Blog Archives

Liar, Cheating Francis Tries It Again

Photo-20161021122235731.jpg

See? I have answered the Dubia! Only…. I haven’t!

 

I had to smile when I read about the Chilean Bishops reporting that Francis has expressed himself, oh so clearly, about his being against the very same abomination and sacrilege he has relentlessly pushed during his disgraceful Pontificate. 

Mind, I do not doubt for a second that Francis has really spoken in the way indicated by the Bishops. What is also certain, though, is the following:

Firstly, even my cat knows that Francis is a damn Jesuit who says everything he thinks may profit him for the moment.  

Secondly, this one here is a cunning rascal and a liar on steroids. Remember: “Soon, soon!”??

Thirdly, when a Pope is asked to officially answer some Dubia the only thing he has to do is to officially answer them, or have them answered by someone to whom he has given authority to do so. Rumours, reported speeches and “my cousin heard him say” are absolutely nowhere.

So no, if Francis thinks he can pull himself out of a difficult situation by trying to let us believe that he answered the Dubia without doing it he had better think again.

Liar. Coward. Jesuit.

And stupid. 

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 302 & 303

Guido_Reni_031 (1)

 

The text of 302 (emphases always mine)

302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved. On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

This paragraph is the priming of a bomb about to explode. Francis starts from something already mentioned in the Catechism of JP II, and always known in Church doctrine: we aren’t Jews, who consider a behaviour only in its external manifestation, without consideration for the subjective element. We also know, and have always known, how these situations apply: the eight years old child who steals from the cookie jar is a different situation from the eighteen years old who steals scooters, and the like. The suicide in a sudden raptus of madness is difference than the suicide deliberate and planned, and so on. We all know this, it has always been that way, each one of you can bring infinite examples. 

This is also why the statements in that sense of the October Relatio were – and are – not problematic. They are in line with what the Church has always said. There’s nothing new or worrying here.  

However, this has never applied to the situation of objective scandal and mortal sin. For these, the answer given by the Church has always been the one given by JP II. With the important difference that I very much doubt that in, say, 1898, the “living like brothers and sisters” idea would have found many friends. But then again it is always that way: you start by conceding a finger, at some point the entire hand goes.

Francis here takes a general principle that applies in limited circumstances and extends it – and this is a novelty and subversion of established truth, which in common parlance is rightly called heresy – to situations to which these principles have never applied. I have written about this in the linked article, so you can read it again if you like. 

Francis closes this primer with another subtly subversive statement: that pastoral discernment in these situation must take into account a person’s properly formed conscience.  

This is an exercise in Jesuit hypocrisy. If the conscience of a person is properly formed there can be no discussion at all: he knows that he is in adultery, public scandal, and mortal sin.  There can be no other pastoral work than to say to this man “pack you things NOW!”. What the Evil Clown here means is that the priest must consider what the distorted, hypocritical, self-righteous “conscience” of the adulterer tells him. How do I know this? because it is the only way how what follows makes any sense. If, as already stated, the conscience is properly formed, there can be no discussion at all, and the only “pastoral” exercise can be a reiteration of why what can’t be can never, ever be. 

The bomb, now primed, is ready to explode.  Enter paragraph 303:  

303. Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.

Heretical bullshit like this would, in Christian past, have deserved its author the stake.

Read it carefully. Francis has already said that the “properly formed conscience” must guide the adulterer’s action, but it was immediately obvious that a properly formed conscience has no need at all for discussion, because it knows that truth isn’t there for discussion. Therefore, he now examines how to deal with your typical unrepentant adulterer. What follows is an open support for the heresy of Kasper, and this happens in the most brutal of ways:

*for now* this is the most the adulterers can do

*God Himself* asks them not to do more (not only heresy! Blasphemy, too!!)

The adulterous situation is downplayed to *not the objective ideal*

I see here more than a hint to what is called “situation ethics”: what appears bad can actually be good given the circumstances. The mother and wife can consent to sex with the prison guard in order to be let go and go back to her husband and children, and such like. The Church has always condemned such thinking, refusing any kind of “lesser evil” (much less, making of the evil anything “good”) and stating that evil is not committed, period.

Even V II Popes (before Francis) clearly saw this and defended it robustly. From Veritatis Splendor, paragraph 72:

72. The morality of acts is defined by the relationship of man’s freedom with the authentic good. This good is established, as the eternal law, by Divine Wisdom which orders every being towards its end: this eternal law is known both by man’s natural reason (hence it is “natural law”), and — in an integral and perfect way — by God’s supernatural Revelation (hence it is called “divine law”). Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man’s true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme good in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness.

[….]

The rational ordering of the human act to the good in its truth and the voluntary pursuit of that good, known by reason, constitute morality. Hence human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good.122 Activity is morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason. If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.

There you have it, in very clear words. And mind, it is not that JP II is making some difficult, little-known, sophisticated argument here. This is confirmation stuff. Francis throws everything out of the window, and profoundly subverts the very basis of Catholic thinking. 

Let me say it once again: in our Christian past, such rubbish would have led its proponent to die at the stake.

This is heresy and blasphemy in the most open form imaginable. There is nothing ambiguous in this. This is pure poison. It is not enough for our shepherds to ignore this fetid words. They must condemn them. 

Heresy! Blasphemy! Where are our shepherds?

M

 

  

 

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 301

St.-Michael-the-Archangel2

 

The text (emphases mine). 

Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

—-

“Irregular” situation. “Irregular” is written in inverted commas. These people are afraid even of the word “irregular”. Hey, who are they to judge? 

Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Huge heretical bomb. The reason why adulterers are forbidden communion is exactly because they are in mortal sin. It is not only the sexual behaviour they put in place between the sheets (which might not be there; he could be an impotent ass, and she a frigid bitch), but the scandal they give that makes the mortal sin. There is no way any cat, dog or evil Pope can get around this.

Even Pope JP II – specialist of doctrinal slalom, capital punishment saboteur and allower of pagan deities on Catholic altars – saw this very clearly. Read what he writes in paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

See? There are facts which are in objective contradiction to receiving communion, because they are contrary to everything Communion is and represents. The adulterous couple’s “feeling” and “discernment” are neither here nor there. Facts are facts. Catholics do not let feelings get in the way of facts. 

Also note how the writing is heretical in itself. It was said. It can no longer be said. Truth has changed. 

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Another huge heretical bomb. Basically, this amounts to the abolition of mortal sin for everyone but satanists. Every prostitute, drug dealer, and child rapist can easily claim that he has great difficulties in understanding the “inherent values” of rules that go against what he really, really wants to do. Everyone can say that he “cannot act differently”. Everyone can say that he cannot decide otherwise “without further sin” (“the impulse to rape children is too strong. I could commit suicide if I were to attempt to let it go. I am already so depressed!”. “I cannot but be a prostitute! If I were to stop, my child would die on the street! On the street!! How is that not a sin!?).

Besides, I have never heard that the standard for a mortal sin would be so high as to require the grasping of the religious and philosophical edifice behind them. The commandments are not explained. They are commanded. They were and are made to be grasped by simple people: peasants, factory workers, domestic servants. No intellectual prowess was ever required, and the lack of it never excused the sinner. These are the commandments. That’s it. Are you retarded? No? Then you know what they mean, period. 

——

As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

Of course they did. Of course they may. But again, no Pope in the history of Catholicism had the effrontery of extending this obvious consideration to situations of objective scandal and clear mortal sin. See the above mentioned quote from Familiaris Consortio again. Francis, in his satanical hypocrisy, quotes in the notes the very same Familiaris Consortio, but blatantly ignores the very cornerstone of Pope JP II’s reasoning in the matter. 

—-

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Oh, the effrontery! Saint Thomas Aquinas would have had Francis deposed as a heretic and burned at the stake. That the Evil Clown even dares to mention his name, and tries to take him as hostage for his heresy, is beyond contemptible. 

Besides, the argument is stupid in itself. What St Thomas said does not mean in any way, shape or form that a public adulterer may have some form of grace, but be unable to exercise them well. The argument just does not follow. On the contrary, Saint Thomas Aquinas would have stated without hesitation that a soul in mortal sin is a soul dead to grace. This idea of the public adulterer has some grace that he can’t extract from his pocket is just stupid. 

Let us see what even JP II’s mediocre catechism says (1855 and 1861):

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him….

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 

All this is turned on its head by Francis atheist, Jesuitical rambling. This is pure heresy. It is the attempt to wash the character of mortal sin from basically all mortal sins bar those committed by the most evil among evil people.

———

Paragraph 301 is obviously heretical in several ways. It attacks the very heart of Christian morality. It tries to subvert Catholicism at its very roots. 

Saint Michal the Archangel, defend us in battle! 

M

 

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 301

St.-Michael-the-Archangel2

 

The text (emphases mine). 

Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

—-

“Irregular” situation. “Irregular” is written in inverted commas. These people are afraid even of the word “irregular”. Hey, who are they to judge? 

Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Huge heretical bomb. The reason why adulterers are forbidden communion is exactly because they are in mortal sin. It is not only the sexual behaviour they put in place between the sheets (which might not be there; he could be an impotent ass, and she a frigid bitch), but the scandal they give that makes the mortal sin. There is no way any cat, dog or evil Pope can get around this.

Even Pope JP II – specialist of doctrinal slalom, capital punishment saboteur and allower of pagan deities on Catholic altars – saw this very clearly. Read what he writes in paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

See? There are facts which are in objective contradiction to receiving communion, because they are contrary to everything Communion is and represents. The adulterous couple’s “feeling” and “discernment” are neither here nor there. Facts are facts. Catholics do not let feelings get in the way of facts. 

Also note how the writing is heretical in itself. It was said. It can no longer be said. Truth has changed. 

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Another huge heretical bomb. Basically, this amounts to the abolition of mortal sin for everyone but satanists. Every prostitute, drug dealer, and child rapist can easily claim that he has great difficulties in understanding the “inherent values” of rules that go against what he really, really wants to do. Everyone can say that he “cannot act differently”. Everyone can say that he cannot decide otherwise “without further sin” (“the impulse to rape children is too strong. I could commit suicide if I were to attempt to let it go. I am already so depressed!”. “I cannot but be a prostitute! If I were to stop, my child would die on the street! On the street!! How is that not a sin!?).

Besides, I have never heard that the standard for a mortal sin would be so high as to require the grasping of the religious and philosophical edifice behind them. The commandments are not explained. They are commanded. They were and are made to be grasped by simple people: peasants, factory workers, domestic servants. No intellectual prowess was ever required, and the lack of it never excused the sinner. These are the commandments. That’s it. Are you retarded? No? Then you know what they mean, period. 

——

As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

Of course they did. Of course they may. But again, no Pope in the history of Catholicism had the effrontery of extending this obvious consideration to situations of objective scandal and clear mortal sin. See the above mentioned quote from Familiaris Consortio again. Francis, in his satanical hypocrisy, quotes in the notes the very same Familiaris Consortio, but blatantly ignores the very cornerstone of Pope JP II’s reasoning in the matter. 

—-

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Oh, the effrontery! Saint Thomas Aquinas would have had Francis deposed as a heretic and burned at the stake. That the Evil Clown even dares to mention his name, and tries to take him as hostage for his heresy, is beyond contemptible. 

Besides, the argument is stupid in itself. What St Thomas said does not mean in any way, shape or form that a public adulterer may have some form of grace, but be unable to exercise them well. The argument just does not follow. On the contrary, Saint Thomas Aquinas would have stated without hesitation that a soul in mortal sin is a soul dead to grace. This idea of the public adulterer has some grace that he can’t extract from his pocket is just stupid. 

Let us see what even JP II’s mediocre catechism says (1855 and 1861):

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him….

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 

All this is turned on its head by Francis atheist, Jesuitical rambling. This is pure heresy. It is the attempt to wash the character of mortal sin from basically all mortal sins bar those committed by the most evil among evil people.

———

Paragraph 301 is obviously heretical in several ways. It attacks the very heart of Christian morality. It tries to subvert Catholicism at its very roots. 

Saint Michal the Archangel, defend us in battle! 

M

 

 

 

Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 291-295 & 297

 

 

 

St_Michael_Raphael

 

 

With Paragraphs 291 to 295 we are in the part of the Apostolic Excrementation where Francis looks at those shacking up and those in not sacramental marriage (which is shacking up, too; only of a more institutionalised sort) from a Presbyterian/Anglican perspective and, like them, tries to be hip, cool, and “relevant”.

Several justifications are made for public sinners, and there is no evidence of Francis feeling that they are, in fact, living in mortal sin and endangering their salvation. On the contrary, the man approves of “commitment” and blabla, again looking at the “relationship” from a purely secular perspective. The paragraphs from 293 on (“gradualness” in pastoral care) are all inspired by the same sentiment: these good men and women are not in danger of hell. Perish the thought! Look at our committed those public sinners are! Who are we to judge?  

This is, of course, heretical mentality through and through. Denial of Christ and his laws. Willful, insisted, burying of Christian morality under a wave of easy, fully secular emotionalism. The language matches the mentality: nothing is condemned, and every mortal sin is an “imperfection” of people who really, really care, but just don’t know it or, you know, can’t spend the money for a church marriage because the great party with 200 people invited comes before the sacrament. Already the fact that “irregular” is always written in inverted commas speaks volumes about the man’s forma mentis.

You can read the paragraphs (if you really want to; not something I am advocating) and immediately become aware of the diffused, ever-present faithlessness that transpires from it. JP II is also abundantly misquoted, abusing him for the edification of a system of systematic avoidance of every sanction, and of every censure, which is the exact contrary of the stated intention of the man (see Familiaris Consortio, par. 84).

—-

The big heretical bomb, however, comes in paragraph 297, where Francis starts by fluffing about in that usual Fag Dalai Lama-way of his, but then piddles outside of the potty-chair in the most tragic of ways, leaving a stinking pool of heresy and blasphemy he insists all the world sees and celebrates:    

297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Satan is speaking to us very clearly here. Francis, his Number One minion on earth, is expressing to us the following concept: 

No one can ever go to hell. Hell is contrary to the logic of the Gospel. And in case you think this only applies to adulterers, well no, hell does not apply to anyone. Christianity is contrary to the logic of the Gospel, you see. 

When has a Pope in the history of Christianity spoken a blasphemy the like of this one!? When has a Pope dared to insult Christ in such a way!?

Any Bishop and Cardinal who does not openly condemn this blasphemous attack to Christ’s Infinite Goodness and Justice is a very obvious, very public accessory, through silence, of this heresy and blasphemy, and if you are a Christian you can have no doubt he will rot in hell unless he repents. Yes, this applies to Burke, Mueller, Brandmueller, Schneider, & Co. 

After this absolute peak of satanical blasphemy, Francis goes on explaining to us how to deal with those who not only live in sin, but even think they are right, Christ is wrong, and say so very publicly around them.

How to deal with them? Simple, says the Evil Clown. Allow them to become part of the community. Make them pray together with the others. Make them do some “good deed”. Confuse the faithful even more by having in their midst open enemies of the Church. Destroy in the faithful any sense of sin by showing them how “good” a person dead to grace is, because he is involved in “social work”. Obliterate any consciousness in them that if one dies in mortal sin, no kind of “good work” will ever save them  from hell. Allow the bad apple to corrupt the good ones every day of their lives! No one must remain out. No matter how much they are in open enmity with Christ, there will always be some way of inflicting them on the faithful Catholic, that they may be corrupted buy the faithless, the adulterers, the dissenters of all kind!

When Francis opens his mouth, Satan speaks.

There is only way to understand Francis:

Reading Francis through Satan

M  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Popemakers’ Remorse, Or: The Boomerang Papacy

12-kitten

The twelve Cardinals were available for a photograph.

Antonio Socci wrote it first, and the English-speaking press echoed it everywhere: it appears a number of Cardinals (a dozen, at least) have contracted a bad case of “buyer’s remorse”. They hope to persuade the Evil Clown to step down and go Obama himself somewhere very far, where he cannot cause any more damage. Not, mind, because they have suddenly discovered orthodoxy. Rather, because even they cannot ignore the huge amount of devastation the stellar incompetence of this man is causing at all levels of Church life.

Well, dear girls, this is what happens when you make Pope a South-American dictator with all the marks of his breed: arrogant, ignorant, fairly stupid, absolutely incompetent, but fully persuaded of his own greatness.  

The fact that Socci wrote this, and many outlets were ready to echo the news, seems to show the rumour is considered credible. However, it does not need a genius to understand that a number of the less corrupted Cardinals have been thinking “what have we done” for a long while now, nor is the lower number floated around (a mere dozen according to the London The Times, whilst the original article of Socci in Italian has the far more robust “gran parte”, “a great part”. This indicates a majority within the original Bergoglio voter block, and also shows The Times might have their own sources) the indication of a major earthquake happening. Truth does not depend on numbers, but I doubt Francis will be much impressed by a dozen of kitten meowing. He might, however, be far more impressed by thirty, or forty, or fifty Cardinals, because they could hurt him badly. 

If they were men, that is, instead of kitten.

Men act. Kitten whisper some meowing in the ear of journalists, because they know they will never have the guts to do anything else. I hope to be proven wrong. I believe I will be proven right. 

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the proof of the Cardinals’ worry for their own salvation and the good of the Church can only be a very public denunciation of both Amoris Laetitia and Pope Francis’ silence about the Dubia. The best indication of how weak and emasculated these people are is exactly the fact that they have all the possibilities to completely destroy Francis’ papacy, and choose to meow with some journalist instead. 

More than five months have passed since Francis received the original letter with the Dubia. The silence of the Cardinals is deafening. Whispering bitchy things in the ears of journalists is no substitute for doing one’s job. The time to act is now. 

I notice here en passant that at least eight of these twelve (very probably more, assuming either that the Four Cardinals have not voted for Bergoglio or that Socci is right and they are way more than a dozen) have not dared to come out publicly in defence of the Dubia. No John Wayne among these, for sure. 

We will see if, by some half-miracle, the Cardinals find the guts to do what absolutely needs to be done. I remain skeptical, and think that things will get much worse (perhaps, for decades) before they get better. For the time being, I would be happy enough if not forty, but four Cardinals found the guts to speak out plainly; but I very much doubt that, too. If they ever speak, my pint is on some more meowing that does not give Francis more than an itch. 

I can picture a dozen of Cardinals very vividly, all dressed in red, hidden like little boys behind one of the huge columns in St Peter as Francis passes by, and whispering to each other that at least one of them should come out and confront the Pope; each one of them explaining to the others in hushed tones why it is not prudent that it should be him; letting Francis go by unchallenged as they whisper; and finally deciding, all together, to go bitch with a journalist instead. 

I have this picture vividly in front of my eyes, and I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

The Church will survive this bunch of cowards.

Whether their soul survives this test is a different matter altogether.  

M   

 

 

 

“It Gives The Feeling Of A Schism”, Plus Bonus Rant.

 

It’s good to watch videos like the one above. They tell you there are still Catholics around. Actually, they tell you there will always be Catholics around. To paraphrase St Athanasius, the heretics may occupy our churches, but we will keep our faith.

—-

In this matter of so-called communion for adulterers, there are a couple of things that always give me a light case of nettle-rash. Not saying they are both happening in this video. I just want to get this out of my system. 

The first is describing the teaching of the Church as if had been created, or at least clearly affirmed for the first time, in Familiaris Consortio. I think I will scream next time I read that Familiaris Consortio is mentioned in this regard. As evidence of what the Church teaches, Familiaris Consortio is neither here nor there. The prohibition of communion for adulterers is based on the constant teaching of the Church, it is based directly on the words of Our Lord and has always been considered part and parcel of the Depositum Fidei. If, therefore, Familiaris Consortio introduced a novelty, then this novelty could be a heresy or a quasi-heresy like several other novelties introduced in V II-times encyclicals. If (as it is most certainly the case) JP II based his very words in Familiaris Consortio on the constant teaching of the Church, then it is this last element that must be constantly stressed, as it is infinitely more decisive than what one of the at times very bad, and at all times more or less questionable, V II encyclicals states.

Let the V II people try to explain everything with documents of the V II era. We should simply ignore them. Everything that is right and has a solid foundation in Catholicism can be explained without mentioning them, and everything that cannot be founded in pre-existing Church teaching is very probably wrong and in any way never to be trusted unconditionally. The only innovation not suspect of heresy or watering down of the faith  introduced by V II I can think of is the invitation to the faithful to denounce heresy. But this is a logical consequence of the rise in education and literacy. Educated laymen were never requested to shut up when confronted with heresy.  

Our (sound) Catholicism is based on what the Church has always believed, not on what JP II (rightly or wrongly) stated. If JP II alone can be the foundation of Church doctrine, than Francis can be it, too.

For this reason (and this is my second nettle-rush trigger), the mention from the man in the video that Francis might, in theory, announce a “change in discipline” is just plain wrong. Discipline cannot contradict doctrine. Therefore,  Francis could never change discipline in such a matter. The only thing he could do is to proclaim heresy. This is something that I would like to see stressed more in the public discourse. Truths are immutable facts that can never be changed by way of “discipline”. They can only be attacked by way of heresy.

We are in a de facto schism, in which the Pope willingly allows cardinal to contradict cardinal and bishop to contradict bishop in matters that every child old enough to know what “adultery” is would understand without any difficulty.

Francis and Satan observe this happening without any meaningful reaction, and laugh.

At least for now. 

 

   

     

 

Time To Call A Heretic A Heretic

 

Photo-20170113124129161.jpg

Cardinal Coccopalmerio (a FrancisCardinal with the t-shirt) has, bizarrely, deserted his own press conference on occasion of the launch of a heretical booklet ‘splainin’ why the Church was wrong for 2,000 years, but heretics like himself and the Evil Clown are right. This is bizarre, but still understandable in view of the barrage of questions the heretical Cardinal clearly did not want to answer.

Even more bizarre, and outright absurd, is the rumour circulated by gay operatives of the Vatican that Coccopalmerio’s press conference would be the way the Pope answers the Dubia. 

Poppycock. 

The Dubia are made exactly so, that either the Pope himself or someone who officially claims to speak for him with his authorisation (say: the head of the CDF stating “the Pope authorises me to answer in the following way”) can be considered a valid answer. What gay operatives in the Vatican allege the statements of a Cardinal should be considered counts exactly zero point zero. If Coccopalmerio is the signatory of an answer explicitly, officially authorised by Francis, then Francis (not Coccopalmerio) has answered. If the man is just spreading heretical statements, his statement cannot count as the Pope’s answer more than any other statement of any other Cardinal not officially qualified by the Pope as the answer to the Dubia.  

We should never allow Francis’ gay Troops to state that (cough) hey, in a way, I mean, you might say, pretty clearly, that Francis has answered (in their sense, of course) when he hasn’t. Nor can Francis call himself out by just not answering. An answer is due and expected, and this answer must come from him. If the Pope refuses to answer, then clearly this silence condemns him and as such he must be condemned by whatever Bishops and Cardinals are still afraid of hell (not many, I gather). But really, what must not happen is that Francis is allowed to get away with having his own faggots stating he has answered without taking the responsibility and doing exactly that.

The Dubia were formulated as they were, and the vehicle of the Dubia itself was chosen, exactly in order not to allow Francis to hide behind interviews without a recorder, third party statements, and interpretations of various kind. He must say yes or no, and this is all there is to it. Including, of course, that his silence condemns him in the most blatant way anyway.

I do not know whether the private warning to the Pope that should precede the official censure has been delivered or not. What I know is that if the Cardinals do not follow through and do not condemn Francis for not answering (meaning here: condemn him for not answering; not simply compare his silence with a reaffirmation of truth coming from themselves) they deserve to be transferred to Guam en bloc (as the rumor has it this is about to happen to Cardinal Burke) and be buried there.

Enough with Popes heretical by silence, and Cardinals bravely meowing. 

Time to call a heretic a heretic, no ifs and no buts. By now even my cat understood that Francis is a commie heretic anyway.

And as to the question:

No, I am not afraid to have a heretical Pope openly proclaim his heresy. It is certainly preferable to having a heretical Pope promoting heresy in less open ways. It has been decreed that we should live in such disgraceful times. Let us look at reality in the face, and fight the good fight.

We are not afraid.  

M     

 

 

 

Useful Idiot On His Way Out?

stalin

Another great fan of the character assassination before the real action.

 

In the last month or so I have written about the fantasy world Cardinal Mueller seems to inhabit here and here.

On both occasions one fact appeared clear: the Cardinal tried, in more than one way, to defend the fiction that Amoris Laetitia (and the Pope who excremented it) is not heretical, and the problems lie somewhere else; like for example Cardinals who dare to ask the Pope if he is really a flaming heretic when the man has stated to Argentinian bishops, and more indirectly on countless other occasions, that he clearly is, or bishops giving instructions to their priests to commit sacrilege because a) they are heretics, and b) they read the document for what it says.

In the second blog post I wrote the following:

Cardinal Mueller has produced himself in a triple somersault, and we would be tempted to appreciate the skill if the exercise weren’t almost entirely useless. He is doing nothing else than proclaiming his own blindness in front of blatant papal heresy, even as he indicates to the Evil Clown who the candidate for the next phase of bullying and demolition is: himself

It seems the day of reckoning might be coming faster than even I expected, as the Stalinian Francishounds have now been unleashed after this particular (and not terribly smart) German fox.

When Cardinal Mueller is kicked out (which I expect to happen in Summer, after some months of character assassination from various sources who will never mention him directly) he will have achieved the stunning performance, from a V II perspective, of causing maximum damage to the doctrine of the Church (by choosing to just shut up, though with various contortions and some bonus somersaults), his career, the reputation of his office, and his eternal salvation.

A smart man would have understood where the wind blows and, recognising an inevitable final result, would have chosen to defend the Church as stated in his job description, and to suffer the consequences he would have been suffering anyway (not talking of torture here; merely loss of one office). As a Cardinal, wearing that particular red in order to be continuously reminded of the blood many have spilled – and he is also called to spill – for Christ, there should be no better way to wake up in the morning and look at oneself in the mirror.

Instead, one seems to understand Cardinal Mueller will look at himself in the mirror and see the useful idiot of the Evil Clown: the man who was used to cover Amoris Laetitia for months, then to attack the Cardinals who had dared to be Catholic, and finally to still defend Francis whilst he performs his triple somersaults, and finally discarded when the way of his defence of a heretical Pope was not good enough for Joseph Vissarionovich Bergoglio.

The linked article states once removed from the burden of the office, Cardinal Mueller could become a vocal critic. With all due respect, this is nonsense. No one interested in not losing face could say that he has renounced to defend Christ when he was in the most important position to do so, but now feels he has to relieve his conscience when the office and the power have gone. It would look almost as stupid as it would look hypocritical.

The Cardinal is burned. Actually, he has burned himself. He deserved to be discarded, because he is culpable of the gravest dereliction of duty in a time as grave as this one.

Let’s hope the Evil Clown will substitute him with some open revolutionary heretic. It will make our job easier.

Contortion artists like Mueller are the worst that can happen to us.

M

Nomen Omen; Or, Cardinals Are Not What They Used To Be

kardinal-marx-stinkefinger-678x381

If you want evidence that Cardinals are not what they used to be, look at the photo above and the linked article from the Eponymous Flower, and reflect on the following:

  1.  Cardinals used not to use the vulgar gesture the Cardinal uses in the photo; and yes, in Germany everyone understands the meaning. It is also very difficult to think that the Cardinal might have done it “by mistake”. Look at how his second finger is carefully held by his thumb. 
  2. Cardinals used to know what they were talking about. A man so confused that he is able to state, in front of journalists, that he “thinks” that “unanimity prevailed” should take the habit of thinking twice before he speaks. It’s not so difficult to see whether a vote was unanimous or not. Plus, it is clearly a lie that it was.
  3. Cardinals used to be Catholic. This one here clearly isn’t. Beside the other lie (that AL would be in sync with the two Synods) it is just plain Protestant to say that if a document clearly states something at variance with what the Church has always believed, it is fine for any Catholic to believe the lie.

Cardinals are not as they used to be.   

This one is, for sure, much nearer to Friedrich Engels than Jesus Christ.

The Useful Idiot

divorces-remaries-le-cardinal-mueller-defend-la-doctrine_article_popin

Elephant? Which elephant?

Barely believable, involuntarily comic interview given by Cardinal Mueller, and reported by One Peter Five. 

It is as if the entire exercise took place in a parallel universe, in which those parts of reality we don’t like can simply be excluded at leisure and no one has to give any explanation for it.

Cardinal Mueller’s parallel universe is made this way: Pope Francis is orthodox, but for some strange reason we can’t fathom some bishops insists in interpreting him in the wrong way.

This is like the mother of the mass murderer who, as her son is clearly an angel, pretends to not understand the reason for all the police cars and the sirens outside. 

Cardinal Mueller does earn a limited amount of brownie points because he reaffirms Catholic teaching in fairly clear words. But honestly, I don’t think he deserves more than a half chocolate cookie, considering that as the head of the CDF his jobs description includes correcting heresy when officially proclaimed, not denying that heresy has been proclaimed and then proceeding to criticise those who follow exactly the heresy that has been officially proclaimed. It makes me smile to think that this one here is supposed to be the heir to the Inquisitors. I can picture them looking at him from heaven, and shaking their heads.

Now, we know Francis is a ruthless scoundrel, and Cardinal Mueller would get his marching order very fast if he dared to be a full-time Catholic rather than go on mini-break every time Francis is involved in the discussion. Still, the man is deluded if he thinks he can go on with this kind of somersault for very long.

It is in the logic of heresy – and very much so in the bullying nature of Francis – that error be advanced one step at a time. At some point, Cardinal Mueller will be required to either endorse the heresy of Amoris Laetitia in the terms dictated to him by Francis, or go. Francis will not allow for very long to be contradicted by his own “orthodoxy enforcer” in an indirect way. It will be Francis way, or the highway.

This is what every bully does: he bullies only those he feels strong enough to comfortably intimidate and overcome, and targets his victims one at a time. Francis isn’t following any cunning plan. He is merely being his bullying self.  

Francis was initially afraid of his bishops and backpedalled at the time of the first Synod. Then he saw he could get bolder, and proceeded to proclaim Amoris Laetitia. Then he started to whisper to Argentinian bishops that the heretical reading of it is the only possible one. Then he started encouraging bishops (Malta, Germany) to openly proclaim heresy as the new standard of orthodoxy. Only an idiot can think that this evil clown will stop there, and that he will not at some point – when he feels he is strong enough for it – demand that heresy be proclaimed and enforced centrally, from the CDF itself.

Cardinal Mueller has produced himself in a triple somersault, and we would be tempted to appreciate the skill if the exercise weren’t almost entirely useless. He is doing nothing else than proclaiming his own blindness in front of blatant papal heresy, even as he indicates to the Evil Clown who the candidate for the next phase of bullying and demolition is: himself.

We live in an age of cowardice, opportunism, and careerism only mildly mitigated by vestiges of fear of the Lord, or perhaps by fear of what would happen if Francis were to suddenly kick the bucket (it is allowed to daydream) and a halfway Catholic pope were to be elected in his stead; but this careerism is ultimately useless. 

Triple somersaults will not work. Cardinal Mueller’s blindness is at the same time the reason why his words will remain heedless and more and more bishops will conveniently side with heresy, and the reason why he will land in Francis’ sights at some point. It would be better for him to choose the Church and his own salvation instead.

As it is now, his very willed blindness still makes of him merely the useful idiot of the enemies of the Church.

M  

Maltagate: At Peace With Satan

A document of openly Satanic inspiration has now been published by the Bishops of Malta. It goes, if possible, even further than Francis, in that the sacrilege that Francis introduced by way of footnotes and stupid rhetoric is now made explicit, and officially sanctioned, and called being “at peace with God”. As if there existed a Catholic universe in which it is the sinner which decides whether he is worthy of being admitted to Communion, or altogether in mortal sin (notabene: if fornication is unavoidable, then the relevant sin of adultery is clearly not imputable).

Do not, even for a moment, delude yourself that this was not what Francis had in mind from the very start. However, the plan would have been thwarted very soon, if the bishops and cardinals had spoken like, well, Catholics when the time had come.  

I needed a number of hours to calm down after reading this – let me say this again – utterly satanical garbage. However, one thing was clear from the very first moment: Cardinal Mueller astonishing affirmation that Amoris Laetitia  affirms the traditional Church teaching becomes more absurd every day, as we have entire bishops’ conferences openly embracing heresy and sacrilege. 

What will cardinal Mueller now do? Will he swiftly act and rebuke, silence and threaten the Maltese bishops? Surely, nothing else can be expected from him now? 

I would suggest that you do not hold your breath. 

I would also suggest that you look at reality in the face here, and recognise that cardinal Mueller isn’t really better than these sons of a whore, selling Christ for even much less than pieces of silver, and merely for the comfort of mob approval for the rest of their atheist, very probably accursed lives.

A very dark pit awaits them, unless they repent. Which, by the scale of the cheerleading for Satan, is rather improbable.

M  

 

 

 

 

The “Correction” That Wasn’t One?

best-kitten-names-1

Cardinal Burke is here seen in the act of surrendering

 

I have already written that in this just begun 2017 we will have to get accustomed to a lot of absurd talk. It seems to me the recent interview of the Remnant with Cardinal Burke constitutes another example. 

Let us leave aside Burke’s initial triple salto mortale, when he states again (make no mistake: to try to justify five months of shameful inaction) that Amoris Laetitia  “is not an exercise of the papal magisterium” – an obvious, blatant contradiction with his actions from September on – . What I would like to focus on today is the following Q&A. 

MJM: So what’s next, Your Eminence? If Pope Francis fails to answer your dubia, what’s the next course of action? You’ve spoken of the possibility of elevating this to a formal correction. But what exactly does that look like?

Cardinal Burke: Well, it doesn’t look too much differently than the dubia. In other words, the truths that seem to be called into question by AL would simply be placed alongside what the Church has always taught and practiced and annunciated in the official teaching of the Church. And in this way these errors would be corrected. Does that make sense to you?

No, it does not make sense to me. It does not make sense to me because it does not make sense at all.  

A correction is, by definition, the stating of what is wrong together with the affirmation of what is right. My teachers at school did not write the correct spelling alongside the wrong one; they barred the wrong spelling, and put the right one in its place.  That was wrong, but this is right.

What the Cardinal is stating now equates to saying – and I do not see any other interpretation of this – that the Cardinals would publish a statement of what is right without even daring to explicitly say what is wrong with Amoris Laetitia.

This is not a correction. This is not even a criticism. This is first-class V II meowing.

Such an exercise does not need to be preceded by Dubia. The Cardinals could have done it anytime. Such a reaction would, actually, justify the criticism that the Dubia were uncalled for in the first place.  In short: Cardinal Burke’s answer is utter baloney. 

The only logical consequence of the refusal of the Pope to answer the Dubia is the open condemnation of the relevant AL points as heretical, and the rebuke of the Pope who refused to set things right by answering the Dubia.    

From this another logical necessity follows: that if the Pope keeps refusing to answer the Dubia and openly set things right, he must be declared a heretic himself.

It’s as simple as that. There is no escape from it. If Cardinal Burke thought he did not have the mettle for this, he was a fool in issuing the Dubia in the first place, much less publishing them.

I have been criticised for being sceptical about Cardinal Burke. But the fact is that I do not have a high degree of confidence in someone who, after an unprecedented attack to the faith, first criticises those who want to defend it and then awaits five months before he does something. This interview is, to me, another demonstration that Cardinal Burke must earn the confidence of faithful Catholics rather than think that, as he is one of the very few prelates meowing, the faithful will stand in awe in front of such magnificence.

No, the Cardinal’s plan does not make sense at all. It is the worst of V II cowardice and betrayal of Truth. It is like a government issuing an ultimatum and then, when the ultimatum is not complied with, proceeding to declare “disagreement” instead of war. It’s a loss of face, and the man is a fool if he thinks he can meow and be hailed as a Catholic lion. If he does what he says he will lose face, big time. Not for the first time. 

Do not put your faith in any V II prelate until he has earned it, no matter how long his cappa magna.  

These here are fair-weather shepherds. 

M

 

 

 

 

Cardinal Mueller’s Nonsense

Photo-20170104175844583.jpg

 

In a year that will be, I am afraid, rich in absurdities and completely nonsensical statements Cardinal Mueller has made a rather desperate, completely illogical, and ultimately not very intelligent attempt to take Francis’ chestnuts out of the fire without burning him, or himself.

The cardinal manages the astonishing feat of stating both that there is no contradiction between Francis’ Amoris Laetitia and the teaching of the Church, and that it is wrong for the Cardinals to ask him to say so. 

If Francis believes that there is no contradiction, then it should be no problem at all for him to answer the dubia in the only possible way. Seriously, this is something that Mueller and Francis (seen the atrocious ignorance of the latter) could settle over breakfast every morning. Three minutes. Five, tops.

Cardinal Mueller also fails to notice the growing number of FrancisBishops, from various parts of Europe and the Americas, who actually openly proclaim that Francis’ excrementation has, actually, changed doctrine, and the great confusion and danger for the faith this causes.

Francis is an ignorant boor unable to see further than his nose, a vulgar peasant completely out of his depth. But there can be no doubt that Cardinal Mueller knows better than this nonsense, and is fully aware of the non-existence of even the pretense of a case for non answering the Dubia.

Finally, the Cardinal avoids a fundamental question: how on earth it is justifiable that a Pope would allow such an open quarrel to happen, without saying – in Mueller’s mind – what he already thinks. If my enemy asks me to confirm that two and two is four, and threatens me with world war unless I confirm this elementary truth, I will not be the one who remains silent about what I myself believe, just in order to show the world that I should not have been asked whether two and two is four in the first place. Such a reasoning would show an arrogance, a contempt for the faithful and the Church, a childishness, an utter lack of any form of adult thinking, that shames the one who should act in this way almost as much as the open proclamation of heresy.

In the end, though, Cardinal Mueller’s message means this: “I have tried to make the old man see reason, but he is stubborn like the Argentinian donkey he is. Therefore, the Dubia will have no answer, and I am the one who must now go in front of the journalists’ block notes and try to justify the unjustifiable (because, clearly, I have no intention of putting my own office on the line)”.

It goes without saying that Mueller has now officially made of himself an accomplice of the Pope. If he thinks he can escape the judgment of both history and his Lord simply by hiding behind his finger, he is not much smarter than Francis.

I hope the Cardinals understand the signals and deliver their private ultimatum to the Evil Clown soon. After which, they will have to prove their mettle, and put an end to this absurd madhouse discussion by stating what every Catholic has the right to be told:

that Francis spreads heresy, and is a heretic himself. 

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guerra! Guerra!! Guerra, Guerra, Guerra!!!

Of all disgusting wannabe Catholics who infest the wannabe “c”atholic press, probably the most disgusting are those who want to appear moderate, or conciliatory, by suggesting that the tones have become too heated, and it is now time to, as they say, turn down the heat on the matter.

Some people really don’t get it, or else they pretend they don’t. 

Truth is the most important thing there is on this planet. Compared to it, “niceness” does not even appear on the radar screen. To ask for a verbal truce when a war for our souls is raging is exactly the same as asking for a kinder way to converse with Satan lest the proper manners are forgotten.

It boils down to this: if for you Catholic Truth is sacred, nothing else count in comparison to it. There is literally nothing else that can be seen with a binocular.

If, however, to you it’s not really important whether sacrilege becomes an accepted, officially (albeit heretically) sanctioned part of Church life, or perhaps you even secretly wish that it be so, then certainly priorities will align and a Rodney King moment will emerge: can we all just get along, please? We would like to sanction sacrilege a little piece at a time, and it’s so difficult if you make all this noise. 

No, we can’t get along. We won’t get along with heretics inside Holy Mother Church. We will not be stopped by people who don’t care for the Church calling us “nasty”. War is nasty, and it is luxury enough when the war is only verbal.

This is not a time for peace, or niceness. This is a time for war, and for calling a heretic a heretic. And no, there will never be a “both/and” when Christ has said it’s “either / or”. Everything else comes straight from Satan. 

The Evil Clown can stop this madness, if he has a brain. Does he have a brain? I don’t know. I suspect him of eating shit, so it’s difficult to gauge the reactions of such a one. But one thing I know: if the man does not back off he deserves the nuclear explosion that will follow, and such an outcome is about one million times preferable than letting widespread, mainstream, everyday sacrilege enter the sacramental life a bit at a time, for the sake of moderate tones.  

We will all die one day. I would not want to go to my judgment after having lived worrying about tones, rather than truths. 

M

 

 

   

 

%d bloggers like this: