Blog Archives

The Silent Chatting Cardinal Is Of No Use

“Your Grace, when will you issue a formal condemnation of Amoris Laetitia?”

This should be the first and, if necessary, second, third, fourth and only question every Catholic journalist poses to every Cardinal at any time.

Every now and then I see headlines about this or that Cardinal who has given another interview.

I don't even open the link anymore.

These Cardinals make me think of generals inviting the soldiers to make their bunk accurately, or to clean their weapons properly, whilst the enemy is invading. Not wrong in itself, but one should focus on the real emergency and real priority.

There is one and only one thing to do for every Cardinal in the present situation: condemn Amoris Laetitia as heretical. If they do this, all the rest can wait. If they don't do this, whatever they say is obfuscation, hypocrisy and dereliction of duty however valid the reminder to properly clean our weapons.

There is a huge emergency going on, and no Cardinal should think that blabbering around about other issues will allow them to escape their duty. They should be reminded about it every time. They should, more to the point, not be allowed to look good giving interviews about safe issues (or moderately conservative ones) when they are just refusing to do their job.

I am not interested in knowing what Cardinal X or Y think about “divisions” in the Church. I am not interested in their opinion about whether Amoris Laetitia causes any kind of problem. I want to know when they will condemn the document as heretical.

Until that time comes, the Cardinals should spare us the latest utterances about things we already know, and reflect on the things they have a duty to say and we have the right to hear.

The chatting Cardinal who refuse to condemn Amoris Laetitia is still silent; and he is perfectly useless, or worse.

M

 

Today is Heresy Extermination Day!

One year after, Amoris Laetitia was just as stinky as the first day.

 

Today marks the first anniversary of the official release of the worse load of horse manure ever to come out of the backside of a Jesuit horse (or ass, as you prefer). The stink is just as strong as the first day, and it is slowly but surely expanding worldwide.

I suggest that the 8 April becomes Heresy Extermination Day; a day in which Catholics all over the words join in prayer to ask the Lord to put an end to all and sundry heresies, particularly those coming from the Vatican.

“Catholics of the world, unite!”

M

 

 

 

You Are Not Alone

It pains me to read around of the devastation that Francis is causing, and of the feeling some have that all is useless because Amoris Laetitia will inevitably metastasise (I agree with that, though) and we have already entered an age of unprecedented confusion and de facto schism from inside the Church.

Whenever such thoughts assault me, I reflect on the following:

  1. The Church is not a photography of those alive in 2017. It is a community of believers spanning 2000 years. Francis and his ilk are not even on the radar screen. You are not only right, but you are with the vast majority.
  2. If you think these times apocalyptic, you need to read history more. We live in a time of unprecedented peace and wealth, which inter alia means that you can comfortably access two thousand years of Catholic wisdom and digest them from the comfort of your couch. Francis is absolutely powerless against Truth so easily accessed. Never has it been so comfortable to work on your salvation. Francis cannot deceive anyone. He will merely provide an excuse to those who want to be deceived. If you told me that you would prefer to live in the time of the Black Plague but with an orthodox Pope I would not believe you. Actually, I would consider you an armchair warrior with a great penchant for whining from a very high level of comfort, and not knowing what he is talking about.
  3. Yes, the devil is tempting you. He always does. One generation is tempted to lose the faith because of a huge pestilence; another because of so many young men who died in the trenches; a third one because of an open schism with two or three pretenders to the papal throne; and a fourth one, because an Evil Clown is the Pope. The devil's ways are different. The intention is always the same, and is the real unchangeable story in the history of humanity. Nihil sub sole novi.

The Lord in His Goodness has decreed that our generation should be punished with the metastasis of the cancer of V II. We endure the chemo without questioning His wisdom. We submit to His will and make the best of the time given to us. We know this for an absolute certainty: that the means of salvation are given to everyone of us irrespective of how disgraceful Francis or any of his successors may become.

 

You don't need a Catholic Pope to save your soul. You don't even need the approval of the astonishingly tiny minority – compared with 2000 years of Catholic Church – of 2017 FrancisCatholics. You are not alone. Actually, almost everyone – and absolutely every single one who was right these last twenty Centuries – is on your side.

 

Francis is a cancer, but neither the Church nor your faith can die of it. Sixty-five generations of Catholics in heaven look at you and approve.

 

What do you care about Francis' insults.

 

M

Enough With The Waiting

4_Abyssian_kittens

For some reason, Francis wasn’t scared of them… 

 

If you visit the page of Canon212 (something which you should do every day, as I do) you will see, scrolling down on the left hand side column, the

“number of days since Francis received the Cardinal’s Dubia on Amoris Laetitia”.

As I write this, the count is 188.

I will not, on this occasion, be silent about another fact: that even the Dubia came after an extremely long, certainly gravely culpable silence from the clergy en masseAmoris Laetitia was published on 8 April 2016. Heck, it’s almost a year, and we are still awaiting for the first (cough) blessed Cardinal to openly say that the encyclical is rubbish. 

Now, the Church is normally slow. She is slow because she is prudent, and she is slow because in many situations slowness is a good course of action. But you see, slowness must then be prudent and/or a good course of action. Slowness isn’t good in itself. 

The Church is also traditionally slow because, traditionally, information used to travel very slowly. When the one or other heretic started to get notoriety in some more or less obscure part of Europe it would take months (or years) before the thing got to the ears of Rome. Then it would get an awful lot of time only to reliably confirm the information and get more details. Then there might be other distant bishops and cardinals to consult with. In short, the slowness wasn’t there because people just slept one year at a time on well-known facts. The slowness was there because that was the way the entire world was.

Today is different. A published encyclical will be read all over the planet in a matter of hours. A papal tweet (boy, what has the world come to!) is spread worldwide instantly. Information is exchanged with extreme rapidity.

The Cardinals knew as a fact, when they decided to make the Dubia public, that they had been told that Francis would not answer them.  How does waiting six months change any of this? They were told. They got the memo. The decision was made. 

If a private correction was to be made, the time was very fast after getting the news that the Pope had decided not to answer. There was no need for the crème de la crème of Catholic theology to assemble at the Sorbonne, after consulting with who knows how many others. There was no need to visit the King of France and procure his support (financial, if needed) for the planned action.

The correction should have been officially made a week or two after being informed the man does not want to do his job, and a very public rebuke and accusation of promoting heresy should have come a week or two after that. All the rest is meowing of scared kitten.

What it would seem it might happen now is that the mountain will give birth to a country mouse:   a shame for the church as a whole and something that makes the Four Cardinals look, if possible, even worse than those who have shut up from the beginning; then the latter have at least not tried to make themselves beautiful with faithful Catholics and smuggle themselves as the defenders of Catholic orthodoxy. 

Francis must be laughing all the way to the porta potty at seeing that his opponents are such little boys, so fearful and so scared of him that they will not dare to do anything after showing a very, very, very big mouth. To add insult to injury, we are made to wait even for the country mouse, as if a banal reassertion of Catholic doctrine (something I have heard in church, and even in V II churches, in no uncertain terms at least a dozen times since the publication of Amoris Laetitia) were such a momentous event showing anything but the monumental cowardice of these supposed Princes. 

I might still be wrong, of course. The kitten might still wake up lions one day. But what I keep hearing is only the most disgraceful meowing. 

Let the Cardinals speak and be done with this farce. If they speak plainly, then let the serious battle begin. If they limit themselves to the meowing the longer the wait, the worse the shame.  

M

 

 

 

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  

%d bloggers like this: