Father Minutella And Vatican II

One can’t avoid having sympathy for Padre Minutella, who – in the usual, pleasantly emotional Italian way, see the video above – has no timidity and, in fact, great courage in resisting to the heresies of our time. 

However, there is a fundamental problem in father Minutella’s thinking. Whilst he has a traditional mindset, he is not – as he states (in English) here – a Traditionalist. 

He is not a Traditionalist because he refuses to see in the very spirit, in the very idea of Vatican II the origin of the problem.

Padre Minutella is, in a way, an emotional version of Cardinal Ratzinger; sharing with him the belief that the problem is not the Second Vatican Council, but various manipulations or misrepresentations that followed it. 

This is a big problem and I think that, in time, Father Minutella will understand it himself. Every “Ratzingerian” conservative is trying to sit between two chairs, of which one has rotten legs, all the while maintaining that the position is comfortable and, in fact, the only fitting one. 

Best wishes to this courageous priest. But heavens, it is high time that he realises where all the problem originated, and stops thinking that the problem started in, say, 2013.

M

   

     

Catholicism in The Age Of Confusion

 

Please follow this link first and read the news about the (of course) anonymous Argentine theologian saying that what is wrong is wrong even if the Evil Clown says it’s right. 

After that, let us reflect on the sorry state of the Church after 60 years of V II. 

1. The need to even state that a Catholic is not allowed to follow a teaching that does not correspond to the perennial teaching of the Church is depressing. I do not blame the theologian. I blame the Argentinian (and all other V II) priests who have practiced Papolatry all these years.
2. Just as depressing is the fact that the theologian feels the need to clarify that it is absolutely false to think that “they must now endorse the Buenos Aires approach under pain of heresy”. Apparently, some people think that being a heretic, nowadays, is not endorsing heresy.  
3. Francis’ Amoris Laetitia statements are called “novel teaching”. Would you call 2+2=5 a “novel teaching?” I would call it rubbish, not novel teaching. Francis spreads and defends heresy and it is time that theologians, anonymous or otherwise, start calling an evil clown an evil clown

Lack of clarity leads to confusion. To say to a confused (and very ignorant, and sorely in need of instruction) Catholic that Francis is proposing a “novel teaching” is very dangerous, because it gives to heresy the dignity of teaching.   

Let our yea be yea. let us heresy by its proper name. Enough with walking on eggshells. 

The Age of Confusion will only end when clarity of speaking take its place. 

M 

Which Elephant?

I am now imagining what would happen if the Evil Clown were to, say, officially declare Consubstantiation the official truth of the church, with “no other interpretation”. Say, with a letter to a Protestant leader published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Some would say that this is a publicly stated private opinion, and therefore does not really matter.

Others would state that Francis must be somewhat right, because there must be something that has been divinely revealed to Francis alone.

Some more still would say that Francis does not want to undermine the doctrine about Transubstatiation, but merely offer a pastoral interpretation of it.

Some others would say that the Sweet Peter on Earth is being badly advised by “the wolves”, profiting from his kindness of heart. He, himself, must be free of blame.

More still would say that the Pope was, really, talking off the cuff, though due to his advanced age he forgot to let us know.

We would be treated to “ten things to know and share”, at the end of which we would discover that everything is fine but the Pope should work on his syntaxis.

All the above would, obviously, call themselves “Conservatives”.

M

Cardinal Burke would give interview #327, stating that the end must be very, very near now; and doing, as always, nothing.

 

Escape From Reality

In these difficult days, I see around me two ways in which some bloggers and commenters try to escape reality.

1) They say that Francis is not the Pope. Wrong. Francis is the Pope because the entire Church, the entire Church hierarchy and the entire planet see him as the Pope. He is not even challenged. Not even by the one (Benedict) who according to some is the real and only Pope. The surreal consequence of this is the decision that the one the entire world sees as Pope should not be it, whilst the one some of them say is the only Pope says that he is merely a retired emeritus, and Francis is in charge. A challenge to a throne without even a challenger simply does not exist; it is fantasy, not fact.

Reality matters. However sad and unprecedented this situation is, we face it without thinking that we can decide who is, or isn't, Pope.

2) They downplay Francis' heretical acts and statement, because they are ready to bend over backwards and produce themselves in the most bizarre contortions in order to avoid stating another facts staring at us in the face: that we have a heretical Pope.

Reality, again, matters. The discussion whether Francis is in formal or material heresy is, if you ask me, less important than the agreement on the fact that should be universally acknowledged: that this Pope fosters error and must now – by the bishops and cardinals – be forced to recant it or deposed.

If Francis' heresy is formal, then he has factually made himself unworthy of and factually resigned his office together with his membership of the Church; but this renounciation would still have to be declared in order to depose him, and until that moment he would still be the holder of the office. In the same way, if a POTUS is found in the act of committing a multiple murder he certainly deserves impeachment, but he is still in office until the impeachment is voted, declared and made operative.

If, on the contrary, Francis' heresy is material, then the preliminary stage would be a last offer to recant his error, albeit such a possibility could be offered, in theory, also to a formal heretic.

—-

The situation is, if you ask me, as clear as the sun, because it appears in front of our eyes with all the evidence of hard facts: a heretic seats on the throne of Peter. Still a heretic, and still sitting, with no challenger in sight. This has happened in the past, will happen in the future, is very sad, and has probably never happened with such virulence (even Honorius could have been weakly defended; Francis is indefensible) in the entire history of the Church. Still, here we are, confronted with facts, not our fanciful and very Protestant interpretation of them.

A heretic seats on the throne of Peter, and we were never given assurance that this would not be the case. His heretical energy and hate for the Church is unprecedented, but do is the rebellion of Vatican II. The most astonishing betrayal of proper theology and abandonment of proper governance must perforce lead to the most astonishing explosion of heresy from the top and abuse from the bottom. This is what V II looked like from the very start; it merely needed sixty years for the ugly face of heterodoxy to completely emerge.

I am merely a layman. No Pope has ever depended on my opinion to decide whether he is really Pope, and it is perfectly right this way. Do not escape from reality. Use it as you would for everything else. Apply common sense and Church Teaching. The Church will get out of this as she has from all the rest.

M

Canon 915, Heresy And The Pope

No worries, Canon 915 has not been changed…

 

Every single time Francis does something atrocious, there is the one or other theologian explaining to us that Francis has not proclaimed a new dogma, or abolished Canon 915, or the like. 

Yeah, well, interesting as an intellectual curiosity. Still, I think that the approach is totally wrong, and that we must stop circling around the real problem. If there is a hurricane going on, I am not really interested in the way the ozone layer reacts to it, nor am I reassured by the newly imparted knowledge. There is a hurricane going on, this is what counts.    

Canon 915 is not just another canon. It reflects perennial teaching of the Church. Therefore, the prohibition of Canon 915 cannot be changed, sabotaged, or otherwise circumvented by anyone, and be him the Pope. 

Every article reassuring you that Canon 915 has not been touched actually sends these messages: a) that it could be made, legitimately, hollow at some point in future and: b) that the Canon is being sabotaged but hey, don’t worry, it’s still there!

This is, emphatically, not the case in point. The point is that the Church prohibits communion for adulterers, and Francis is going against this prohibition. Therefore, any discussion about the matter should begin and end with the obvious recognition that no one, not even a Pope, can change iota unum in the matter of communion for adulterers. All the rest is, again, walking around the huge elephant in the room, pretending not to see it. 

Which leads to the second matter: heresy. I am not at all interested in the discussion about whether Francis is a formal heretic in the strict sense of the matter. For me, and for every God-fearing Catholic on the street, heresy does not begin when a dogma is officially put in question or denied, or there is an attempt to change it ex cathedra.  Heresy is, in the common parlance of God-fearing Catholics, the willed promotion of heterodox thinking and the working in order to subvert what the Church has always believed, irrespective of whether a dogma has been touched or not. Pope John XXII is, rightly, considered a heretical Pope because he promoted such a thinking, even if the contrary belief of the Church had not been declared a dogma yet. 

It follows from this that Pope Francis is a heretic and must be seen as such by every God-fearing Catholic; that every one of his actions meant to sabotage the Depositum Fidei in any way, shape or form must be condemned in the strongest terms, and refused obedience;  and that we, the God-fearing Catholics, must demand that our Cardinals and Bishops grow a pair already, react to Francis’ endless provocations, and demand that he recants his heretical statements or face deposition. 

Which, if it does not happen, does not cause the end of the world, nor the end of the Catholic faith. It merely causes the age to plunge into a deeper state of confusion, analogue to the one experienced in the time of Honorius,  A situation of confusion from which, if the Bishops and Cardinals do not intervene, God will free us at some point, when the justly meted punishment for the madness of Vatican II has been recognised, and its evil acknowledged and repented. 

A heretical Pope is still the Pope. Honorius was still the Pope. Marcellinus was still the Pope. Liberius was still the Pope. John XXII was still the Pope. There is no Church record stating that they were no Popes during the time of their heterodoxy. Not even the ecumenical council caused by Pope Honorius’ heresies stated such a thing. 

But a heretical Pope is a Pope that should, now, be forced to change his ways or deposed (as happened with Marcellinus and John XXII, and did not happen with Honorius and, in a different way, with Liberius); failing which the bishops and cardinals who have refused to act (talking to you, Cardinal Burke!) will pay the most horrible price for their cowardice. 

Catholics lived with a heretical Pope before. They are living with a heretical Pope now. Shit and Pope Francis happen. It is not for us to decide who is and is not Pope.

But it is for us to acknowledge an obvious, factual situation and ask that our shepherds do their darn job already.

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Tis The Season To Be Faithful

In these difficult times, we must remember who we are and what we stand for.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty. I do not believe in Francis, the Lewd Commie.

What I believe is perfectly rational, and logical, and holy. What I am living is the consequence of sixty years of V II madness, something I – and we all – knew already.

It would be worse than childish; it would be satanical to start doubting what has been transmitted to us, merely because something is happening that been, also, believed for a long time.

When the ecclesiastical authorities approved the apparition of the Blessed Virgin in Quito, they were fully conscious of the danger that always surround the (earthly) Church. The devil incessantly works to undermine not only your own salvation, but the Christian institutions here on earth: from priests to bishops and from cardinals to popes, Satan looks for those whom he may devour; and by devouring those he may hope (in a way) that many others may come to him through loss of faith and unbelief.

Do you want to be devoured by Satan? No?

Man up, then, and realise that it is our own collective stupidity that has given us all this; a stupidity that begins with John XXIII and ends with the many poisonous fruits of V II, from the openly, now officially heretical Francis to the openly, now officially cowardly Cardinal Burke, the wet kitten meowing about the end of the world instead of doing the only thing he should do: officially denounce the Pope as heretic and demand that he either retract or be deposed by an imperfect Council. But then again this is one who thinks that the SSPX is “in schism”, go figure…

Many will, very obviously, be damned, to whom it was given to be born in these disgraceful times. I have no intention of being counted among them. Do you? No?

Well then, repeat to yourself every day, and every hour, that you will not squander the immense grace of having been, through God's mercy, introduced to proper Catholic instruction even in these disgraceful times. Pray for strength and solid faith, and work on it every day of your life. Do not waiver. Stand firm like a rock against the waves of heresies coming from Francis and his bunch of atheists and homos.

The Christmas now rapidly approaching reminds us that the wonderful, luminous truth lies in that manger, not in the satanical madness of an old, lewd boor.

M

 

 

Officially Heretical Pope: What Now?

After the official proclamation of heresy beyond any reasonable doubt some of the understandably shocked Catholics will now experience, methinks, a certain sense of disorientation. Therefore, it seems to me that it is now necessary to go back in time and search whether something like that has ever happened in the history of the Church, and what happened next. 

It seems to me that we are now in a phase of obvious Honorius 2.0  : the Pope was officially a heretic and the Bishops (there were no Cardinals then) simply did nothing for as long as the Pope was in charge, and for some time afterwards. 

Did the See become vacant? No. 

Did the Church die? No.

Did the world end? No. 

The Church, which is Indefectible, survived Honorius, and she will survive Francis, irrespective of how many bishops and cardinals will be sent to hell for the offences done to her. 

What happened next? At some point after the death of Honorius, it was decided to right the heresy with the extremely strong move of an Ecumenical Council. Mind, though: as long as he lived, Honorius did not have to retract and I have no knowledge of official resistance of the bishops, or threat to declare Honorius self-deposed (as it was done, though the details are unclear, with Pope Marcellinus) in virtue of the offence committed (“Judge thyself!”, the bishops famously said to Marcellinus).

Yes, we are tested. We are tested by the cowardice and idiocy of the Burkes of the world almost as much as we are tested by the obvious faithlessness and heresy of Francis. But let us put things in the proper context here: just as the faithful in the time of Honorius were not so important that Honorius’ heresy had to mean the end of the church, or of the world, or of whatever is good and holy, we are not so important that this officially heretical pontificate has to mean that the end times are now near. 

Instead of waiting for Armageddon (which will come, have no doubt about this, at the appointed time anyway), you had better pray more and reflect that you, and everyone else, is expected to know and follow the manual irrespective of what Francis says. 

If the world ends, be prepared. But hey, be prepared anyway, and consider that the world did not end in the time of Honorius. 

As I have developed an allergic reaction to meaningless whining and “the end is near” doom saying, I will not publish any comment that does now incite the readers to do (to pray more, to do more penance, to become more active in our sphere of influence) rather than to whinge.

Man up, grab your shield, and go to war. 

Yours is not the first generation to experience the seemingly unthinkable. 

M

 

 

Your Grace, Please Stop Faffing Around!

You can’t believe this. 

400 days since the Dubia were given to the Evil Clown, and we are still in front of this endless blabbing and faffing about instead of doing the only thing that is not only expected, but demanded: publicly denounce Amoris Laetitia as a heretical document on countless counts and demand that the Pope recant the heretical statements therein contained, lest he be declared a heretic himself. 

Pray for Cardinal Burke; that, miraculously, this kitten may, one day, wake up a lion. 

M

Urgency, Cardinal Burke Edition

“Can you feel my urgency?”

“The urgency of a response to the dubia derives from the harm done to souls by the confusion and error, which result, as long as the fundamental questions raised are not answered in accord with the constant teaching and practice of the Church,” Cardinal Burke said in the interview.

“The urgency weighs very heavily on my heart,” he said, adding he has seen “a great deal of confusion, also people feeling that the Church is not a secure point of reference.”

Can you believe this guy? Amoris Laetitia is now one and a half years old, and he still talks of an “urgency” that “weighs very heavily on his heart?” This is not even a normal kitten; this one is the runt of the litter. 

In the past, responses to heretical statement took a lot of time. Information traveled very slowly, and a long time was needed merely to communicate, much less to organise. 

Today, information travels all over the planet in a matter of hours. Nowadays, there is no universe in which a person can talk of “urgency” after eighteen months and not lose face. 

This man has no guts, and no shame. No guts, because he keep not doing his job. No shame, because he keeps posing as the hero eternally about to go to war whilst he keeps staying comfortably at home.

A paper tiger is worse than a self-confessed kitten. 

Man up, Kitten Cardinal. The world is waiting. 

M 

 

Cardinal Burke Gets A Mini Promotion

Congratulations, you have been mini promoted! 

Yes, it’s a classic move. 

First some years in the wilderness. Then, a partial compensation for the previous demotion, either because one showed he learned the lesson or because it is better not to have him as too bitter an enemy. 

Save his face. Give him something. After the stick, it is wise to throw a carrot. It’s not good to have bitter enemies all around one. 

I have learned to not trust Cardinal Burke, though even after all this shameless waiting I keep hoping that, at some point, he will still man up. As we enter October 2017, I must say this particular cardinal’s pair is extremely, and excruciatingly, slow in growing. 

The appointment – of which it is very reasonable to assume that the Cardinal was informed beforehand, and approved beforehand – could mean one of two things: either it is the (very small) sign of approval given by Francis for Burke’s continued silence about Amoris Laetitia, (you might say in this case the compensation would have been bigger; but cowards aren’t much feared, and they will readily accept a small compensation; besides, the new appointment might give Burke a very small finger behind which to hide in explaining why the correction is now informally called “Godot”), or it is an acknowledgment that the anti Amoris Laetitia party is getting some traction, and the impatience against Francis’ Banana Republic methods is growing bigger; thus leading Francis to throw a small piece of meat to the dissatisfied kitten.

Just in case you are thinking Francis is now steering a more conservative path, wait some hours and the next off-the-cuff subversive homily will cure you of this dangerous fantasy. 

For the avoidance of doubt, one thing I do not believe is that Burke sent Francis this message: “I want to let the correction matter drop, but give me something!”, and this appointment is the price for his bought silence. Whilst I think the man a kitten, I do not think him a person capable of selling his principles for an appointment. I think his personal tragedy is rather one of great weakness, and inability to find the courage to do what he full well knows he must do; and that Francis is throwing him some meat to encourage the man to keep schtum about AL.

Two of his kitten companions have died without doing their job.

The man should be terrified.

M       

 

 

One Year Of Faint Meowing (At Best)

Heroic meowing...

It will soon be one year. Not, mind, one year from the infamous publication of the infamous Fornicationis Laetitia. No. One year from an extremely belated request of “clarification” in the form of “Dubia”. An instrument which, weak as it was, would have been sufficient to unleash hell around Pope Francis' pontificate, if the barking had been followed by the biting. As it turned out, and as I write this, the marbles for it were and are just not there.

The faint meowing of the Dubia was followed by… nothing.

And more nothing.

At some point, some more meowing was made public, with the Cardinals (at that point all of them alive) asking a heretical Pope why oh why he does not receive them to allow them to respectfully discuss his heresy. Truly, these people make the first, pre-Gandalf Theoden look like a fearless warrior.

At this point, it is anyone's guess whether something resembling a censure of the Pope will be ever published at all by the two surviving kitten (two of them have gone to their judgment without acting; may the Lord have mercy on their souls).

My take is that at some point we will get – when the two surviving Cardinals have gathered the necessary courage – nothing more than an explanation of what the Church teaches, without any censure of or warning to the Pope, and without any demand that he puts an end to this confusion.

This would be a very little improvement on the total catastrophe of total silence; but would still fall well short of what is required: the denunciation of the paper as heretic, and the warning that the Pope will be declared such unless he recants.

If I want to know what the Church teaches concerning marriage I do not need Cardinal Burke or Brandmüller. The teaching is universally known. What is necessary is the open condemnation of a document going frontally against it, and – if the man does not backpedal – of the man who answers for the document.

Everything else would be very faint meowing, only able to satisfy the most childish Pollyannas.

Count me out, please.

M

 

Fr Aidan Speaks. Francis Will Not Be Pleased

 

 

Fr Aidan Nichols has, for the first time, publicly criticised Amoris Laetitia, and the attack was devastating. Nichols, a well-known name in England, not only points his finger on the many errors and heresies in the notorious documents, but he also states a very obvious, yet certainly one to be said, fact: it cannot be said that the Pope was negligent or unguarded in his language, because the CDF warned him about the dangers and he simply chose to ignore the warning.

This, I add, in addition to the relentless work made by the Evil Clown in officially promoting the heresies; with the letter to the Argentinian Bishops probably the most blatant, official among them.

Father Nichols will now, sadly, be persecuted, and he will not even have the protection normally afforded to a Bishop. Please pray for him.

It is very sad to see that priests feel the need to publicly criticise the Pope and undergo certain persecution when not one of the bishops besides Schneider, and no darn Cardinal at all, dares to openly confront and condemn this evil man and the damage he is causing.

Father Nichols also theorised a procedure, sanctioned by Canon Law, to discourage heretical statements of future Popes; but I frankly find the endeavour futile, as a heretical Pope would block such ordinary ways. By definition, a heretical Pope can only be an extraordinary event; which will, then, require extraordinary measures outside of the usual legal ways and channels.

The Extraordinary Council generally seen as the remedy for such actions is just this: a counter-revolution for Christ against a revolutionary Pope. There can be no manual for such things, which makes it wise for such situations never having been regulated by Canon Law.

But this is just side news. That even the Catholic Herald publishes such a scathing condemnation is rather more relevant.

Pray for Father Nichols. And for Bishops and Cardinals willing to do their job already.

M

 

Meet Cardinal Burke, Paper Tiger Extraordinaire

The one on the left just gave another interview

Wannabe hero without the battle Cardinal Burke is having a whale of a time.

After the most scandalous dereliction of duty for now sixteen months and – which makes it even worse – orthodox posturing without even acting on it, Cardinal Burke seems intentioned to sit on this fence ad infinitum, certainly counting on all the rosewater Catholics and Pollyanna resisters dumb enough to believe, without any evidence to back their belief, that this man is every bit part of the solution rather than of the problem.

Now, the Cardinal has once again ventilated that – at some point, in future, no one knows when – a formal correction could come; and that – mirabile dictu! – this correction might contain some faint meowing of criticism of the Evil Clown for failing to defend Truth; which is exactly what the Cardinal himself is doing even as he criticises others for it.

One must appreciate the game: eternal posturing without ever acting; paper tiger extraordinaire; professional fence sitter.

Cardinal Burke is literally having his cake and eating it; courtesy of the dumbness of too many lukewarm faithful, desperately on the look for a hero whilst Our Lord is spitted in the face every day. He should be ashamed of himself.

Make no mistake: if Cardinal Burke were to proceed to a formal condemnation of Francis and his heresies tomorrow, his delay would still be gravely sinful. However, the correction itself would still be the desired, and expected, outcome. But what is happening now is truly ludicrous, and such that the Cardinal deserves open condemnation and mockery until he man up, rather than approval.

By the bye, we are now past the Assumption and I distinctly remember the Cardinal stating that after the Epiphany any time could be right for the correction, implying January, February at the latest.

Beware of the paper tigers. They are not your friends, or Christ's.

M

 

The Cardinals Have No Clothes. Or Excuses.

The next (disgraceful) Consistory is about to happen, and I read around about a possible confrontation between those Cardinals who still think they are Catholic and those those who don't want to make public they aren't, with even a rebuke of the Evil Clown in the cards.

It all seems rather far-fetched to me.

Amoris Laetitia has been released fourteen months ago, and not one Cardinal has dared to condemn either the document or the one officially taking paternity of it. To think that the reaction will happen now is tantamount to think that it is the mere absence of the physical presence of the Pope that prevents the Cardinals from doing their job; as if being in the physical presence of the Pope were an indispensable component of any reaction to heresy, with the obvious consequence that Francis would only need to avoid meeting every Cardinal he doesn't like to avoid ever being corrected. I admit as an excuse for inaction it would be wonderful if it were realistic, but it's too dumb even for a two-seconds scrutiny. So no, the Cardinals have no excuses and, actually, no clothes.

I am afraid that the reality is much sadder that a matter of geography and proximity: there simply is, as I write this, not one Cardinal around willing to stand up to the Pope. Not one. Francis could meet all the Cardinals he wants, and they would not be any problem at all. Actually, they would thank him for being so kind that he allows them to flatter him without any shame.

Of course, hope is the last to die. But I suggest you put this in your day dreaming drawer rather than thinking a public correction from the Four Kitten (much less a vast number of Cardinals) is in any way, shape or form in the cards.

We are going to have to go through this alone, and perhaps the next generation and the one after that, too. We should realistically apprise the situation and realise that as I write this even more FrancisCardinals are about to be appointed.

We might be surrounded by perverts, atheists, communists, and kitten in red for a long, long time.

M

 

Contraceptionis Laetitia

A common trait of the Modernists of the last 50 years is the canonisation of V II, which was – they say – a true “outpouring of the Spirit” (Who had been clearly dozing up to then), leading the sheep to pastures new.

The Evil Clown is, obviously, the embodiment of this mentality, with the addition of abundant steroids. You would, therefore, think that Francis would leave Humanae Vitae alone.

This thinking has a fundamental flaw: it assumes that heretics operating within the Church have coherence and moral integrity. Both assumptions are clearly wrong.

The worship of V II is only acceptable inasmuch as it proposes and spreads heretical thinking. If it is even feebly orthodox it must be disposed of.

It is therefore not at all surprising that – as Roberto de Mattei revealed – the Evil Clown be now working on a “reinterpretation” of Humanae Vitae allowing for artificial contraception and, very possibly, who knows what else.

I can't wait for Cardinal Burke presenting new Dubias, obviously after having explained to us that the document meant to pervert Humanae Vitae upholds it. Don't wait for an answer from Francis, either. With opponents as weak and dumb as Burke & Co. he can go on undisturbed and proceed to Amoris Laetitia.

Prepare yourself for Conteaceptionis Laetitia and who knows what after that, courtesy of the immense cowardice of our Bishops and Cardinals.

Thanks, Cardinal Burke & Co. May the Lord give each and every one of you the just reward for your brilliant CINO, feebly meowed fake opposition to heresy.

But don't worry, dear reader. The Church of Francis isn't changing her teaching at all.

She is merely giving the faithful a heretical option in order to be more inclusive.

M

 

Nigerian Troubles

The Evil Clown has given an ultimatum to the Nigerian priests who, since 2012, have refused to accept their Benedict-appointed new bishop: either they solemnly promise allegiance to him or they will get rid of their job.

I do not know enough of African matters to know whether this long confrontation is to do with orthodoxy or tribalism. However, I can tell you this: if it is to do with tribalism it is a shame that priests be concerned about tribal matters even as they shut up about Amoris Laetitia and the other countless scandals of this pontificate. I would not expect from a priest to be in the first line against Francis' heresy, but if these priests are ready to refuse obedience to a (actually, two) Popes for many years in lesser matters, then they should feel the more obliged to do it in the big ones; the more so, as they clearly have the numbers and, reassuringly, no sitting bishop.

If the controversy has been, all this time, about orthodoxy (disabuse yourself of the notion that Benedict appointed good bishops; many of them were simply atrocious), then it is still shameful that as a battle for orthodoxy enrages the elephant in the room (Amoris Laetitia) is not addressed.

Either way, this Nigerian issue shows us that the clergy is abandoning us even when one could hope that they are, for a change, trying to shepherd their sheep. If it's not silence for the wrong reasons, it is protest for the wrong reasons. And this in Africa, which should give us hope with its alleged orthodoxy.

The world should by now be aflame with condemnations of Amoris Laetitia.

What we get is, I fear, tribal controversies.

M

 

Cardinal Burke Has A New Pet Project, But He Has Not Completed The First One

The Catholic Blogosphere seems very excited about Cardinal Burke now (suddenly) advocating for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

If memory serves, this is the same Cardinal who announced a correction of Amoris Laetitia (or of Pope Francis directly) now around eight months ago, for the case that the Pope does not answer the Dubia posed to him.

You can make a baby in eight months. In the same time frame, Cardinal Burke has not managed – together with his paper tiger colleagues – to write three or four well-written sentences of condemnation of, at the very least, Amoris Laetitia and in fact, logically, of Francis' own pontificate and mindset.

I can't say I am impressed by this man. The entire planet is waiting for him to show some balls, and he reacts by doing nothing on the matter and… opening another front instead.

If he thinks we will forget what he has to do, he is sadly mistaken.

Cardinal Burke's dereliction of duty is ongoing. It becomes more scandalous every day that passes. No amount of deflections will let us forget that this here is one who can (almost) bark, but can't bite at all.

And please spare me the elaborate excuses for this man's and his confreres' utter lack of action. This is not the XVI Century anymore. In the age of Twitter, eight months are the equivalent of a geological era of the past. Also, it is clear that the four Cardinals were told in no uncertain terms that Francis will not answer the Dubia. There is no reason at all to wait one minute longer. Actually, at this point there would not be even if Francis had stated he intends to answer.

The man should just do his job, instead of trying to invent more ways to get an easy approval for his sheer dereliction of duty.

M

Rome Life Forum: Talk Is Good, Action Is Better

The Rome Life Forum that is about to begin will be centred not only on the protection of the unborn life, but on the current crisis in the Church. This is good, as there can never be too much discussion about a Church that seems to have forgotten Her role and mission.

However, it gives one pause when one reads that among the participants will be some of those of whom concrete actions has been awaited for many months now, and who seem intentioned to renounce to it in favour of … more words. These two are, to wit, Cardinals Burke and Caffarra: two of those who, after announcing that they would defend the faith, have preferred to just wait for… no one knows exactly what reason.

A Cardinal's (and bishop's) job is not to participate to discussions about generic church problems, but to denounce them loud and clear with all the necessary consequences.

To see Cardinals who not only should have acted months ago, but who have announced that they would so just limit themselves to discussion rounds as if they were journalists or activists is extremely saddening, and gives you a clear picture of the scale of the crisis currently plaguing the Church.

It reminds me of “Life of Brian”, where the members of the revolutionary committee issue a resolution protesting the arrest of their member. However, in that case there was at least a resolution. In this case, the resolution was announced but never put in place.

Cardinal Caffarra and Cardinal Burke are gravely in arrears. More words will not wash. They must now do the right thing and openly condemn the heresies in Amoris Laetitia, accusing the Pope of dereliction of duty and promotion of heresy for refusing to answer the Dubia.

This and only this, not more abstract words of dissatisfaction and diffused clerical whining, is what is required of them. It is required of all bishops and Cardinals of course; but it is required of the Four Cardinals in the first place, as they have made themselves beautiful with the faithful announcing a vigorous defence of Church teaching whose concrete exercise we are still awaiting.

It's like someone announcing he would challenge the school bully and then doing nothing about it. He will probably be despised more than those who shut up from the start.

The time to participate to fora has now passed, at least for the Cardinals. They should remember why they dress in red and act accordingly.

Perhaps we will hear something about when the Cardinals are planning to act, but I will not hold my breath. At this point, I think the plan is to let the matter of the Dubia be quietly forgotten, with some lame excuse about the Pope not answering them, or the like.

Pray for the Cardinals, that they should not flee in front of the wolves.

As they have most certainly been doing up to now.

M

 

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

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 masse.  Amoris 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

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. 

M 

 

 

[REBLOG] Heresy In Amoris Laetitia: 302 & 303

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

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. 

M 

 

   

     

 

Time To Call A Heretic A Heretic

 

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