If you hate Catholicism, but can't say it out loud, you will find one thousand and one ways to send the message that Catholicism is a wise choice at best, and oppressive machine at worst. You will, most importantly, always convey the impression that there is nothing particularly right in Catholicism, much less that everything that is not Catholic is wrong.
You can accept a crucifix with a hammer and sickle, mock those who count their rosaries, or simply explain to the half-asleep that Catholicism is this or the other, which is exactly the contrary of what your Grandma always thought it was.
Suddenly everyone is good in his own way, and we must admire all of them because the Pope, in his vast mercy, either promotes or does not criticise them. Other religions, heresies, no religion at all. If one follows his conscience, who is he to judge?
We now know of another way.
The Council in Rome decides to dedicate a square to Martin Luther.
Jimmy Carter is, as most of you know, pretty much about to meet his Maker. Or not, as the case may be.
I will, here, charitably shut up about his disastrous Presidency, the like of which we could witness again only if some U.S. Born Bergoglio became President of the Unites States. I will focus instead on Mr Carter utterly and completely satanical “view” of Christianity, and on the probable consequences for him if we were to die as stupidly as he has always lived.
Christianity has one clear mark, that was its distinctive trait from the start: it never allowed anyone to cook his own homemade Christian soup. You are told what Christianity teaches, and you have no excuses for believing something different from it. If you do, you can't hide behind your finger stating that you are oh so pious, and in such good faith. You aren't, and you aren't. All the rest is poppycock. Therefore, if you state that Jesus would approve of so-called “gay marriage” you are an enemy of Christ whatever your disgusting show of pretend Christian piety; and you will not fool anyone, least of all Christ.
In the case of our own US Jimmy Dismal, the following applies:
1. There is no doubt whatever Christianity was brought to the man.
2. He defies Christianity openly.
3. He does so, inter alia, in a matter concerning natural law.
4. He dares to proclaim his scandal publicly.
5. He dares to call his scandal ” Christian”.
Please do not even start to say that the poor man has been badly advised, or has forgotten, or had a sad childhood, or has eaten too many peanuts, or is too stupid to understand anything. Jimmy Carter is undoubtedly an idiot, but not of the retarded type. Rather, he is an idiot like Francis is an idiot: so much a prisoner of his arrogance that he thinks he can challenge God and get away with it. He is a fool, not a demented person.
Plus (and that would be number 3) sodomy is, like all perverted acts, against natural law. Even a heathen would not have any justification for stating that Our Lord would approve of so-called “gay marriage”. But when one makes such statement who perfectly well knows why Sodomy is called that way I see satanical arrogance at work.
Jimmy Carter is about to meet His maker as an openly satanical caricature of Christianity, blaspheming the name of the Lord in ways that no generation before this one would have tolerated since the West became Christian. What to do, then?
We should pray for his eternal soul, of course; because idiot as he is, his soul has infinite value in the eyes of the Lord. But we should also very drily reflect what is very probably going to happen to the man if he dies unrepentant; because whilst we can never know with ultimate certainty, a Christian isn't supposed to be so incurably stupid as to think that a tool like Jimmy Carter is not looking for damnation with the outmost zeal. Those who do so ignore the very stern warning of our Lord about keeping His commandments exactly as Carter ignores the stern warning God gave to us when Sodom was destroyed.
I invite you once again to overcome your natural and perfectly justified sense of aversion, disgust and sheer contempt for the man, and to pray for his immortal soul; then we are Christians, and we pray even for the enemies of Christ, that they may die in friendship with Him. But don't be surprised if you also shiver at the idea of how the man, and very many like him, have been deceived by Satan to this point of sheer blind arrogance, of hypocritical total revolt.
Make no mistake: no one can call himself a friend of Christ who spits on his face as Carter does, all the while claiming to be on his side.
Pray for him, then.
This, my dear readers, is one of the rare occasion when I link to a (quality) Sedevacantist site. I do not need to repeat here (but I do it anyway) that Sedevacantism is wrong, you might endanger your soul if you follow it, and I will continue to delete any comment even vaguely smelling of Sedevacantism, because in this blog we prefer to deal with reality – however unpleasant – rather than fabricating a reality of our own for our own reassurance.
Capito? Very well..
The article merits the very rare honour of a mention on this blog because of its very extensive, and very catholic explanation of what a Catholic is supposed to do or not do in time of heresy or emergency, or when the enemy tries to strike at the foundation of Truth.
I leave you to read for yourself the parts concerning:
- the “uncharitable” words of Our Lords. Words which, if written today in a catholic blog, would attract all kind of accusations of being uncharitable, inflammatory, and utterly counterproductive.
- the distinction between right criticism and contumely, a concept utterly lost in the Patheos-like blogosphere.
- further proof of “uncharitable” words from the Old testament.
- The necessary requirement that the accusations be truthful.
After you have perused the first parts, I will attract your attention on the last one: the retaliation ad hominem in the face of enemy attack.
Here, I leave the word to the author, Father Felix Sarda Y Salvani. I liked the emphases, and kept them.
CHAPTER 21 Personal Polemics and Liberalism
“It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines” some may say, “but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?” We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.
The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads, they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust into the background. We have reason–and substantial reason–on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased.
The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate of themselves. Left to themselves–if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them–they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective, when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them, the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would not be common sense.
The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their bands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat [“out of the fight”], he can do no more mischief.
It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an “i'” As a French writer says: “Truth is the only charity allowed in history,” and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.
The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal–a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.
Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.
A disease is inseparable from the person of the diseased. Francis is an Evil Clown because he is a heretic and enemy of the Church, and for no other reason. I don’t know the man. As far as I know he could have died in Buenos Aires without myself and countless bloggers even becoming more than vaguely aware of his existence. But I know the heretic. Now that is the problem.
Very often, says the author, it is indispensable and meritorious before God and men to attack those who uphold error. I suggest that one reflects ten thousand times before doing so with a Pope. But I also suggest that he reflects, with the same intellectual honesty and fear of the Lord, whether the heresy upheld by the very pope does not make the pope infinitely more worthy of personal attack and mockery than anyone else. Then at some point you will have to decide what is more important to you, Christ or Francis; and in front of such unprecedented attack I do not think Christ will look very mildly on you if you think you can sit on the fence and content yourself with “on the one hand” and “on the other hand”.
The situation of a pope constantly and publicly attacking the faith is unprecedented. Un.pre.ce.den.ted. Christ and His Truth are always the same. Choose this day to Whom your allegiance goes, and do not think being a pansy will bring you anywhere. Christ did not come bringing pansies. He came with a sword.
We must inspire contempt and horror in the heart of the multitude. The multitudes aren’t very impressed if you write that, with all due respect, you think that the words of the Holy Father have been, perhaps, and how shall you put it, a tad imprudent. This is going to go exactly nowhere, though it might make you feel better in the moment.
The reader must have the reality smashed in front of his face. Contempt and horror. That’s the way.
It is not enough to criticise the cannon. The gunner must go down. If you can look at the last two and a half year and not understand who the Chief Gunner is, I smell reprobation in you. Amazingly, an army of bloggers very well know who the Chief Gunner is. But they think they are fine with writing that the cannon is very bad, but the “holy” gunner is probably just badly advised, and they are sure he is the holiest of men.
Is it permissible, then, to aim at the gunner?
“Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach”.
Amen. Read it again. And again. What shall we do: look at heresy advance and oppose our polite disagreement?
“When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war”.
Look! A man! Not one of those polite pansies of the “I wish our dear pope Francis would talk less to the journalists” sort.
We are in the middle of a war against heresy, in which the Pope sides with the heretics and leads their army. The sooner you get this, the sooner the huge cognitive dissonance in your brain will dissolve and make place for a clear understanding of reality.
Reality is shouting at us in the face. It says that there obviously is a Pope, and that this Pope is a heretic (as happened in the past already). What is different today is that the Pope’s heresies travel around the word in hours, and they basically never stop coming in one form or another. Today’s papal heresy is more dangerous than any heresy of the past, with the possible exception of the Arian one. Today’s heresy is both far more pervasive and far more insisted than the ones of the past. It is also more dangerous, because whilst the man will never fool a properly instructed – or even serious and sincere – Catholic, he will create a cultural ripple effect that will spread very wide, and countless atheists or indifferent people will take it as a matter of simple truth that the church “changes” and wants to “steer a new course” on adultery, fornication, sodomy & Co, like any political party or protestant sect. This equates to neutering the message of the Church for everyone who does not know it already. It’s the perfect de-evangelisation tool. Satan at work all right.
Look at reality. Realise that you cannot shape your own world at your own liking. Face the reality of an Evil Clown as Pope.
And then take your sword and your rosary, and fight as bravely as you can.
You don’t want to die and say: “I wanted to be polite”. You want to die and say: “I saw the evil, and I called it with its name”.
Let the sword wound mortally.
Athanasius was excommunicated. He continued his job, uncaring. More than that – and something I seldom read about – he and St. Eusebius started appointing bishops of their own, again ignoring the Pope. The bishops they appointed – and I read about that seldom, too – were not bishop without territorial jurisdiction, like the SSPX one. They were bishops in charge of a diocese all right. Nor can it be said that in that world of difficult communications the Pope might not have had control of certain territories. Firstly, it is poppycock (communications in the Roman Empire were, like all the rest, stunningly efficient), secondly it is neither here nor there, because the fact remains that Athanasius and Eusebius clearly appointed those bishops without caring a bit of what the Pope thought about it. He could approve them if he wanted to. If he did not like them, though luck.
To make a modern comparison, it is as if the SSPX appointed the new archbishop of Chicago without either asking or caring for what Francis says, and the Catholic faithful of Chicago accepted this appointment as a matter of course, fully uncaring of Francis' more or less sensible thought on the matter.
Let us, then, now pose the “Athanasius question”: did those Bishops have jurisdiction? Could they hear confession, administer the Last Rites, marry their sheep? And could the priests appointed by them do the same?
If yes, why? If not, why not?
It is very tricky, the Athanasius question. There is no doubt whatever Athanasius was a Lefebvre on steroids. There is also no doubt there was no precedent for the situation in which Athanasius found himself, whilst the SSPX has the shining example and illuminating precedent of… Athanasius. We know as a fact that Athanasius refused to obey to the point of incurring excommunication, did not recant after receiving it, appointed bishops of his own, and really did not care what Patheos would have said.
Therefore, if you follow modern mainstream V II conservatism Athanasius and his brave men had no jurisdiction, those sacraments were not valid, etc. If, however, we accept the principle that when those at the top behave like heretics the tough Catholics begin to play then we must apply the same reasoning to the 100%, 2k years-certified SSPX.
There is no doubt in my mind that the second applies. Every now and then, the Church loses her mind from the very top. It is then the task of a handful of very tough Catholics to simply keep doing what they have always done, safe in the certainty of their orthodoxy because… they do what Catholics have always done. There is no better guarantee of orthodoxy, and no better litmus test of Catholicism.
Athanasius did not know when sanity would come back. Nor did he ever care. He kept doing the Catholic thing and if the entire world derides him, so be it. Athanasius knew he might have to die in the middle of rampant, apparently triumphant heresy. He did not care for that, either.
Truth is truth. How many people refuse to follow the truth is ultimately irrelevant. If the Pope sabotages the truth, then he will be punished more harshly unless he repents, but sabotage it still is.
Truth is truth. It does not depend of from the rank of those who spread lies.
So: Athanasius disobeyed to the Pope. What say you? Athanasius appointed bishops, and bishops with territorial competence, fully ignoring the Pope. Schism? Athanasius decided to disobey and to die, if needs be, excommunicated for being (far) more Catholic than the Pope. What is the difference with Archbishop Lefebvre?
Why, why all those semi-conservative legalists apply all their clerical rigidity to Archbishop Lefebvre, and forget all of it when they speak of Athanasius? Was Athanasius schismatic in the moment, and Catholic only after victory? Or was he, as logic commands, 100% Catholic all the time?
The Athanasius question cannot be easily avoided. It stares at us straight in the face every time we compare Athanasius' “disobedience” to Lefebvre's. It has no other answer than this: no heresy can be acceptable because it's promoted or protected or encouraged from the very Pope, and those who defend orthodoxy are right even when the pope excommunicates them.
In times of great turmoil, God sends us great men.
Thank God for Athanasius, and for Archbishop Lefebvre.
So, should we attend a SSPX Mass? Most people (even conservative ones) say “no”. Other people say “of course”. I personally say “by all means, but paying attention it does not lead you culpably go down the wrong path”.
The short, but already meaningful history of this little effort shows than not a few are the cases of people who start attending a TLM – which can easily be in a SSPX chapel – and after a while throw away the child with the bath water and become either Sedevacantists or so venomous against the Church that one does not understand what their understanding of Catholicism is.
I cannot – in the same way as Bishop Schneider – detect any area in which the SSPX are not Catholic. It is, therefore, a mystery to me how this previously unknown concept of “imperfect communion” may work. The SSPX are as Catholic as they come, and infinitely more Catholic than the Pope – as every good Catholic is, by the way – and they merely refuse obedience to the pope on matters in which a sound Catholic has always been entitled to refuse obedience. You can't be half pregnant, and you can't be in imperfect communion. Most of all, you can't be something that never existed before, and the fruit of a verbal gymnastics invented after V II to describe someone who does not want to give in to Neo-Modernism (or outright Modernism) when the hierarchy in Rome does just that.
By all means, go to a SSPX mass if you can. Only pay attention, if you want my advice, that this does not create in you a siege mentality, according to which only a little moat separates the SSPX from the Whore of Babylon.
I find it a useful experience to also attend at NO Mass. It teaches me obedience. It tells me that the Church is my mother even when she nourishes me badly, and at times seems to hate me. It helps me to avoid the moat thinking, and the siege obsession. It reminds me that horrible as her state may be, this organisation that celebrates these NO Masses all over the world is, in fact, the Only Church; and I prefer to bring this kind of sacrifice as a penance rather than run the risk of slowly persuading myself I am too good for the Mass the Church gives me.
By all means, attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel. But do not think that there are too churches, of which the Vatican is the wrong one. There is only one Church, and he who does not see that the SSPX is 100% part of it probably cannot be helped anymore.
And it came to pass Bishop Schneider gave a wonderful interview to the Spanish version of Rorate Caeli, stating that the SSPX are not in any schism whatsoever, praising their orthodoxy and wishing that they were brought again (I use Vatican terminology here) in “full communion”. Your humble correspondent reported.
After which, Michael Voris embarrassed himself once again with a series of “improvements” of the Bishop's thoughts. The manipulations and misrepresentations were painful to behold. Your humble correspondent ignored them, and so should you. Spend your time on Rorate, not on Voris' outlet.
Now Bishop Schneider has addressed Michael Voris with a very dry clarification on Voris' misrepresentation of his interview. There are no open criticisms and no emotional tones in the Bishop's answers, but as they say, intelligenti pauca.
Now, if Voris were one of the many wannabe “c”atholic incompetent hacks who go around writing rubbish about Catholicism (or about me) I would, life being too short for hacks, simply ignore the whole thing. But the problem here is that Voris is – and there is no doubt about this in my mind – a good and sincere Catholic soul who has been led on the wrong path, if you ask me, on three issues: the matter of criticism of the Pope, the position of the SSPX, and the shameful attacks to great Catholic writers – and true Catholic men – like Vennari, Ferrara, Matt, and Verrecchio. A great shame, because the man has heart and talent, and he is wasting his credibility away.
I understand Voris has his set opinions on a couple of matters, as I have mine. Reasonable people will also be able to disagree in matters that have no sure answer in the history of the Church. The situation of the SSPX (sidelined for being pure Catholics as the Vatican smears itself with Protestant thinking) and of the actual papacy (too atrocious for words, and absolutely unprecedented in 2,000 years of Church history) are two rather obvious points in case. But when Voris looks at the matter coolly, he will see that he has misrepresented a bishop in a way that moved this bishop to correct him in a very decided way. All this, because his emotional investment in the jihad against the SSPX has now gone out of control, and the man just can't think straight whenever the issue is touched.
I wish Voris would stop embarrassing himself, and free himself from the influence of horrible priests and misleading, if very probably good intentioned, donors. If an interview of a bishop goes against his grain he can, in my eyes, do one of the two: openly criticise the bishop, or simply ignore the matter. He does the first all the time with the other bishops, and he does the second all the time with the pope. Therefore, it should not have been too difficult.
A great pity. We have a very sincere Catholic soul here, misled by people he should do without.
Father Z informs us that a new book, authored by eleven Cardinals, is about to be published. The book aims at combating the “protestantisation of the Church”. I can imagine that the matter of communion for adulterers will have a prominent space, but it is clear that this book deals with a more general topic, and it is meant to help recovering authentic Catholicism at least in matters of Catholic morals as opposed to this “inclusion” madness, but hopefully also dealing with issues concerning the liturgy, the other sacraments like Confession, and the Catholic life.
More in general, though, this book clearly has its gun sight aimed straight at one person: Francis. It is obviously published in preparation to the Synod, and the defence of Catholicism on a broad front cannot but be another implicit, but clear demonstration of growing restlessness at the broad attack that Francis has launched against the Church in the way it thinks, operates and prays.
I do not remember books authored by multiple Cardinals as a Church tradition. We now have two in a little more than one year. Whatever anyone should tell you about this being about the rediscovery of Catholicism etc, this can only have one aim: to present a solid wall of Orthodoxy to Francis and his army.
Not coincidentally, the same article reports that another book is in preparation, exclusively authored by African Bishops and Cardinals. This will be fun, too.
Francis has clearly decided to launch a Big Heretical Offensive in October, which is why the blog post on the Rape of the Church is still pinned at the top of this blog. But he must know that he will never prevail, and will have either to abandon his satanical plans or to push forward towards a nuclear conflict from which he will, even if he survives it as pope, never recover.
Perhaps nothing of this will happen. Perhaps Francis will die before the Synod begins. Perhaps he has already decided blabla is good enough for him, and he will use the upcoming Year Of False Mercy to spread more heretical practice and thinking without an open confrontation. We don't know.
But there are more and more people who are sending clear signals that they will not shun the fight, however painful.
Let us pray for the Cardinals and Bishops who do their job and speak out for Truth. And let us hope we will soon have a new Pope, who thinks and act like a Catholic instead of like a socially envious, not very intelligent Castroite.
I do not know if he is the only one who has noticed this, but I have it from Vox Cantoris: an astonishing tweet of Cardinal Maradiaga stating that:
Vox Cantoris charitably wonders whether the man’s account has been hacked. More realistically, I think the man is just being his usual heretic self.
Read the tweet again.
The man flatly denies the possibility of damnation. Your pastoral accompaniment is “authentic” (that is: not characterised by the “exclusion” typical of the “rigorists”) if the pastor 1) always walks with the person and 2) knows that whatever road the person chooses, it will lead to heaven.
This clearly is a new religion, which aims at taking the place of Christianity.
Christianity very clearly poses boundaries to the “walking with the sinner”. The sinner is invited to repent; he is welcome as a repentant sinner anytime; but he is not allowed to participate in full to the sacramental life of the Church in the same way as the one who is not in grave and open, scandalous rebellion to God. For our religion, the pastor is not one who “accompanies”. He is one who – as the name says – leads the sheep. In Maradiaga’s world there is no place for a shepherd, merely for a lady-in-waiting. There is no need to lead any sheep safely to the sheepfold, because there are no ditches or ravines where they might fall, and no wolves wanting to devour them.
The pastor who “always accompanies” is totally useless as a pastor. He proclaim his own superfluity. Every friend can “accompany” one. Actually, someone who is an accomplice in the sins of his friend will do exactly that which Maradiaga praises as so pastoral: “always walk with the person”. For this pathetic excuse of a priest, being pastoral means being the contrary of being a pastor. This is satanical. Satanical.
Then there is the second bomb. The second bomb is bigger because so openly heretical, but the two are closely intertwined because you could never understand the second part of this heretical statement without the first or describe the first without hinting at the second.
In the world of Maradiaga, High Priest Of Satan, the only possible outcome is heaven. This must be so, in order for Maradiaga to justify his transformation from pastor (who leads) to lady-in-waiting (who accompanies). If the man admitted any possibility of hell – that is: of the existence of ditches, ravines, and wolves – he would as a consequence have to admit the necessity of being a pastor, that is: of leading the sheep, telling them where to go, using the rod and the staff to make them go where he wants.
Hell is denied. Satan is believed if not exactly non-existent as an entity, certainly unable to do any damage to anyone of us in concrete. This is exactly what Satan wants, and this is exactly what Maradiaga also wants.
The man should be exorcised.
After being defrocked, of course.
Today is, as every Brit knows, VJ, Victory over Japan day; and as this is a round anniversary, the pomp and rhetoric will be commensurate to the occasion.
What no one seems to ask is how all the soldiers who gave their life for their Fatherland would have felt in knowing that, merely two generations from their sacrifice, not only the Empire would have been lost, but the Country for which they gave their lives would have become worse than heathenish, positively recognising and actively supporting sexual perversion.
Seventy years later the United Kingdom is a Country where perverts can not only contract “civil partnerships” (utterly satanic), or “marry” (the same), but even adopt children (the same, but please add the heightened danger of child abuse).
Would those soldiers have died for a Country like this? Could they have even imagined that things would have reached such a level of moral decay and sexual perversion only decades after their sacrifice?
Today, a Country still wallowing in the feeling of a past greatness, and long downgraded to middle-class regional power with no world policy of its own (whatever influence they still had at least in the Middle East obviously gone since the Gulf War, and I wonder how much was left of that even then), has betrayed not only its own past greatness, but the very Christian foundation – wrong, because Protestant; but Christian nevertheless – of that greatness. The result is unprecedented faggotry flaunted like it’s the latest fashion (another thing faggots clearly like), and made a banner of the new United Kingdom of Sodom and Gomorrha.
Today, this Country has nothing to celebrate. Today, this Country ought to be ashamed, and start a serious reflection on where Satan has been leading it for now many years.
Don’t hold your breath. Prepare for the rhetoric of peace and inclusiveness. Prepare to see Sodom and Gomorrah celebrated as a development of the victory obtained with the blood of soldiers who would have been horrified at what is happening today.
Britain, you won on the battlefield against Germany and Japan. But not only this cost you the Empire, as Hitler in the end broke your spine and your ability to suffer for the sake of something bigger than individual happiness. No, it cost you your soul, as you have started then – and continued to this day – to betray Christian values for the sake of material comfort and a life lived in the immature, ultimately stupid quest of a personal self-fulfillment that can be found only in God.
The Country that only a few years before VJ day had vowed, at one with its brave leader, never to surrender, and to defend their island, whatever the cost may be, must now recognise that Satan has swallowed their island whole, and that they have surrendered to an ideology made of sexual perversion, indifference or open enmity to all that is sacred, and proud of it like Churchill was proud of the Empire.
VJ should be a day of somber reflection, and firm desire to change the Country’s way.
Exactly the contrary will happen.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
A painfully beautiful blog post addresses the issue that it in our suffering hearts in these disgraceful times.
Where does it end?
Will Francis kiss a Trannie in the mouth one day? Will he give him a dildo as a birthday present because “Jesus would have wanted to let him feel included?” Will he dance in a tutu in St Peter’s Square? Will he promote the beatification cause of Saul Alinsky?
I do not know where it does end. I know that it will end when the Lord decides that we have been punished enough, and when our yearning for things as they were leads us to reject the abominations of FrancisChurch.
But even in these times, and most of all in these times, we must keep in mind that it is not for us to question at which point the Church is not the Church anymore, because there is…
View original 221 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I have been kindly directed to an excellent blog post written from Ann Barnhardt; this post concerns on the one hand the similarities between Francis and Obama and on the other hand – and far more importantly – the similarities between the way Francis cajoles the stupid masses and the way Satan tried to tempt Our Lord.
The similarity between the two main populists of our time has been already stressed on this blog several times. The second part hasn’t, and I invite you to take the time to read this long but beautifully written post to become aware of what is going on with this unspeakable Pontificate.
As always, Barnhardt does not mince words: for example, speaking of of Obama and the Unholy Father she writes:
“They are both stupid, babbling fools, completely incoherent when…
View original 147 more words
RT reports (yes, I know; no, I don't care) about the Spanish corrida organiser who dared to state that it is harmful for a child to be exposed to sexual perversion.
Predictably, the homo Mafia was all in a tizzy. But the way it happened is why I write this blog post.
If you displease the Gaystapo, they will immediately go after your livelihood. In this case, the call was immediately made for a man guilty of such a criminally sane thinking to not get public structures for his corridas, which certainly equates to severely damage, and probably destroy, his activity. The poor chap had to apologise to those who were offended by his words.
This is how it works in once Christian Europe. The most obvious banality is now a crime against the God of Sodomy, and everyone who dares to make a remark against the new satanical deity is threatened with economic destruction.
Our democracies are becoming a farce. Our freedoms are becoming a joke. A bunch of fags and their liberal friends decide what you can and cannot say. The populace (stupid and easy to manipulate, like the populace always is) is fast asleep and cannot see the danger, nay, the persecution already in place.
Meanwhile, the Pope complains about air conditioners.