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 or 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only hours after I have written my blog post about some Cardinals’ (far too slow) reaction to Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Burke has doubled down in an interview with Edward Pentin.
The interview is very clear on one point: there is no intention of stopping here, and this matter will be pursued further. I quote:
[Q]What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
[A] Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
A “formal act of correction of a serious error” can only be a formal declaration concerning the heretical content of Amoris Laetitia. If this happens (it is still a big “if”), then we would have a big step in the right direction, because there is no way Francis can save face when one or more Cardinals declare one of his documents heretical. His pontificate would be in tatters, destroyed for all eternity.
Note here that, the perennial teaching of the Church being easily discernible, this declaration would be much different than, say, a bunch of homo Jesuits declaring a hypothetical Pope Pius XIII a “heretic” because he doesn’t follow the Gospel of Fidel. In both cases every sound Catholic, even of the thicker sort, would immediately recognise who is right and who is wrong.
The question is now whether the Cardinals will let actions follow words. I am healthily sceptical on this, because I can’t but notice that the widespread revolt of the Bishops during the first synod (aka the day the pussycat roared) was followed by the most scandalous silence when Amoris Laetitia was published. However, I must say this is a new situation, and a couple of people are now leaning very far out of the window. We should pray that they have the strength to continue on this path, and that other pussycats (basically all bishops and cardinals, with a handful of exception) find a backbone somewhere and start doing their job.
We shall see how this pans out. We have been betrayed when Amoris Laetitia was published, and I therefore will suspend my judgment until I see real action taken. The real action is what should have happened in April: a formal, official, public denunciation of the heretical content of Amoris Laetitia. If you look at the recent past, you have The Abbe’ de Nantes’ Liber Accusations in Paulum Sextum, Liber Accusationis Secundus (against JP II) and the third Liber Accusationis against the new Catechism as useful guides.
If you ask me, nothing less will suffice.
We have had a situation of officially proclaimed heresy since April. Finally, timidly, something starts to happen. And once again it was the outrage of the Catholic laity, and the openly proclaimed condemnation of our cowardly clergy, that paved the way for this action.
I’d say we are past the kittens’ meowing. Clearly, there are some angry cats around.
But I still can’t see any serious scratching.
“What is a “Dubia”? Bush 43?”
A comment on another post stated I have misunderstood Cardinal’ Burke’s initial reaction to Amoris Laetitia. However, this is not the case.
As I already wrote here, the Cardinal initially not only proposed an absurd reading of the document, but he also criticised those who criticise it. It is fair to say those who criticised the document (and the Cardinal with it) are now officially vindicated.
These were the very words of the Cardinal. Emphases mine.
The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.
Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful and potentially a source of scandal, not only for the faithful but for others of goodwill who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society.
It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, a meeting of bishops representing the universal Church “to assist the Roman pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world” (Canon 342). In other words, it would be a contradiction of the work of the Synod of Bishops to set in motion confusion regarding what the Church teaches, safeguards and fosters by her discipline.
It’s not that I want to rub salt on the wounds, but if we want to understand what is happening now we must understand what did (and did not) happen in April: either silence, or criticism of concerned Catholics.
However, that was Burke 1.0. In the meantime, we appear to have Burke 2.0, or at least Burke 1.5. The man has a good heart and a sincere faith, and I think he was very uncomfortable with his position (and with the criticism it attracted) from the start. It may well be that the famous letter of the Evil Clown to the Argentinian bishop taking a position on the heresy might have persuaded him that silence was no longer compatible with the health of his soul, as the letter to Francis is dated around one week after that event.
It is nothing short of amazing that a Pope writes 200 pages of heresies, and all Cardinals to one man stubbornly refuse to see the omnipresent heretical manure; but one additional letter (merely stating, and very rightly so, that a heretical interpretation of a heretical document is the only correct one) triggers what is, up to now, a kitten’s revolt of sort.
We are, now, in a very simple situation: those who have barked will have to bite (or to stay with the metaphor: those who have meowed will have to scratch), or lose face twice.
The Evil Clown has four choices:
- do nothing (my pint is on this)
- answer “no” and refute heresy
- answer “yes” and confirm heresy
- answer with some Franciswaffle
What the “rules” are is irrelevant. If the Pope does not want to answer he will simply not answer, end of story. If he wants to waffle, he will waffle. This is one who does not kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Canon Law is nothing to him.
Now the kitten have meowed. Consequently, anything but a clear refutation of the heresies contained in Amoris Laetitia must lead to an official proclamation of the heresy of both the document and the Pope. Everything else will make of this little more than an exercise in meowing.
This is the way of things with the defence of orthodoxy. It is difficult to do it by half. Many journalists and bloggers got that a long time ago.
One dares to hope at least four Cardinals have come to the same conclusion.
You read it correctly. This is what the man said.
This is, of course, part of the evil plan to destroy Sacraments in which he does not believe, and damage the Church he hates.
This is, plainly, Pope Francis The Atheist speaking.
The attack to Communion and Marriage goes through the attack to the sacramental life of every Catholic.
According to the Evil Clown, your marriage is likely invalid. Means your “divorce” and “remarriage” are ok. Not ok for Catholicism, of course, because for Catholicism you are still a concubine living in public sin. But ok for Francis because, if you are “committed”, who is he to judge? Therefore, you can receive communion anyway, and also go to confession, which is not made for the saints but for sinners.
Bam. Three sacraments torpedoed in one go. I suspect this is the usual childish, stupid reaction to the continued criticism of Amoris Laetitia. “Why do you keep blabbering about marriage?” – asks the man – “it's all rubbish anyway!”.
Please, Lord, rid us of this tool soon!
The last Pussycat Cardinal who has (almost) meowed against Amoris Laetitia is Cardinal Caffarra; one, I must say, of those from which faithful Catholics were most entitled to expect morew than meowing, seen that he co-author books about the matter.
Caffarra is somewhat more critical than Burke, who asks you to just neglect what the Pope says because hey, it’s not magisterial. He even (put here some cries of surprise) criticises the text as “objectively unclear”. But this is a very, very poor show when a Cardinal is called to express his opinion on a text that is openly blasphemous and heretical.
I can’t avoid imagining Luther has been elected Pope, and issues an apostolic exhortation with a clear subtext in many of his paragraphs (say: 298, and 301 to 305; and many others reflecting the heretical spirit of the work) stating that scripture only is the supreme authority in matter of theology. This, of course, mixed with some other parts (because remember: Luther is the Pope now!) which seem more orthodox when taken in isolation. Then Pope Luther adds a footnote stating that, in certain circumstances, faith alone saves.
After that, imagine the following reactions:
Most Cardinals just shut up.
Cardinal Burcus, once believed a fine Catholic theologian, says this is not a problem, because the document is not magisterial. You are bad if you make a ruckus.
Cardinal Caffarrus says that hey, there are some parts that are “unclear”, but no worries: where Pope Luther says that faith alone saves you just read the contrary of what he said; because you see, we must read heresy in the light of truth. Come on, a footnote is not enough to proclaim heresy. When the Pope proclaims heresy from a footnote, you just ignore the footnote. And all the rest, by the way.
Only Cardinal Sartor*, episcopus auxiliarius out of a very far away diocese, has the guts to say that the work has to be re-written.
Only one bishop, out of very probably more than 10,000 among diocesan and auxiliary (if memory serves, only the diocesan bishops exceed 8,000), had the guts to talk. This is the situation we are in.
Like Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Caffarra can keep his criticism for himself. If he can’t call a spade a spade and a heresy a heresy he has no business being a bishop, much less a cardinal.
These people (bar Schneider) are dancing with Luther. All of them.
* (hint: “Schneider” in German means “tailor”)
I read around considerations about modifying Amoris Laetitia, perhaps getting rid altogether of the worst of the worst (footnote 351). Whilst something is better than nothing, and a modification is better than doing nothing, I do not think it can be said that such a view would be the best one; much less that the other view (withdrawal) should not be pursued or is impracticable.
It may well be that never an official papal document has been withdrawn. However, never was a papal document as horribly wrong, sacrilegious and blasphemous as this one is. New ailments require new medicines. Besides, as far as I know entire councils have been withdrawn. We aren't, therefore, so much into uncharted territory here.
The decision or the evaluation whether a document should be withdrawn does not depend from the factual probability of this happening. It depends from it being right, or wrong, that such a document be withdrawn. If it is right to withdraw the entire document, then this demand must be made unceasingly.
Nor is it relevant that Pope Francis will never withdraw the document. Again, if the battle is right, the outcome has no bearing on its righteousness. Besides, papal documents are destined to exercise an influence well beyond the Pope who promulgated them. The battle for the withdrawal of Amoris Laetitia will outlive Francis, and possibly all of us, but it will be victorious one day.
It also cannot really be said that if Footnote 351 were to be removed, then the world would be if not right, at least acceptably wrong. Amoris Laetitis is rotten at its core, in the very secular thinking which inspired it. The rejection of AL must be just as total as the secular principles behind it are totally wrong. This blog and many others have shown that the problem isn't the footnote, it's the document as a whole and the mentality that gave birth to it.
Another argument can be made in favour of withdrawal: that seen the number of weaklings within the Vatican, only a robust call for withdrawal can achieve the result of amendment. Asks for amendments, and you'll get either nothing or cosmetic reformulations (insert Pollyannas' little cries of joy here). But let a powerful call for withdrawal rise from the Catholic world, and suddenly robust amendments become a very concrete option, perhaps even in our lifetime.
Finally, there is a broader consideration to be made. The request that the document be modified, (that is: improved), still allows the Evil Clown to, in a way, save face. In sharp contrast, the demand that the document be altogether withdrawn is, unavoidably, an indictment not only of AL, but of Francis' pontificate itself. This element is not to be underestimated, because the ability of the Evil Clown to confuse Catholics is directly linked to his credibility as good, or bad, or obscenely evil, holder of the sacred office entrusted to him.
For all these reasons it is absolutely right that faithful Catholics insist, not only now or as long as the Evil Clown remains in power, but for all generations to come and until victory, that AL be withdrawn.
Over 100 pro-life and pro-family leaders from all over the world leapt to their feet in applause at a meeting in Rome on Saturday after hearing a call for Pope Francis to withdraw his controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
LifeSiteNews reports (please read the rest following the link). Yours truly comments.
It is indicative of our times that not one bishop, not one had the guts to ask for the Apostolic Excrementation to be withdrawn. The strongest words we had from one (1) Bishop asking for it to be rewritten. But this here is the right attitude: Amoris Laetitia is wrong in its deep roots, in the very foundations of its thinking. It must go down the drain.
Once again (as in the case, already reported, of the Veri Catholici conference) the call for orthodoxy comes from the laity whilst the clergy is silent. May the angels look on them, and ask the Lord that they be punished is a fitting way unless they repent.
I receive occasionally links about this or that Cardinal opening his mouth for orthodoxy when it’s comfortable to do so, or when the audience agrees with what he says. Far too easy. Truth cannot be defending only in season. These whitened sepulchres do not impress us. They are silent in the bigger issues, they will not get away with talking in the lesser ones. They are sluts in red or purple, preaching virginity to girls even as they go very publicly publicly fooling around every day. Traitors. Hypocrites. Whitened sepulchres.
The silence of the clergy is deafening. It is up to us, the laity, to defend Truth after the treason of our shepherds.
The laity is acting. Catholics will not be fooled. Those who will be fooled aren’t Catholics, have not deserved to be Catholics, and have no excuses.
I invite all bloggers to publicise all events against Amoris Laetitiae. I also invite them to never mention a supposed “orthodox” interview of some supposed “faithful” Bishop or Cardinal without making clear that this very Bishop or Cardinal has chosen to be silent when he had to speak, and continues to be silent when he has to speak; and that, therefore, no one of them is faithful, not one, but Bishop Schneider.
The clergy has deserted. It is up to us.