the SSPX is available, and the faithful will make heavy use of the possibility. They know that there will be an onslaught of canonical lawsuits, with countless priests openly stated that no pope can abrogate the Mass of St Pius V. They know that donations are going to take a hit.
On the other hand, there is the maverick, angrier and bitterer as the years go by. How long will Francis last?
In case you think that I have just stated that many bishops hope that the old nincompoop takes his leave soon, let me clarify: It’s exactly what I think. They weren’t born yesterday, these bishops, and whilst they have clearly no spine, I’d say most of them have a brain.
Therefore, the combination of functioning brain and jellyfish spine will lead to this: that many bishops will give a more or less “efficient” interpretation to traditionis carnifices according to their estimation of the residual length of this disgraceful Pontificate.
And now go on, and accuse me of being an incurable optimist! I promise you I will be able to take it….
The “sharing” Reblog
The multiplication of the breads is often used nowadays (by the Evil Clown on several occasions) to give us the good half socialist story of the people “sharing”. Poppycock.
Firstly, it is a miracle. If you believe it was a miracle, it means that you believe that Our Lord created something that was not there. “Sharing” cannot be part of this story. If you believe that it was a “miracle of shating” then obviously you don’t believe it was a miracle. The Gospels report Christ’s miracles because they were just that: miracles. They were not edifying little stories for the titillation of social justice advocates.
Secondly, the story is there with a precise purpose: to show not only a prefiguration of the endless abundance to be found in heaven, but also, and more poignantly for every Jew present, that Jesus is God. Only God can create food, only God can…
View original post 215 more words
The “don’t give money to bad parishes” reblog
I have writte often, and I am not the only one, that bad dioceses and priests must be starved. Do not give them a dime, period.
This presents, of course, some apparent difficulties. A bad bishop could close the good parishes in order to keep feeding the bad ones. He could get the missing money by starting to monetise the vast patrimony many dioceses have. He could intensify his calls for donations from wealthy donors who, in some countries like the UK, make 70% of the total donations if memory serves me.
However, all this simply should not interest you. You just can’t keep feeding evil people just because they happen to be priests and bishops.
Yes, a miserable V II church near you, led by a priest with a suspiciously high-pitched voice, might close down one day, the building deconsecrated and sold to a developer to be converted in…
View original post 370 more words
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.
Explaining Francis: the Reblog
Follow the link to the Mass of the Evil Clown, held in the House of Sodomy.
The money quote is, as recognised by the outlet itself, this one:
“In recent days many people have lost their jobs; they have not been re-employed, they are working illegally … We pray for these brothers and sisters of ours who suffer from this lack of work “.
In one phrase, one can isolate everything that is wrong with this guy. Let us go in order:
- Francis’ preoccupations are never spiritual, they are worldly. When he pretends to be interested in soul, it is just an excuse to push his worldly agenda. So he can say that the poor are exploited, or he can say that those who exploit the poor will go to hell (notabene: the God of Mercy does not help the class enemy…). In the end…
View original post 370 more words
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.
The Evil Clown has just announced his next batch of FrancisCardinals and they are, predictably, atrocious. Most notable are two homosexualists, and very possibly present or past sodomites. One has written the foreword for the notorious book of Father Martina himself.
Let that sink in.
Francis is continuing his work of destruction of everything that he can destroy. The man is of Satan. He could come to this point because there were no bishops and Cardinals willing to stand up to him with more than faint meowing and vain posturing.
Honestly, looking at the average person who, today, professes himself a Catholic, I am tempted to say that he deserves Francis and his cardinals.
Enjoy the ride, Pollyannas all over the world, and apostles of the “sweet Peter on earth” mantra as the man showed that he despises them and everything that is Catholic.
Congratulations, Cardinal Burke & Co. Your…
View original post 412 more words
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.
Bishop Schneider has released a very long text about the Second Vatican Council and the necessity to keep what is good in it. I have not read the extremely lengthy paper in its entirety, because I don’t need to. Still, I post the link so everyone who is so inclined can have a go at it.
My opposition to the survival of Vatican II is a matter of principle, not of detail.
It is fully irrelevant that the V II documents had something good in them, if you look for long enough. We all know this. I am pretty sure Stalin had something good in him, too. The simple fact is, that V II is not the inventor of Catholic goodness, nor is Stalin the inventor of whatever human goodness he had (I don’t know: perhaps he loved dogs, or classical music…
View original post 420 more words
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.