I have not written anything about the new Cardinals, because little has come to my screen, up to now, concerning them.
But if this chap is indicative of the general quality, we are in for a very rough ride.
The new Cardinal-designate Dew is such a Kasperite he should get the t-shirt. Nothing in what he says would let you think he is a Catholic. He sounds like a Presbyterian wannabe-bishop, bitching and whining around as he reflects on what shade of pink would make him look better.
We do not know about the sexual orientation of this walking disgrace. But the emotional “argument” of the man is so effeminate that one truly wonders.Are there no men left among the leftists?
Firstly, note the expression, apparently used already as early as 2005:
“the scandal of hunger for eucharistic food”.
This is a purely emotional appeal letting the Church appear an oppressive institution unjustly starving the faithful. “Scandal”, “Hunger” and “food”, three words with undisputed high emotional content, are here abused in the most stupid of ways in order to promote a sacrilegious agenda.
If this is the right logic, Catholicism is no more. Better said: if this is the right logic, Catholicism has been a fraud for 2,000 years: an oppressive religion bent on starving the faithful rather than encouraging them on the path to virtue. I am sure the Presbyterian Mr Dew is fully aware of this; he just doesn’t care, or perhaps he even believes it.
The purely marketing-based, emotionally charged, whining and bitchy approach of this man to the job he is supposed to do is just as infuriating. The non-existent logic of the chap is explained as follows:
When the bishops were preparing for the synod, they had a “huge” response, he said: “25 percent of the people responding were nonpracticing Catholics and the message was that ‘It’s impossible when we’re told that because we’re using contraceptives we’re intrinsically evil or that we’re living in an irregular situation — the language is so negative that it doesn’t help us.’
“So, my intervention was: Let’s not be concentrating on rules, but looking for language that helps people and encourages people in their journey toward God.”
This is so gay it runs already for the Elton Prize 2015.
As he sees things, the problem is not that the behaviour is sinful. The problem is that the language is negative! Therefore, we must change the language! But look: if you tone down the language you will destroy the very message, because the harsh language is there exactly to point out to the gravity of the behaviour!
‘course, says the man. It is so obvious to him that the biggest problem is that… there are rules! Let’s not be concentrating on rules, then!
How someone who cannot even hear that his behaviour is “intrinsically disordered” and get all in a tizzy even at being told that his situation is “irregular” (“irregular”? “Irregular”, my foot! Concubinage! Grave scandal! Mortal sin! Satan at the door!) would, then, be encouraged to abandon it once he is told that he will not be told anything unpleasant to him and no one will concentrate on rules is beyond me. Only an idiot with no experience at all of life, or an effeminate priest, could ever come to this kind of conclusion.
It’s not only that this is a complete capitulation and renunciation to basic Christianity. It is that the entire thing is made in such an emotionally effeminate way that even the reading of it induces vomit.
The “hunger”; the “food”; the “negative language” that “doesn’t help us”.
Get a pair.
I cannot avoid imagining that Francis went to his luxuriously appointed but oh so humble entire hotel floor and asked: “Mirror, mirror on the wall: who is the gayest of them all?”
“It’s John Dew, the Archbishop of Wellington!”, the mirror promptly answered.
“I am surprised you even asked”, I think it added.
If this chap is in any way representative of the average quality of the Cardinals appointed by Francis, I can only conclude that TMAHICH’s dagger is now aimed at the very heart of the Church.
St Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
This is probably not the first time it happens, but it is indicative of the intention of some Cardinals not to allow Kasper and Francis to have their way.
The Eponymous Flower published yesterday a blog post about an interview to Cardinal Scola, in which the latter stated, very diplomatically, that he did not think Pope Francis would plunge the Church in a huge chaos, whilst unmistakable stating why it would be so.
Yesterday evening the same Eponymous Flower published a new a blog post about an interview to Cardinal Müller, who clearly states that… the separation of doctrine and praxis would be heresy.
Francis’ and Kasper’s ears must be whistling, because there can be no doubt about the target of Cardinal Müller’s statement.
Cardinal Müller is here very publicly drawing a line in the sand, and forbidding Cardinal Kasper and the Pope from crossing it. Yes, the Pope, as the Cardinal most certainly knows that the likes of Kasper and Marx are but pawns in the chess game Francis is playing.
It is good that, more than ten weeks after the disgraceful Synod, the “H”-word resounds from high quarters. It is a useful reminder to The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) about what will very probably happen if he were to go Castro on Church doctrine.
Kudos to Cardinal Müller, then. By all his theological shortcomings, this man shows that he does not fear conflict or demotion for the sake of the Church.
Some good news for a change. Cardinal Sarah – the outspoken defender of the Sacrament of Communion and of Catholic teaching about sexual perversion – has been appointed head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (note the last words well). As V II Cardinals go, Sarah is certainly orthodox and conservative, i.e. Catholic.
Thankfully, I have not noticed anyone (up to now) trying to persuade us that this appointments shows that Francis is A Good, Orthodox, Conservative Pope People Do Not Understand. That time has, I think, gone forever.
Personally, I am not ready to give the man the least shred of credibility, whomever he may appoint. The man obviously hasn't changed, so our view of the danger he represents will not change, either. Why has Francis, then, chosen Sarah, of all people, for the position? My spontaneous thoughts:
1) He needs some prestigious African prelate near him to avoid the accusation of ignoring that Continent. Therefore, he puts an African at the top of what Africans do worst: liturgy. It minimises the damage for Francis, at least. How bad Sarah is in liturgical matters is also to be seen. Tornielli seems to trust him in liturgical matters too, which is a good sign. But this here is also an anti-Kasperite in the middle of the Vatican, which can never hurt.
2) Francis wants to show that he can reward outspoken prelates, as long as they do not criticise him personally. Burke out, Sarah in. A conservative in the Curia like before, but a less uncomfortable one for Francis. For now, at least.
3) He wants to divide the anti-Kasperite fraction, sending them partly to the wilderness and partly to Rome. I do not think it will ever work; but he might think so. A genius, he ain't.
4) He has given up on his revolutionary project. He is old, and it has become clear to him he will not be able to attempt any “revolution” without a huge, long conflict; a conflict which would doom his papacy for all centuries to come. He will continue to talk rubbish, of course; but no revolution. This seems to me, for the moment, only a possibility; but I do not consider it such a remote one.
Old, he is. Hypocrite, he is. Vain, he most certainly is. This one isn't the born and bred ideologue, the hero uncaring of the consequences, the Che Guevara of doctrinal demolition. This one is… a Jesuit. He will be strong with the weak and weak with the strong with the same easiness with which you breathe.
Time will tell. Let us not get too enthusiastic. The one in power is still TMAHICH. But he is clearly in the defensive now.
Today, we did get some good news. I cannot imagine any way in which bringing Sarah in can be seen as a sign of Francis' strength. No, it is a sign of Francis' weakness. He must appease the Catholics, lest he ends like the turkey at thanksgiving. He must bring in some African. He must give signals of normality. The bombardment of criticism since the Synod has not ceased, and in the meantime even the readers of the “Huffington Post” know he has put himself in a lot of trouble.
At the Synod, Francis has taken a pump gun and has shot himself in the leg. He is now trying to regain the face he has lost. It won't be easy.
It's too soon to say that Francis has thrown in the towel. But it is certainly enough to say that he is under great pressure, and must now act to avoid that the pressure becomes intolerable.
And as yours truly had already noticed, the cannonade against heresy is going on unabated. The Pollyannas can happily keep dreaming. All the others know the object of this brutal verbal attack is… the one by whom the buck stops, the one who made the mess possible, and the one who was most certainly behind the Synod.
This time, it is Bishop Athanasius Schneider who takes it on himself to fire from all the cannons at his disposal. We are accustomed to clear words from him; but this time, his words are of unheard-of brutality. Clearly, this one is not a Jesuit.
Bishop Schneider attacks the mentality of the entire midterm Relatio in terms I have never heard before in a prelate criticising a church document, even if a provisional one. To call a Vatican document representative of a
radical Neo-pagan ideology
is very probably the worst conceivable offence any prelate can make to any church document, or churchman who is directly or indirectly behind it (yes: it means Jorge Bergoglio). This is not even heresy, says the Bishop. This is not even recognisable as Christianity anymore! How can TMAHICH read these words and not understand what awaits him if he tries to put a very stupid foot on the gas pedal of heresy?
The rest of the interview is also worth reading. The mention that this document will go down as a huge shame in the history of the Church is also very notable. The main point that I want to make, here, is that this brave man of God has said – for everyone who has ears to hear – that the Unholy Father is trying to drive the Church on Her way to paganism. But he truly is on fire.
Do you want more? Read the interview on the link, because every line is a joy (and I can’t manage to make “copy and paste” work). You will also know what the bishop thinks of many of his colleagues. Refreshing…
Pay attention that you come to the “Pharisees” part. It’s truly good.
I can’t go on quoting. Read for yourself. It’s more, I would say, than a carpet bombing. It’s a nuclear device. It’s an open declaration of war to the pagans and atheists within the Church. It’s as tough as it gets.
This, my dear readers, is the right attitude. Crying heresy – Bishop Athanasius cries even worse than this – without half words, and stating very clearly what will happen if the Pope continues on his road to hell is the only way to maximise the chances of stopping the madman. At the same time, it is the best and most effective way to fight against Francis if the man were to put himself at the head of a heretical movement. He must be made to understand that an open confrontation would plunge the Church in a chaos that would have him as the first victim on day one: because even in his most drunken state this man most know his legacy will be doomed, and possibly his papacy with it, if he is mad enough to go on with his plan. He couldn’t remake the church if he were 40. But he is almost 80. He has no time to even try. And he knows the trying would mean an extremely high price to pay.
Which prompts the question of how exactly this man, who did not have the balls to risk a probable nuclear explosion some weeks ago, should choose, next year, to steer an inevitable one. Whatever could not be “achieved” in October 2014 will be, it is now clear, far more difficult in October 2015. How Francis could have in October 2015 the courage then that he did not have in October 2014 is, frankly, beyond me.
Still, we can ‘t lower our guard. If a huge mess and a split between Catholics and Neo-Pagans is to be avoided, then the only way to do so is to do what more and more prestigious prelates are doing; and thus either isolate and neutralise as far as possible the Neo-Pagans, or expose them as such and let every soi-disant Catholic decide where to put the stakes of his own salvation: the truth of all times, or a dope pope of 32 months.
This reminds me of the Cuban Crisis. Khrushchev-Francis may well threaten the one-side Nuclear conflict, but on the other side there are many Kennedys ready to react with all-out nuclear war.
Pay attention, Oh So Humble Kriuschev”. You will not get away with just threatening. If you really want it, it will be nuclear war. But it will kill your papacy first.
TMAHICH has given another example of boundless hypocrisy and utter carelessness today for what he has said yesterday.
The family is being “bastardised”, he decries. Nowadays, so much is called “family”.
Well, let me think aloud here.
The family would be less bastardised if there were no Archbishops sending their priests in the slums, allowing mass sacrilege as they permit everyone to receive communion in a context in which 80% or more of couples are not married and, therefore, presumably 80% of children are bastards.
There is, in fact, no way to bastardise the family more effectively than what Francis has done as Archbishop and is doing as Pope: allowing mass sacrilege in his own diocese, devaluing marriage as he allows concubines to receive, marrying in his capacity as Pope public concubines, allowing the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires to baptise poor children “adopted” by goddamn dykes, and in general sabotaging the very idea of family with a Synod full of heresy, blasphemy and sexual perversion.
Francis is like a Hitler complaining of Antisemitism. With the important difference that Hitler at least did not have the stunning hypocrisy of decrying what he himself promoted day in and day out.
Francis is here, clearly, trying to remake a virginity by appearing a defender of the family. He is in fact, and remains, its worst enemy. He is merely being his Modernist self, and throwing some pigeon feed to the Pollyannas so that they may now storm the comment boxes of blogs and fora singing the praise of Francis The Defender Of Family.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History has opened his mouth again, and again he has given us a demonstration of his breathtakingly double-tongued persona.
Don’t believe one word of what he says. Francis may not be, technically at least, a bastard; but his Catholicism is not even recognisable as bastardised.
It is just not there.
I am already sick and tired of the new buzzword chosen by Satan to attack the Church and Her Sacraments: the concept of “welcome”.
You welcome someone in your house because you think it safe and sensible to do so. You wouldn’t say “welcome” to any violent drunkard, rapist or pedophile; or robber, thief, fraudster.
“Who is it?”
“Good morning, ma’am. I am a rapist. I ask to be welcomed in your hospitable home, because I feel very much excluded. Your doormat says ‘all welcome’; so will you open, please….”
What do you think: will the woman open? Me neither… She will, actually, rather call the Police.
Exactly the same – though on a much graver scale – happens with the Church whenever there is a call to “welcome” people who bring with them not conversion, but the pride of their vices, and the arrogant demand not only to continue the scandal, but also to be allowed to “be welcomed” in the House of the Lord.
I say “much worse” because – as every sound Catholic will realise after three seconds of reflection – the things of God are infinitely more important than the mortal bodies of men, and the sullying of His house with heretical and satanic praxis and widespread sacrilege is infinitely worse than any number of rapes and murders one may care to imagine; a concept, this, once well planted in every Catholic mind, but now obviously disappeared from the consciousness of many of them; of people whose religion is, to all intents and purposes, made entirely so satisfy man, and uncaring of insulting God.
No, the woman will not allow the rapist to get in. Her “welcome” is meant for those, and only for those, fit to enter her home.
But the House of the Lord, the Holy Church, should be sullied with every kind of scandal and blasphemy, with those who want to rape her to satisfy their desires, so that everyone feels “welcoming”. Cue the obese female blogger, and the saltless priest – homosexual, it is purported; I report the rumour just because the readers have the right to know, considering what he goes around saying – rolling a huge doormat to every scandalous adulterer, concubine and pervert on the planet.
Only doormats welcome all. Literally and figuratively.
Be a sissified doormat and don’t be surprised if, one day, you will stand in line near some blogger with Compulsive Gluttoning Disorder, about to enter the gates of hell, and going over a huge doormat carrying the following words:
Today, the 13 October 2014, nineteen months exact in this disgraceful pontificate, will probably remain in history as one of the darkest days in the history of the Church.
I welcome anyone who could point out to a precedent in which not from a Luther or Arius, but from a Synod very heavily influenced by the Pope such astonishingly satanical expressions have been produced, as the ones below.
Here a little choice. More on this as time allows.
In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).
Translation: in the same way as we have polluted the Church for now 50 years with unspeakable bollocks about all the “good” residing among heretics and infidels qua heretics and infidels, now we can, if we make another little step, make the same with marriage, and proceed to utterly demolish Our Lord’s message on marriage by stating how many good elements of sanctification are present in people who are living in mortal sin. Which is new, and daring. Lumen Gentium already told us that the beheading of Christians is a force impelling toward Catholic unity
In this light, the value and consistency of natural marriage must first be emphasized. Some ask whether the sacramental fullness of marriage does not exclude the possibility of recognizing positive elements even [in] the imperfect forms that may be found outside this nuptial situation, which are in any case ordered in relation to it.
In this light, after we have paid some lip tribute to what the Church has always said, some ask whether two concubines who live together more uxorio, and clearly in mortal sin for all the world to see, should not be seen in the positive elements of their sinful, adulterous union, in their scandal, and in their mortal sin. Let us see: perhaps they have a great sense of humour? Do they love dogs? Are they not sweet, as they hold hands seeing “Notting Hill”, or “About a Boy”? How valuable is that? This is like Mastercard: priceless!
The doctrine of levels of communion, formulated by Vatican Council II, confirms the vision of a structured way of participating in the Mysterium Ecclesiae by baptized persons.
The doctrine of levels of communion, of which no one had ever heard anything before Vatican II, can be applied here too: some people are in communion because they are married; and some other people are in another (lesser! Lesser! Of course!) degree of communion because they are concubines living in mortal sin; a fact in which we, who are far more tolerant than Jesus, see an awful lot of good. Think of it as “cool” and “premium” membership. The members must be inspired to upgrade. But they are already at the “cool” level. Vatican II taught us so.
Realizing the need, therefore, for spiritual discernment with regard to cohabitation, civil marriages and divorced and remarried persons, it is the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries. Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man (cf. Jn 1,9; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.
Therefore, we, who are lurid underworld figures sucking it up to the world like whores on cocaine, manage to see “seeds of the Word” even in what goes frontally again the very words of Our Lord. Because, you see, we are just whores of Satan. What Satan wants, we will call “recognising [those] seeds of the Word”.
The Gospel of the family, while it shines in the witness of many families who live coherently their fidelity to the sacrament, with their mature fruits of authentic daily sanctity must also nurture those seeds that are yet to mature, and must care for those trees that have dried up and wish not to be neglected.
A concubinage, adulterous or not, is not a mortal sin and a scandal. It is a tender plant that we must nurture. The concubines are not at immediate risk of eternal damnation. They are plants in need of watering. We have been, for 2,000 years, such bad gardeners!
In this respect, a new dimension of today’s family pastoral consists of accepting the reality of civil marriage and also cohabitation, taking into account the due differences. Indeed, when a union reaches a notable level of stability through a public bond, is characterized by deep affection, responsibility with regard to offspring, and capacity to withstand tests, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development towards the sacrament of marriage.
In this respect, a modern bishop-whore of the XXI century “accepts” civil marriage and also cohabitation. This is a new dimension of being pastoral, because up to now being pastoral meant being a good shepherd, and leading people to God. Indeed, indeed we do not care a straw for Jesus! For us, if two concubines in mortal sin reach a notable level of stability in their mortal sin, what’s not to like? Do they not raise their children, like every couple of savages would do? Where’s your beef, then? Indeed, indeed we do not care a fig for the Lord! For us, when an adulterer has been very constant in his betrayal of his only spouse, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development toward the sacrament of marriage? Again: an upgrade, so to speak.
Please, former spouse, die soon! Can’t you accept the reality of civil marriage and cohabitation?
This, concerning those who are not perverts.
The perverts, and more general consideration about these little whores of Satan, are for another post.
Now it’s very late, and I am very tired.
Today we have seen satanical material to last for a long time.
From today, one can safely say he who still insists in not seeing the evil of Francis has completely and utterly deserved every punishment that God throws his way. I mean, obviously every punishment of God is always deserved; but in this case is deserved because no one has the right to say he is so stupid he couldn’t see.
This is to such an astonishing extent the exact contrary of what the Church has always held sacred, that to profess allegiance to this rubbish can only mean to profess allegiance to Satan.
And the worst (if possible) must still come. Then only pedophiles and child-rapists are, for now, excluded from this madness.
Very probably, Satan has thought the time is not ripe, yet, for that.
Father Ray Blake has another very thoughtful post about the “wobbly” Church, and the danger “experiments” like Francis’ papacy represent for the Faith.
This part is enlightening:
I really am beginning to think that the Papacy, which Vatican II saw as the unitative, if it becomes innovative becomes self-destructive. The very purpose of the Papacy is to conserve that which was handed on to it. In the first millennium the faith of the City of the Two Apostles stood still whilst the world revolved, its lack of innovation made it the touchstone of orthodoxy during the Arian and Iconoclastic crisis and enabled it to be the memory of the Tradition of the whole Church. If the Church of Rome becomes the source of innovation can it also be the touchstone of unity? If not where can we find that unity, which after all was promised us by Christ? Can it exist outside of unity with Rome? The answer Orthodoxy and ‘ultra-Catholics’ come up with is that it exists within the Tradition itself, are ordinary Catholics going to come up with the same answer?
I allow myself to give my two cents (actually, and thank Goodness, my two pence) on this.
“Church” to me means – when referred to the organisation in its entirety, not to the church building, or the diocese, etc – two separate concepts: the heavenly Jerusalem, and the earthly one.
I look – like all Traditionalist, bar none – at the heavenly one for my instruction, and put all my hope on Her. My understanding – which I try to constantly improve and deepen – of the heavenly Jerusalem will, then, be the thermometer, or the metre, with which I measure, or observe, the state of health of the earthly one; well knowing that whilst the heavenly Jerusalem is beyond any danger of corruption, the earthly one is threatened at all times by the schemes of the devil, and the general weakness of the human nature; and in particular, the stupidity and vanity of men.
I could never – and I would consider it atrocious if anyone did it – do things the other way round, and allow the vagaries and weaknesses of the earthly Jerusalem to influence my perception of the heavenly one.
Up above, in heaven, is the perfect blueprint of what the Church should be on earth. The way the actual earthly building reflects the perfect construction plans given to it by the Divine Architect may vary from age to age, and it varies brutally at times, according to the ability and good will of those in charge of the building site: the maintenance work, the piping, the draining, the heating, the cabling, the gardens, the roof, and the windows. But when you look at the proficiency of the builder or the restoration company you look first at the plans, and from there you see how good or bad the builder’s work was.
There is no other way. There could never be another one. To do any differently would be to say, or to entertain a doubt, that the builder may have a say in how the planning is done. It isn’t, and he hasn’t.
The Architect has made the plan. The builders must stick to the plan. If they don’t, they are a disgrace. That’s all there is to know.
We are now in the hand of drunken, blaspheming, careless building contractors who have been put in charge of the maintenance, but really do not care a straw for the edifice. They go around breaking windows, because they have noticed that the mob likes the sound of splintered glass. They also do not care whether the Architect of the immense building exists or not, and probably think the building “just got there out of nothing”. It is perfectly irrelevant to them whether the edifice will still be in any half-decent state of repair in one generation or two. But when they break another window, the mob applauds, and gives them money to eat, drink, and be merry. That’s another window going, then…
This is all very sad; and, for the avoidance of doubt, yours truly would, if he had his way, have all those who have contributed to the dereliction and devastation of the building flayed to the blood, with the only exception of those of whom the Architect has stated that they shall not be touched.
The workers on the building site are drunken, and arrogant, and stupid. But not for one moment we think they should have any say in how the building should look like. This is, simply, not for them to say.
This is why the building contractors can become as drunk as you please, and break as many windows in their juvenile, demented stupidity as they want.
We know, and we will always know, how the building plans looks like, how the building is supposed to look, and what is necessary to proceed to its proper maintenance and restoration.
Francis is a stupid, drunken, arrogant, socialist, and very probably atheist disaster of a contractor firm director. One day, the Great Chairman In The Sky will punish him as he deserves.
But our faith in the plan remains granitic, untouched by drunken vagaries, and ready to battle against the drunken builders.
There is no other way to see the matter. Everything else would not be Catholic, but Anglican. It would be to allow the swine to define the function and value of the pearls. It would be just stupid.
This must, I think, be said very clearly to the average, distracted, lukewarm, and very naive “oh how nice the Pope is” crowds out there.
The only reality is God. What we call “reality” is merely His product. The idea that we can change the reality of things – the reality of the Church, of the Sacraments, of Our Lord’s commands – is as stupid as to think that a drunken builder can evaluate the planning permission of a building, and decide about the changes he likes.
The lukewarm, average Catholics must be said a thing or two about reality. When they get it, they will very naturally stop fighting against it.
I read around rather funny calls from Catholic bloggers and commenters – mostly, of dubious orthodoxy – for a better marketing.
They ask: “How can we express the beauty of marriage in new ways? How can we explain it to people in ways they can relate to? How can we make God’s message more involving, more exciting, more fun?”
Mundabor has a simple answer to this: we don’t have to, because it’s not to be done in the first place. Christianity is very harsh. Marriage isn’t easy. It never was, it never will be. Life, in general, isn’t an amusement park, or easy, or even fair.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves that we have a right to the amusement park. Let’s go back to basics instead. Let us stop with the fluffy talking, the inclusive nonsense, the “space for love” thinly veiled heresy, which means “I want to have my cake and eat it, otherwise I will feel betrayed”.
The reason why concubinage and adultery are not allowed is, at the very bottom of things, hell. This is what people must be said: if you live in sin, you expose yourself to a very, very concrete risk of hell. That’s it. No, really. No, shut up. End of discussion. No debate. No democracy. No fluffy words.
Death. Judgment. Hell. Heaven. These are the concepts that must be repeated again and again. I’d add a fifth one for completeness: shut up.
“I don’t like Church teaching on marriage”. It’s not supposed to be easy. Shut up.
“This is not inclusive”. Says you. Shut up.
“I want more space for love!”. Plenty of space in hell. Shut up.
“You are not listening to me!”. You are not worth listening. Shut up.
“You are being divisive!” Jesus came with a sword. Shut up.
“I feel excluded!” If you love Him, keep His Commandment. Shut up.
I could go on, but you get the drift. Simple truths, simply said. Harsh realities explained, because people need to be told that these realities are far more real than their own “inclusiveness” fantasies, and to ignore them is not an exercise in democratic thinking, but an act of rebellion.
At the end of all, it’s heaven or hell, and the danger of the second is very, very real.
This is what people must be said. Loud and clear. When this is understood, all the rest follows. Until this is understood, heresy and dissent will be everywhere.
Enough with the marketing exercise. Jesus wasn’t a marketing man, telling the crowds how “excited” he was for the “launch” of his “new product”.
Jesus was very blunt, brutally clear, and never worried of popular acceptance. Actually, he said the “product” is so difficult to accept, one must be able to quarrel with his parents for it. Not very fun or exciting stuff, is it?
He who believes in Fluffy Jesus should read the Gospels for a change.
Forget the marketing. Let’s go back to basics.
Via the usual Rorate (but strangely, their video does not work on my browser; you might have better luck) this beautiful excerpt of a video interview from the South African Archbishop Napier; who, I am afraid, will not see the red hat in this pontificate:
The good Archbishop is good in what he says. He could, though, in my eyes, have said more. Possibly he did, but it did not get in the video.
What he said:
1. How can parents chose the “easy way out” and say to their children they must make a lifelong commitment?
2. In life, you must carry your crosses with Christ.
3. If Europeans can be de facto polygamist and receive communion, how can you deny the same to the non-Catholic polygamist in Africa, who marries a “c”atholic wife (among others) and desires to “receive communion”? Such situations are (cough) not uncommon in Africa. Should the Church not take account of the “new reality” and “challenges of the modern times”?
I would add to this that the usual suspects would say: hey, think of the children! How can you ask the man to leave any of his three wives?That would be cruel! And if call him a polygamist, now “I think they would feel insulted and offended.”
What he did not say (or the video did not show):
1. This particular cross is one of the own choosing of those who are now complaining. No doctor orders anyone to remarry. Divorce and remarriage does not just “happen”, like cancer or Alzheimer’s. It’s a conscious decision. Often (not always), this decision was made in conscious defiance of well-known Church laws, by people who call themselves Catholics. This is as much carrying a cross, as the drug addict “carries” his. Beds, and lying in them, come rather to mind.
2. It would be high time that Bishops and cardinal began to distinguish very loud in public what is meant for marriage. There is marriage and marriage. Unless the sacramental marriage is very clearly separated from a civil ceremony of some faggoty government, people will continue to be confused. They will think, particularly if they are poorly instructed or non-Catholics, that the Church arbitrarily decided “you have only one go”, for some vague desire of, basically, orderly society. It is, of course, also that, but this so much more than that. The sacramental marriage is the *real* and the *only* marriage. The other one is purely state-sanctioned concubinage. It’s a purely heathen construct.
Start calling the first marriage “the sacrament of marriage” and the second marriage “the state-sanctioned concubinage” and see people slowly getting it, or at least not able anymore to muddle the waters. Not even the Proddies, the atheists, or the Tablet readers.
3. This might be too much for a bishop, but it’s not too much for your humble correspondent: I have no problem whatsoever in believing that both Kasper and Francis would not have any problem in giving communion to the African polygamist described above.
Kasper would tell us how “forever” the “commitment” of the polygamist to his many wives is.
Francis would (you know what is coming, don’t you…) say that hey, “if a person is polygamist and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge”?
The Synod has started, and everything is going according to plan.
After painting the devil on the wall, Kasper & The Brothel Girls are now assuring us that doctrine can’t be changed. As if it could, anyway.
This will allow Kasper and his happy girls to present themselves, after the terrain has been carefully prepared, as respectful of orthodoxy and, therefore, with the right credentials to speak a word or two on behalf of the “suffering humanity”; that is, all those people for whom mortal sin and open scandal, you see, “just happened”, but would now be terribly offended if they were told so.
No. Doctrine will not be “changed”. Two and Two will also continue to be, very officially and with Papal approval, Four. But the “pastoral practice” – that is: the way the Church works in everyday life – will be officially decoupled from doctrine.
The aim is to defend Church doctrine as “the ideal”, and to allow open sin and public scandal as, well, the praxis.
Ideally, you should not kill.
How will this be achieved?
The first part has already been accomplished: the creation of a widespread expectation, in certain Countries, that the prostitutes will do what the Kirchensteuer paying clients want: shut up, and please them already.
The second part is being completed in these very days, with the assurance that the Pollyannas can sleep peaceful nights. The oh church oh doctrine is not going to, oh, change. Isn’t this, oh, sooo, oh, beautiful? Isn’t the, oh, Holy Ghost doing, ooohh, overtime?
The third and last part will be the use, in the concluding document – this year, or next year at the latest – of some winged words able to be used by the Brothel Girls as a testimony that the Church “listens”; or “is merciful”; or crap like that. I can smell the stench already.
Cue the army of concubines and their friends, greeting the synod as a historical event and praising Bishop Francis The Oh So Merciful to the sky. Cue the army of slaving, opportunistic, weathervane bloggers of the “Patheos” ilk explaining to us why a new and wonderful phase in the history of the Church is about to begin. Cue mass media bloggers telling us “ten things to know and share” about why everything has happened, but there’s nothing that has really happened. Cue the army of Pollyannas invading the world’s Comboxes with their sugary songs of thanksgiving for the purity of the doctrine, now left intact, far above in the skies, there to look at a world below that does not care for it.
The “change in pastoral approach” by “keeping the doctrine unchanged” will be universally praised. The rape will begin. Soon, what was fine up to now will be considered unbearably backwards, as the Brothel Girls explain to the world how the Church “has changed” in her “pastoral approach”. Woe, then, to those priest who dare to complain. The concubines will run en masse to the bishop, complaining; and the bishop will explain to the priest that he really, really has to get the new climate of mercy.
A few will refuse. Most will comply. Francis & Co. know this perfectly well. No human force can stop them, because there is no human mechanism to stop a Pope gone astray.
Do not think that, in order to go on with the programme, very official pronouncements will be necessary. One single sentence, well placed and fed to the world press as the implicit, but very real key of interpretation, will be enough. We live in a world of diffused stupidity and effeminate emotionalism. The feeling, the climate, the general mood is what really counts; and it is what TMAHICH has been pumping up (and pimping up) since that fateful evening in March 2013.
The Great Rape Of The Church will then begin. Not in theory. No! God forbid! Um Gottes Willen!
Merely in practice!
Next stop: Sodomites…
One says a blogger must be “charitable”.
But it is frankly difficult to stay calm when one has to read things like the latest statement of Cardinal Kasper.
The man has clealry decided that Jesus is the enemy, and everything He has said or His Church has promoted for two thousand years must now be expunged not only from people’s minds, but even from the vocabulary every time this is not convenient for the paying clients of that sad old prostitute to which the Church in Germany has reduced Herself.
Click on the link and follow the perverted logic of this caricature of a bad Cardinal.
Kasper first makes a small, unavoidable concession, but saying that adulterers are (cough…) not on the same level as sacramentally married couples. That an adulterer is not properly “married” to his new spouse, the new marriage being merely a construction of civil laws, he conveniently does not say. Adulterers are, therefore, not adulterers; they are, instead, merely “not married on the same level”. Who was the chap who said that a man who leaves his wife and married another “is not married on the same level”? Can’t remember now; but take it from me: it wasn’t Jesus…
Once he has let the adulterers past the customs and made them socially acceptable, the Cardinal can move on to explain to us intolerant bigots the many virtues of scandalous, adulterous relationships. He proceeds, then, to explain to us that where there is a scandalous, adulterous relationship
“There is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity, it is forever”.
Let us leave apart for a moment the astonishing stupidity of saying “it is forever” when, actually, there is a sacramental marriage that is, itself, until death, and the same civil laws allow for an undetermined number of further marriages who are, all of them, supposed to be “forever”.
Look, instead, at the emotional fluffing of this man as he puts his tongue firmly on the boots of his paying clients: “luv”, that is a mere human construct and in conflict with the duty owed to the real spouse. “Commitment”, that is in fact the breaking of a commitment already taken in front of Christ; “exclusivity”, which in itself means perfectly nothing, as a man could be very faithful to the dog he screws. And then, the “forever”, which is truly beyond stupid as already stated.
Then, the Cardinal goes on, and he lets the real bomb explode.
If there is so much that is good in these good people, then they muct not be called “adulterers”. His words are from the manual of the PC sissy.
“to tell them that’s adultery, permanent adultery, I think they would feel insulted and offended.”
Firstly, the Cardinal’s is a fight against reality. It is permanent adultery; a very stable and public one. Secondly, note again the emotional appeal to how people “feel”. He “thinks” they would “feel” offended.
I bet they will! Truth hurts! Since when is this, though, a reason not to tell the truth?
Have pity for the poor Jesus, the socially awkward chap who went around saying all those insensitive things. Is anyone among you who things when Jesus pronounced his famous words (which, as always in the Gospel stories, must have been pronounced on several occasions) there were no people listening, to whom he was saying, in their faces, “you are adulterers”? Do you think they were pleased? Do you not know that was a world in which a woman’s adultery was supposed to be punished with the stoning, and that of a man with social contempt?
No. Jesus spoke bluntly and openly, and the fact that there were people around who would feel “offended” was just nowhere. Why? Because Jesus loved them.
Cardinal Kasper does not love the adulterers. What he loves is their approval for himself, and their money for the Church in Germany.
In the pursuit of his goals, the man is now mounting an open, frontal attack on Jesus. This entire synod is, in its motives and inspiration, a frontal attack on Jesus, and if its puppet masters (starting with TMAHICH) renounce to make this frontal attack very public it will be only because they deem the times not ripe, but certainly not for lack of will.
Cardinal Kasper is 81. At this age, and with that title, he should know better than to be an old, dirty, wrinkly, saggy prostitute of his German Kirchensteuer-paying customers.
Say a Hail Mary for him, that he may repent before the day of the redde rationem arrives. Make it three, because this one is a real prostitute.
There you have it.
Charity in truth.
Cardinal Kasper is now everywhere, and I fear we will soon find him in our morning cereals.
The latest piece of dissent this unhinged man has now given to the world appeared on News.va, the news outlet of the Vatican.
Many are the dumb, or worse, statements in the interview; but I want to focus on the last issue, the Cardinal's evaluation of Humanae Vitae.
The Cardinal is, as always, rather blunt. One must put the Pope in the contest of his times, which was obviously different from the context of our times (truth is, in his mind, evidently overrated). The attitude one should have is that Pope Paul describes an “ideal”; but hey, ideals are not what they used to be, and nowadays we do things differently. We register the “ideal”, follow our conscience, and contracept (or murder the baby; or divorce and remarry; or support sodomites; or do whatever our conscience says). Not only is this convenient, but we feel so modern…
The Cardinal is promoting a new religion. For the followers of this religion Christianity is the “ideal”, but the moral compass is given by the conscience of the individual. A Kasperian is, therefore, one whose religion is as near to Christianity as his conscience, shaped by his circumstances, allows. Moral imperatives have disappeared, absolute truth must yield to conscience, and three second of reflection are enough to understand that to go against one's conscience can't be bad, and is in fact moral, provided we have this “ideal” – which we have just chosen not to follow – somewhere in the back of our mind.
The Cardinal even has the gall to say that the Pope stated the truth, but one must respect people's conscience. Truth is true, but my conscience trumps it; and going against truth is suddenly “pastoral”.
What a double-tongued old heretical b@st@rd this one is.
Kasperianity is a new religion. It is inspired from the Devil. It is, also, rather energetically supported by The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH), a man with the guts of calling Kasper's theology “serene” and “profound”.
Take care with whom you choose to side, Christ or Kasper.
You might otherwise, one day, look rather foolish. Infinitely so.
The Extraordinary Synod is rapidly approaching, and there is now no day without an interview of some Bishop or Cardinal, taking the one or the other side.
In the middle of all this turmoil, one thing is clear: whether Francis will dare to break taboos or not, he is causing the breaking of taboos to be discussed; freely, openly, as a matter of course.
Already it is discussed whether the canonical process of annulment should be (official word) “streamlined”. Already, “streamlined” might mean that the bishop, or a structure set up by him, should decide about annulments in a “non-juridical” way. Already, some say that not even this is necessary, but a prayerful “sit in” with the priest should at least achieve what many concubines, in the end, want: village respectability.
The pattern is well-known and has been long experimented: some total revolutionary (Kasper) proposes the totally revolutionary solution of tolerating but not accepting communion for concubines and assorted adulterers, meaning: having the sacrilegious praxis become everyday fare. After this, a “moderate” (Scola) will come out, proposing among other things (Mundabor’s commentary: what a slimy b@st@rd!) a thinkable solution for annulments that is every bit as savagely diabolical, but has the merit of sounding more moderate; because you see, the idea is not to violate the rules; merely to make a mockery of them in the first place.
Suddenly, nothing is sacred anymore. The way how to slaughter a sacrament is a subject of discussion, debate, essays, interviews, books. Suddenly, Truth is perceived as fighting for its existence.
In the meantime, Francis enjoys the lío. Catholic against Catholic, Cardinal against Cardinal. The open confrontation is, certainly, obligatory for the right side; but still, the very fact that such a confrontation exists will confuse countless Catholics, and persuade countless non-Catholics that there is no point in converting. If even Cardinals quarrel with each other about the Truth, what is Truth? And is this most un-Christian of all Pilate-like slogans not, itself, ceaselessly promoted by TMAHICH, with his insisted criticism of “excessive doctrinal security”? Can a slogan ever be more meant to promote lió than this, apart from the “who am I to judge” nuclear device?
Is this enough lío for you?
Are you still trying to read Francis through, of all people, Benedict?
I bet it is enough for TMAHICH. He is, for all the world to see, the Pope who “breaks taboos” and “paves the way for a new era”. Not for him, very probably, to be the one who lets the bombs explode. He will, very probably, be happy with being the one who made the explosions thinkable in the first place, put the bombs in place, and armed them. He does not need to be the one who orders the explosions in order to be loved by countless infidels for the rest of his life. He will be on the safe side avoiding the biggest detonations. Nothing better than reaping the fruits of a revolution without the dangers of real armed combat. The perks, I suppose, of being a shameless and faithless Pope.
Reading Francis through… what?
Believe me, TMAHICH can be best read through Saul Alinsky, or Karl Marx, or Hans Küng, and I doubt he is one bit better than any of them.
He is sowing strife and controversies, breaking taboos, attacking sacraments, insulting the Blessed Virgin, disfiguring Christ, perverting the most basic rules of Christianity, without even the risk of a major revolt.
He will, I think, very publicly stop those who want to detonate the bombs. The excited Pollyannas will hail him as the saviour of Catholicism, whilst the mainstream idiots – bar very few, extreme idiots – will buy the “prudent moderniser Pope” without a second thought.
How do you like lío?
It is there now; dished in front of you every day; pickaxing at Catholicism every day God sends on this earth.
Please. Please. Please.
Free us from this scourge.
Cardinal Müller would have let it known that the timing of the publication of “Remaining in the Truth of a Christ” is unfortunate.
He does not retract or modify one word of his statement. He merely points out it was published already (in the German and Italian Press) months before Cardinal Kasper’s “profound and serene theology” exercise.
He is, therefore, not attacking anyone. Much less his own esteemed colleague.
God forbid. Perish the thought.
Yours truly would like to make an observation or two on this.
1. One suspects for the Cardinal (Müller, I mean) the Truth must be said in season, but not out of season. It would be “unfortunate” to do so.
2. The date of publication, 1 October 2014, has been known a while, and it must have been obvious to everyone it was not chosen at random. It wasn’t, because it was necessary for this not to be so.
3. Cardinal Müller, who is a theologian, knows that “serene and profound” heresy has gone on for decades in Germany and elsewhere. When he wrote his intervention and had it published, he most certainly knew it would go square against the Kaspertruppen.
4. More in general, we can’t attack heresy without attacking the heretics. It is clear that one who defends the ban on communion for concubines as being a fundamental part of the Catholic doctrine and the obvious result of what Holy Communion is, at the same time accuses those supporting the contrary position of striking at Catholicism’s very core. There can be no beating around the bush here: this is an accusation of material heresy.
Not very amusingly, we live in times in which the heretics are considered “serene and profound” in their heretical theology and those who, at least in this, defend orthodoxy must defend themselves with these ridiculous excuses about the timing, and the like.
My little advice to Cardinal Müller would be to stand his ground firmly.
If TMAHICH values orthodoxy (yours truly breaks in uncontrollable laughter… recovers himself… slowly…. he is now ready to go on…) , Müller has nothing to fear.
If TMAHICH thinks him too conservative, no amount of subtle distinguos as to why he is not really attacking Kasper will save his chair.
A chair at which, I am sure, his opponents are sawing as I write this.
Another example of the battle lines now forming in preparation of the Extraordinary Synod arrives from Rorate Caeli.
On the one hand, an abysmal failure of a bishop; one of those who have reduced the once very Catholic Belgium into a wasteland with perverted wannabe marriages and euthanasia. The man – who, if we are honest, looks like a crossing between a fag and a eunuch; like so many of his rosy, puffy, harmless colleagues – reflects on the crisis all around him, and the thought that he might be the problem does not enter his mind. No, more of him and of those like him is the solution. A church more accommodating, more complicitous, more superfluous than he himself already is. If the Bishop is a fag, he is a very stupid one.
Thankfully, not every bishop thinks in the same manner; at least, not all the times.
From Germany, of all places, comes a rather convincing reply; unusually blunt for a bishop; more than unusually blunt for a German bishop; and rather rare considering that this is an open, direct challenge to what a colleague of his has stated only days ago.
They aren’t all atheists, then, these Western bishops. They aren’t all obsessed with being popular, and in the graces of TMAHICH. Some of them do have some fear of the Lord left. Some of them do understand that to be silent is to be an accomplice. Some of them still think a Bishop than a stupid marketing man, peddling an even more stupid product, with an extremely high content of saccharin, in which the public is not interested.
How many of them are there around in Western Europe? Clearly the minority. Perhaps a tiny one.
The skull of the others will pave the ways of hell. A hell in which they clearly do not believe.
Look at Bishop’s puffy, self-satisfied, smug fag-face and make your own estimate about the odds in his sad case. Which means, of course, that it is a work for mercy to pray for his conversion and repentance; fag-face and all.
The battle lines are forming. Many whom we thought more or less our friends will betray us (bishop Tobin is the last; no doubt, many will follow). Our lines will be very, very thin compared to those of our enemies. And our enemies will try to impress you with their white, red or purple robes, and will tell you with smiling faces and soothing voices that you see, we have now decided to “be merciful”; which, of course, we never were before.
On the other side are the few who think that what the Church always thought right is right, because it's what… the Church has always believed. Their number is small, and it is going to become smaller in the foreseeable future. They are, truth be told, very polemic and very assertive. They must be, because they are the few besieged in Fort Alamo, whilst their besiegers can smile and relax, looking at their endless cohorts, and play the nice guy whilst they line the cannons against the fort.
“Look at how bitter those people are!”, the besiegers will tell to their plauding soldiers. “So bigoted, so unpleasant, so uncharitable, so… un-merciful!” So, or in similar word, they will cry, and the many public adulterers among their troops will be those who cheer the loudest.
“Compare with us, with our serene and profound theology, approved by the Holy Father himself! Aren't we the nicest bunch! Please applaud us, and remember us in your Will!”
Yes: we are few, and besieged. We hold a little fort of sanity, surrounded by the huge army of “give me an excuse” – “c”atholics, who possibly believe that as long as the numbers are with them, heaven will be too.
There's nowhere in Church teaching that salvation is earned by siding with the bigger side. The road to perdition has always been very wide, and with TMAHICH it is being enlarged and made to a superhighway as we speak. A generation that betrays Christ is a generation that Christ will discard, and not many might be those able to claim sufficient ignorance to at least make it to purgatory. May God have mercy on as many as He thinks fit among the deceived. May He punish the deceivers with all the might of His Justice.
What I see around me is an army of purpled puttanelle offering easy excuses, and cafeteria “c”atholics pretending to accept them; well knowing, all of the former as well as very many of the latter, that this is not what the Church has always taught; that it cannot be that Christ allowed the Church to deceive the faithful these two thousand years; that what they are being offered is the potion of some ecclesiastical Dulcamara, promising them the remission of sin and the obliteration of guilt against continued support.
The battle lines are forming. Fort Alamo on one side, and TMAHICH's immense and growing army on the other. But this Fort Alamo has Christ Himself defending it. It will be battered, gunned, left to hunger and thirst. But it will never be defeated.
Cheer up, then, and do not become despondent at the sight of the immense army around you. We have Christ's promise:
Bishop Tobin is the last in a long series of puttanelle who suddenly start reflecting whether the Church of Christ hasn’t, perhaps, betrayed His message and done everything wrong these 2,000 years. May he repent and obtain forgiveness when he dies; and I hope for Bishop Tobin that, if he dies unrepentant, God is more lenient than I think He will be.
Dr Peters has already written a rebuttal of the many points in which the Bishop piddles out of the WC and leaves a mess all around. I suggest you go there and read his extremely diplomatic, but very clear reply in its entirety.
What I would like to point out today is the utter and complete betrayal of Christ and His Church that is put in place every time a bishop, of all people, tries to explain to us the problems in behaving like the Church has always behaved; a behaviour made the more repulsive when this is made taking as excuse a warped reading of the Gospel. Nor can his apparent contradictions fool anyone about his subversive intent and the fact that this is the usual Modernist/V II style. “Of course we uphold Church teaching, but….”.
The Devil can quote the Gospel for his purposes, and it is not difficult to take it in isolation and let it say whatever we want to; which, by the way, is the reason for thousands of different Protestant congregations, all claiming to follow the same Scripture.
Every child used to know that; which is why they went to Catechism first and to Doctrine later, where they would be given a coherent and organic exposition of the Truth; this, in turn, would allow them to avoid the danger of reading the Gospel and raping it for their own purposes.
Not so in the new world of our purple puttanelle.
They will take a verse or two in isolation – say: Jesus’ condemnation of the extremely rigid formalism of Jewish Sabbath observance; clearly reflected in the understanding of Sunday in all Catholic Countries – and wonder whether, in light of his extraordinary discovery, rules should now make any sense at all. Perhaps should we, then, decide that public adulterers could receive communion? Look, the Jews were wrong! It follows that the Church is wrong too, right?
There is only one word for the Bishop’s behaviour: prostitution. And no, I do not care if there are far worse bishops that Tobin around. Battle lines are been formed here, and no bishop can claim to remain neutral. On the side of Christ, or on the side of Satan. Bishop Tobin has chosen Satan’s, and the fact that he did abundantly shows the extent of the problem.
Ask yourself whether the bishop would have expressed himself in such terms during Benedict’s pontificate, and you will see very clearly the poison in his soul.
This, my friends, is another one looking for Brownie points by TMAHICH.
I hear from various sides the reassuring calls of cardinals, bishops, priests and simple bloggers telling us that doctrine cannot change, and therefore we have nothing to fear from the October Synod.
I would not be so sure of that. I think we have much to fear.
True, doctrine can't change, because Truth cannot. Even if Francis himself would declare from the balcony in St Peter that fornication is not a sin, or that two and two is five, truth would not change in the least.
But this is not the way TMAHICH operates. He is not interested in open conflict with the strong. He does not touch the SSPX, much less 2,000 years of official Church pronouncements. What he does is to sabotage Catholicism in the praxis, in the everyday living of the Church; safe in the knowledge that 95% of Western Catholics don't know much of doctrine, but read the newspapers or receive the echo of the headlines.
Francis will not openly defy doctrine. There is more than one way to skin a cat. He will sabotage, mock, undermine, belittle, and vilify it. He will do so by creating a climate, an environment of change openly practiced but not officially proclaimed.
Take the Argentinian concubine to whom the Unholy Father would have said she can go to communion.
Has Francis officially proclaimed concubinage is no obstacle to receiving? Of course not. Has he reaffirmed Catholic teaching? No, he did not do it either. Has he at least denied he said such words to the woman? No, he hasn't. Has he affirmed he did? No, not at all.
Result? The whole world knows, senses, feels Francis is the chap to say such things. They clearly perceive he would like to say such things; and whether his tongue has slipped in a phone call or not, they know he would speak in this way for all the world to see, if he only could.
This is what everyone, bar the retarded and the inveterate Pollyannas, understands. The climate has been created. The lío is going on full steam. Dissenters, concubines, perverts know that Francis is on their side against Church teaching.
The Synod can begin.
At this synod, not much will be necessary to subvert the praxis, and it will most certainly not be necessary to attack the rules to do so. De jure, the rules will be very solemnly affirmed, for the joy of the Pollyannas happily licking their lollipop and writing on various blogs how gracious it was of Francis to give it to them. De facto, just a few carefully chosen words in official documents, saying but also not saying that the priest can, in case, when the circumstances allow, having regard for the particular situation, after weighing all the pros and cons, deal with the situation with mercy, will be enough. Actually, I now suspect that just the mentioning of this by Francis most devilishly and subversively used word, mercy, once will be enough to cause a real revolutionary outburst in the church in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere.
One phrase, carefully worded, and passed to the news outlets as the unofficial “key to the synod”, and “reflecting the mind of this merciful Pope”. This is all that is needed.
The world will exult, the concubines will feel vindicated, the Church will be vilified, perverts of all sorts will say now it's their turn, sacrilege will spread everywhere in the West not as isolated abuse, but as the new “alternative praxis of mercy”.
The Pollyanna will, very happily, lick at their lollipop.
Bishop Galantino is not new to headlines of the wrong kind, and yours truly has already reported about what kind of circus article we are dealing with in this sad case.
More and more worried with out-Francising Francis – a feat not easy in itself – or perhaps sent by Francis himself to pave the way for a new “sacrilege offensive” as the October synod rapidly approaches, the man is now on record with other scandalous affirmations, which really give all the measure of the extent to which he has prostituted himself to the world.
Galantino’s willingly made points are the following:
1. The church must make everyone feel at home.
Why it should be so, it remains unsaid. Since the beginning, the Church has maintained that if you put yourself out of the home, it is much better for you to be aware of it. Shall we, now, let Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, open adulterers, open perverts and the like also feel “at home”? What is this, a third-rate hotel which rents rooms by the hour in an unsavoury part of town, or the Church of Christ?
2. There is something like “unconventional couples”.
Subversion often goes with the creation of new words to match the subversive ideology. The word Bishop Cretino Galantino is looking for is “concubines”. For now at least: as the word could, one day, be used by the same man to describe couple consisting of two men, two women, a man and a dog, or the like.
Such couples – all of them – have always existed, as human nature does not fundamentally change. It’s not that they have begun after, erm, V II… Rather, the Bishop’s desire to create new ways of saying old things is a very obvious manifestation of his desire to substitute Christian morality for a worldly one. From their fruits you will recognise them.
3. Truth must be called “prejudice”.
Someone please tell this cretin that concubines live in mortal sin, and no amount of political correctness can change an iota in the crude facts of life. The scandal is there, the sin is there. Of course people living in scandal will meet with condemnation. They will, in fact, meet with the condemnation they have deserved; doubly so, because they cause scandal.
Every concubine couple is a bomb put under the chair of Marriage. Full stop. Of course I’m “prejudiced”. I believe in God, and in the Marriage He created.
4. The exclusion of people in mortal sin from the Sacraments is “a burden”, an “unjustified price to pay”, and “de facto discrimination”.
Silly me! I thought it is the sin which was the burden! Silly me, I thought the sin sends one, if not repented of, straight to hell! Silly me, I thought the exclusion from the sacraments – until the grave scandal continues and there is no repentance – is there exactly to make the sinner aware of the very deep shit in which he has put himself! How uninformed I was! It is a “burden”, don’t you know?
This way, we discover that the Church has always imposed an “unjustified price” on public concubines, “de facto” discriminating them. Heaven, is this cretin a Christian in the first place? His is nothing less than a war declaration on basic Christian morality; a new system of (non) values in which “discrimination” and “not making people feel at home” are the new mortal sins, and – if at all – the only ones remaining. It is obvious even to a retard that if one admits the gravity of the sin, he must approve the harshness of the sanction; and that, conversely, lamenting the latter means to negate the former. But we don’t live in logical times. We live in the “age of mercy”.
We must pray that Bishop Galantino repents – better said: starts believing in God and repents -. Let us pray that he comes to his senses and says it out loud. It’s never too late. Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia, “God forgives many things for a work of mercy”.
Let us hope and pray, for him and the countless sheep he is trying to lead astray. If he should not, let us reflect that he will die in his rebellion to Christ and go to hell, where he – in this case – belongs not one but one thousand times; together with all the other like him, prostituting themselves to the world, and whoring their way to damnation for the sake of power and popularity.
The heretics of yore, burning at the stake, had it much better than this little slut. They had a massive, massive chance of repentance as all the illusions of fame and recognition, of power and glory, or simply all the delusions of an arrogant mind were confronted with the imminence of their ignominious end.
Not so for the modern heretics. They are in positions of great power, and are greatly applauded. The Pope himself promotes and protects them. A Pope to whom, too, the stake would be a blessing, if a heretical Pope could be blessed in that way.
From their fruits you will recognise them. But from their appointments you will recognise them, too.
Boy, Dante would have a lot of fun with these two.
In my native Country, below high voltage electricity poles a simple writing explained the situation: “chi tocca i fili muore”, “he who touches the cables dies”.
No money was spent to explain on TV to stupid teenagers that stupidity can cost one's life; with good reason, because a stupid teenager will be, in case, more excited than dissuaded by such nannying exercises.
Instead, the message was told very cheaply, and very efficiently, in very dry words. I have no knowledge of mass deaths of stupid teenagers willing to show to their friends how brave they are. It's fair to say simple words, and letting people free to pay for their own mistakes if they really want to, worked rather well. You “feel” that you are entitled to touch the cables? Your choice. But you will die.
Not so in XXI Century England, where a man can trespass just outside of Waterloo station, and the rail managers immediately proceed to interrupt electricity along the rails, and to completely paralyse one of the biggest stations of a big Western Country for more than half an hour, and cause delays of above forty minutes in total to every single train. You “feel” you are entitled to trespass on the rails? Fine…
Nor can it be said that, once it is decided that stopping the electrification of the line is the thing to do (with which even I might agree, on a good day) prompt action was taken to remove the trespasser. There is in this country either no rail police, or if there is it has no power, because if you need more than thirty minutes to arrest a trespasser outside of a huge station it is clear these people are completely powerless. Summa summarum: this country is run like a kindergarten in the hands of old aunts, only worried that the worst rascals do not catch a cold.
Let us think it further: if youth are seen climbing the pillars of the high tension cables, are tens, or hundreds of thousands, of people left without electricity so that the idiots may not harm themselves? Why are not all bridges built in a way that prevents people from throwing themselves from them? Should we suspend underground service in London, until all the lines are provided with security barriers preventing idiots from dancing on the rails whilst drunk? Why are the white cliffs of Dover deprived of barriers? Why are motorways not closed everytime some drunkard wants to cross them (yes, it happens…)? “There was a man walking on the M4 in the direction of Heathrow. The entire motorway will now be shut for 40 minutes whilst the police arrests the trespasser. We “feel” with all those who will miss their flight because of this trespass”. Not bloody likely….
This could go on forever, but you understand what I am aiming at: a society that negates personal responsibility to the most absurd extremes – albeit these extremes are not universally applied or, better said, are only applied where the populace can still swallow the consequences – is a society heading toward self-castration, and producing a huge mass of dumb oxes paying the price for the antics of a bunch of idiots.
People aren't expected to pay the price of their actions anymore. “He who touches the cables, dies” isn't good enough. On the contrary: everyone must be protected from the price of his own stupidity, no matter the cost.
This extreme nannyism goes hand in hand with the deification of human life that has followed the loss of faith. Once, in Christian time, it was very simple: by killing that man, you have renounced to your own right to live; therefore, you will swing at the lower end of a noose.
By touching the cables, you have met the destiny of those who do so. By trespassing and walking on a train line, you have accepted the risk involved and about which you had been warned. By taking part in an armed robbery, you answer for homicide even if not you, but your accomplice has committed the murder, and even if you were absolutely contrary to killing anyone. You answer for murder because, by deciding to take part to the bank robbery, you have accepted all the consequences of your action, even those you would not have brought about.
Why do I tell you all this? Because, as the Earl of Cavour used to say, tutto is tiene: everything is linked to everything else.
In a world in which Waterloo Station is paralysed for 40 minutes by what probably was a drunkard, a madman, or both, it seems perfectly normal that someone else should change Church rules to please the adulterers. No one is responsible for anything, you see. When the madman trespasses, you block the station. When the adulterer trespasses, you block the Church.
I am not sure (lawfully) refusing to switch the electricity off would be wrong; no one stopps rivers from flowing under bridges, either, and if – say – a drunkard throws himself from a bridge he knows that the impact it's going to be hard; but I personally would prefer to stop the electricity, have the idiot arrested in six minutes net (abundant time; it was near the station; near enough to block every train), let his teeth get acquainted with the police stick, prosecute him, have him convicted, frock him so hard the news goes around, and have all the trains running again in eight and a half minutes; ten, tops.
Similarly, I am not sure adulterers in this country should be told every week that they must refrain from communion, are giving grave scandal, and will probably go to hell unless they reform themselves. But boy, there should be enough common sense around to let them know what they are risking, the position in which they are, and what God has said it happens to public adulterers:
He who touches those cables to the end, his soul dies.
This morning, Vincent “Quisling” Nichols had a diabetes-inducing homily presumably read in all the churches unhappily under his jurisdiction; the homily explaining to us a lot of things about Pentecost and marriage, whilst avoiding to say anything of that which absolutely had to be said.
I was awake during the entire homily (at least, I think so) and I could not detect one single word directly aimed at so-called same sex marriages. Rather, there was a lot of waffling about how good it is when people marry, and the sun shines, and the cows graze happily in the green fields of England. Apparently, the Cardinal’s way to fight against vice is to talk to Catholics about the beauty of the Sacraments. Imagine Churchill opposing Nazi Germany by simply extolling the virtues of British democracy…
Cardinal Quisling’s strategy is therefore as follows: when so-called “civil partnerships” are approved by law, he says Catholicism is not against it (scandalous sodomy is obviously not a problem to him) but you see, we should pay attention not to call it marriage, because well, that wouldn’t be good; no, the Church wouldn’t really approve…
When it is proposed to institute so-called same-sex marriages, Cardinal Quisling mounts a very faint resistance, which does not include any very open, very hard, clash with the heathen government of the Gay Chameleon, but rather operates only on Catholic pewsitter: “please send a mail to your MP; if you can; unless it’s too much effort….” . This saved face with the Catholics, whilst being the obedient servant of the world was clearly the order of the day, and the plan from the start.
Now that the law is introduced, Cardinal Quisling is extremely fast in accepting the status quo. Next year is General Election Year, and no word of resistance, or repeal, from him. No debate, no opposition, no denunciation. To Cardinal Quisling, that’s the way it is, and it’s fine with him. Absolutely. No doubt. But how beautiful it is, when Catholics marry…
There was, in one word, no trace of that hell on earth that is the only read on why Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has the job of running a (big) diocese.
Instead, we get to hear the most insipid, innocuous waffle ever come out of someone determined not to anger anyone, but particularly determined not to anger the enemies of Christ.
This, about the militant part; the part, I mean, which wasn’t there.
There was also an ominous reference to the October Synod, and whilst I obviously haven’t recorded the words, there was an indirect reference to the problem of how to deal with the “challenge” of people who are coping with the “failure” of their marriage.
Last time I looked, the real problem wasn’t the failure. A failed marriage is a big problem, but does not exclude from communion; public, continuing adultery does.
I do not recall hearing the words “scandal” or “adultery” this morning; which is strange, considering Quisling could effortlessly extract marriage out of Pentecost.
My impression was rather that Cardinal Quisling implied that something should be done for the poor adulterous souls. Hey, nobody’s perfect, right?
The problem of adultery is, thus, being quietly removed a bit at a time; the “suffering” is in the foreground; put it that way, one who is in favour of letting the “suffering” continue is let to feel like he is drowning kitten, or massacring baby seals.
This Quisling is quite a dark soul. A wolf in sheep’s clothes. An agent of the enemy. A first-class Quisling, and a first-rate Wormtongue. In short, he is an utter and complete disgrace.
It is a chilling thought to reflect that either him, or one every bit as bad as him, could very well be the next Pope.
Pray for the Church. That she may be freed from these people. And that the punishment The Lord has sent us may be removed from us soon.
It always strikes me as odd that those most fixated on the opportunity, or necessity, for adulterers to receive Communion are those least likely to believe in Transubstantiation.
But then I reflect that to them the value of communion is not in what it is, but in the way they are seen by the community; that is, in a matter of pure egotistic self-righteousness.
Those who blaspheme the sacrament when it is about Christ, proceed to deify it when it is about them.
All normal, then.
And it came to pass The Destroyer had the gall of, after appointing Kasper as only opening speaker on the matter of adulterers and describing his as “profound and serene theology”, complaining that the press is now rather focused on this impending earthquake. Yours truly has reported.
A very good comment comes from this blog:
If I want to teach my family about morals and I hire Charlie Sheen, one must assume I’ve done my homework and selected the right person to convey the message I wish to have conveyed. I own the outcome.
With all due respect, it is simply not believable to select Kasper, sit back and watch the circus of dissent and confusion he conveys on your behalf, and then claim you did not wish this outcome.
Not owning the outcome feels deceptive and that is impacting credibility and trust.
Very well said.
We see the duplicity, the double-tongued hypocrisy, the lie, and the outright fraud of pushing a revolution and then saying one is surprised the revolution is causing so much stir, and people should focus on the daisies now in full bloom instead.
We see it. Francis, who is a Jesuit, doesn’t. Sir Humphrey should explain to him a couple of things.
Another brilliant reflection:
The Roman Catholic Church ordained and hired dissenters on every level and the situation is catastrophic.
Announcing the fix is in, hiring a man leading a schismatic movement and then claiming he is shocked by the outcome tells us it is the same old show only now at the top.
It gives the appearance the Pope is among those who operate under the old chestnut of passive-aggressive deception. That is bringing a boatload of other problems he didn’t expect upon his papacy.
It seems more and more evident to me that normal, reasonable, mainstream Novus Ordo Catholics (or at least, for now, bloggers) are more and more waking up to the immense scandal of this papacy. Their number will grow as Francis makes his enmity with Christ’s teaching (yes, I mean exactly that: enmity with Christ’s teaching) more and more evident. The Pollyannas will swallow everything unquestioningly like the average Stefan Mustermann during Nazism, thinking that if the Fuehrer has said so, why it must be right. But many, many others will realise the Church has no Fuehrerprinzip, and the Pope must respect Catholicism like everyone else and, actually, before everyone else; because being servus servorum Dei, the first among the servants of God, brings not only a very great power, but also a very special responsibility.
Deo volente, the resistance will grow stronger and Francis will realise the popularity with the wrong crowd is paid with a constant erosion of credibility as Pope; which, in turn, makes him less and less credible as the apostles of a New Age of Mercy; because if even yours laugh at your antics you can be Bishop of Rome, but you won’t carry a great weight after all.
Pope Bozo has abundantly trespassed every boundary of common decency, and it is time Catholic bloggers, journalists and common readers start making it clear without undue obedience for a Fuehrerprinzip the Church was never meant to have.
Unless, that is, they aren’t happy with the sacraments being made a parody of, and Catholic morality being perverted and subverted in the most shameless, if “officially unofficial”, way.
And it came to pass Father Lombardi had announced only a kind of miracle would make the Bishop of Rome appear to journalists on the aeroplane back from the Holy Land. I think it means that Lombardi had implored Francis to abstain from improvised shows, and Francis had agreed, but Lombardi is by now smarter than to trust whatever the man says.
Punctually, the “miracle” happened, because the Pope who “doesn’t like giving interviews” is more addicted to the limelight than the leader of a boy band.
It appears the Bishop of Rome had the usual attack of logorrhoea, but from the inordinate stream of consciousness two concepts very clearly emerge:
1. Do not reduce the Synod to “communion for divorced and remarried”, and
2. The divorced and remarried are not excommunicated.
Do you hear the sirens? Yes, it’s the “Jesuit alarm” that has just gone off…
Point 1 clearly means the press is kindly invited to stop embarrassing him; they should, pretty please, write about other issues whilst Francis, Kasper & Co. go on demolishing the Faith.
The idea of, say, apologising for the mess he has caused and state most solemnly that no changes will be introduced, neither from the door nor from the window, does not even enter his mind. He is not embarrassed by the scandal and the confusion at all. It’s our fault, you see: why don’t we talk about the “family”, or the weather, whilst he works with the wreaking ball?
Point 2 is almost as ominous. Yes, it can mean “you are not excommunicated, and it is only up to you to be readmitted to communion by creating the conditions for it!” But this being Francis, it more probably means “you are not excommunicated, so you can receive communion in some strange way we will have to explore; we must only work on this to make sure we get away with it”.
The man who loves to talk badly about “casuistry” is doing just that, all the time, twisting a very clear teaching in the most Jesuitical matter by reference to this, or that, circumstance that might allow to (erm, uh, no?) open “new ways” to “mercy”.
Beware of Jesuits.
The head of the Austrian group “Wir Sind Kirche” (“We Are Church”) was excommunicated, together with her husband, for playing Mass (and, actually, “priestess”) at home. What I think happened is that these people invited a small number of satanic nutcases at home and, after tea and Sachertorte, “concelebrated” a pretend Mass.
I hope the Sachertorte was good, because the thing with the pretend Mass had a kind of a bitter outcome.
This group is, in a way, the Austrian Heresy on steroids or, if you prefer, the openly militant Austrian Heresy. A bit what the SA were to the Nazi ideology. They evidently do not limit themselves to dream of, say, priestesses; they actually play priestess themselves.
Ah, these children! They grow up so fast!
In this case, the children are clearly Satan’s willing tools. They refusal of basic Catholicism puts them squarely in the Presbyterian camp, but at least the Presbyterians have the decency to not imagine themselves Catholics.
By the by, the woman is 67 years old, showing age does not necessarily go together with wisdom, and is apparently using a title of “theologian” without the legal qualifications to do so. Where I come from this is a criminal offence of no small import. I wonder how the Austrian see that. What the matter tells me is that some people would do absolutely everything to attract attention on themselves.
I don’t pity the husband. I pity the neighbours.
Now, it is obviously good that, once in a while, we are informed the rules are enforced. But this here is truly extreme, and to infer from this any kind of “orthodoxy” of Francis would be utterly unrealistic, particularly considering the inquest against the two started in 2011. More probably, Cardinal Müller persuaded Francis that something more robust than a “slap on the wrist” had to take place. We have, anyway, always known this is one madness Francis does not support.
“Wir Sind Kirche” isn’t small fare, as in the German-speaking countries dissent is almost as fashionable now as brown was in the Thirties. They are present in more than twenty Countries, but to my knowledge they are vocal particularly in Germany and Austria. One wonders how the Austrian members will react to the news that their Dear Leader is found guilty of delicta graviora.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because this is one of those events that might open the eyes of the tepid, the ill-informed and the slow. To keep the woman at the head of the Austrian nutcase group would be telling. To oust her would force, perhaps, some soul searching.
When the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, one is forced to inform oneself as to what has happened and, if he is of sound thinking, realise they are excommunicated for refusing to compromise Catholicism. When these two are excommunicated, many will be hopefully led to realise that within this movement Catholicism is not even present in homeopathic doses.
In any way, what is sure is that we can’t infer from the punishment of this really extreme behaviour any return to orthodoxy from Francis.
It would be like praising Stalin because he did not eat children.
Must one wait around for a spouse to die in order to receive Communion? Too many traditionalists seem unable to comprehend what a pastor must take into account to serve the needs of his people. They have a copy of the rule book, but what they may not have is a sensitivity to the people they serve.
This piece of comedy comes from the Fishwrap. My comments:
1. It’s not a waiting line at the restaurant. It’s called adultery.
2. It’s not about the perceived “needs” of the people, but their real ones: like, say, the salvation of their souls. Not that at the Fishwrap there’s any doubt about that…
3. It’s not about following the cricket rule book. It’s about God’s rules. Yes, one tends to take them seriously.
4. A priest serves Christ first. He serves Him by leading souls to him. One cannot serve God and his flock as equal instances, much less see himself as one who serves the selfish interests of the flock.
Christ first, and all the rest falls into place.
Man first, and you have the Fishwrap.
I mean, one of the good ones. Not SSPX-good of course (I do not think there is a single one among them: not Burke or Piacenza or Caffarra) but still a good one, with love for the Church and fear of the Lord.
You have, of course, looked with a growing sense of horror at what has been happening in the last fourteen months. You are known to be no friend of the new course, which contributes to your isolation as the Maradiaga tribe pushes you more and more toward the margins of influence. But still, you are a Cardinal: a Prince of the Church, and one who can have an interview and a headline every day.
You have, probably, thought the best think to do is to wait in the shadow, and hope for better times. That was at the beginning, when you thought Francis is merely a bad Pope, but nothing to lose one's sleep about.
But then Francis' showed his true face with growing brazenness; and boy, that face is ugly. Your sleep became increasingly less restful.
Now, you just can't sleep. Other than Francis, you do believe in the God of the Christians, and you are therefore afraid of Judgment. You know that one day you will appear in front of your Creator – or at least in His waiting room – and the possibility of hearing the words “depart from me, ye workers of iniquity!” directed at you, with no appeal and no remedy at all, chills your very blood.
You are a smart Cardinal. Not all of them are, but you are one of the smart ones. Therefore, you know that unless God puts Francis in a coffin, or causes him to have a miraculous conversion to Catholicism, it is only a matter of time until you are required to make choices on which your eternal salvation may well depend.
In October, mass sacrilege will be allowed. Openly, in broad daylight, among the praises and jubilation of the world. Francis obscene merry-go-round will go into sixth gear and start spinning like the Devil himself is pushing it. From the atheists to the adulterers, from the infidels to the lukewarm and to the simply stupid – and you know, because you are smart, that taken together they are the absolutely vast majority of humanity – a tidal wave of approbation will sweep everything in front of it, and leave behind immense devastation.
It will be 1527 all over again, but this time on a spiritual, and on a planetary scale.
You perfectly well know what it means for you: when the tidal wave starts to roll, every Cardinal standing in front of it may well be wiped out, as Maradiaga & Co. start thundering against the counter-revolutionaries. To speak out is, clearly, to take part in a turkey-shooting on the wrong side of the barrel.
But if you do not face the barrel, a far more terrible calamity may befall on you one day, as you realise your silence has made you an accomplice in perhaps the worst rape of Truth in history.
You try to look at it from every angle. You try to find solutions that would allow you to avoid an open confrontation. You do everything you can to persuade yourself that prudence requires that good men remain in the shadow, and patiently bide their time; working constantly under Francis' and Maradiaga's radar, and creating a net of underground resistance ready to strike one day.
A comfortable thought, this one; but when you look at it with total honesty, you know it's no more than convenience, and wishful thinking. Francis will take care a comfortable majority of his appointments are made among dyed-in-the-wool Modernists. Biding one's time would only mean to allow the revolution to consolidate, the tumour to metastasise. You know it, no matter how many times you try to persuade yourself there's still a place for strategists in the Vatican.
There isn't. Revolutions always get rid of them.
You think of the French Revolution, when the priests were given the choice between civilian life and guillotine. You remember reading that ninety percent chose to betray Christ, but ten percent – an awful lot of necks, in fact – chose Christ; and the guillotine.
They didn't “bide their time”. They knew the option was not open to them. They were priests. There are options a priest just doesn't have.
You start seeing things in a clearer way now. You are in a position of great privilege and honor at the moment, but this was never meant to come to you for free. Ubi honor, ibi onus. It was always requested of those who wanted to live like a Prince that they be able to die like a Prince. You swore to be willing to die for Christ the day you were ordained. Those French priests choosing martyrdom were not Cardinals, either; they were Princes only in their deaths, without the correspondent advantages in their lives.
You are getting bolder now. And come on, will you be killed? Yes, you might be sent to some obscure office; you might be sent to a Country full of horrible spiders, and extremely hungry flies; you might be sent where Christians are persecuted. Where, in fact, many are persecuted who aren't Princes, and who bear everything with faith in the Lord, and confidence in His just reward. But you will very probably not die, you will probably remain a Cardinal, you will probably keep a measure of influence and power. But what does this count in the end?
You must speak out.
You must speak out before and after October, come what may. You must openly denounce the sacrilege. You must leave a record for future generations. You must, if need be, become an example for future generations. Because you are a Prince. You are a Prince. You are a Prince.
And if this must be so – and it must be so; of this at least, you know there can be no doubt – then it is better to start fighting now; because the only chance of success is if many Princes put their swords on the side of yours and make clear now, not later, that they are going to fight both before and after October.
Will there be many of them? Realistically you know it's possible, but not probable. But the courage of each one of them will embolden others, and as they count themselves they might, come October, discover they are a frightful adversary. Princes from Africa and Asia will come to your help. It's one step at a time, and God never gave guarantees of earthly victory anyway. The Church was built on the blood of the martyrs.
Let's say, my dear reader, you are a Cardinal. This is what you, I hope, would decide you have to do.
I know it's easy to be an “armchair Cardinal”, but it is far easier to be a Prince of the Church only when it's comfortable. It is from those who have been given most honour and power, that the willingness to fight must be first asked.
If the Princes do not lead, how will the troops go to battle?
Yes, some troops will go to battle anyway. Priests and Bishops – those who are good at least – will join the fight, and will not care of consequences.
I shiver at the thought of the Princes who will die after refusing to lead them.
“When the Lord shows us the way, who are we to say, 'No, Lord, it is not prudent! No, lets do it this way'…
“The Holy Spirit is the living presence of God in the Church. He keeps the Church going, keeps the Church moving forward. More and more, beyond the limits, onwards. The Holy Spirit with His gifts guides the Church. You cannot understand the Church of Jesus without this Paraclete, whom the Lord sends us for this very reason. And He makes unthinkable choices, but unimaginable!
Francis, the Bishop of Rome, May 2014.
Every time we think that, surely, Francis cannot sink lower than he just did with his latest statements; and every time we are forced to change our mind; albeit, optimists as we are, still thinking that now, surely, it cannot get worse? Alas, with the Destroyer nothing seems impossible, but his conversion to Catholicism.
Francis' most recent statements are so brazenly heretical, that no follower of Francis can have any excuse anymore, or be in any kind of doubt, that to agree with Francis is to deny Christ.
It has always been an obvious corollary of Christianity that Truth cannot change. Truth cannot change because God cannot change. God cannot change because every concept of change is in the most blatant contradiction with God's perfection.
If Truth changes, the Gospels have gone off and must be discarded like those strange things we single men find, every now and then, at the bottom of the fridge. If Truth changes, not one single words of the Bible, be it Old or New Testament, can be relied to have the meaning and import Catholicism traditionally attributed to it. If Truth changes, dogmatic statements like the Creeds have no authority anymore, because change is evidently not compatible with dogmas. If Truth changes, Jesus is a fraud and a charlatan, because his emphatic statement that He is the Truth flies in the way of this Truth being, given time, obviously untrue. If Truth changes, Christianity does not make any sense, and we can happily go back to adoring trees, natural phenomena, or fantasy creations who spend their existence plotting and fornicating in some distant but rather pleasant place.
All this escapes Francis, the Presbyterian Pope.
His statements become more and more brazen; his defiance of the basic Truths of Christianity is now made in the open. If Satan were Pope, he would speak exactly as Francis does: sowing confusion, sabotaging Christianity and denying Truth every time he can, with a frequency that now knows no interruption, with an insolence that now knows no boundaries.
Read again his words above. He is saying, for everyone who has ears to hear, that there are no limits to the novelties he wants to introduce. He is preparing unthinkable changes. More and more, beyond the limits.
These are interesting times for Michael Voris, for sure.
The new Papal mantra is as clear as the sun: the “Spirit” is speaking, (to him, of course: the Humble Anointed) and both he and, obviously, we must not “close the door” to it. If you accept this, you have ipso facto thrown Christianity away from the window, exactly as Francis does. I suspect this strange “spirit” speaks to Francis through wine or grappa, because sober people who use their brains know all I have explained above, and would never have the blasphemous insolence of thinking Truth is at their disposal with no better excuse than this mysteriously blowing wind of the “spirit”, and or that Truth would have any need to “move forward”', “beyond the limit”, “onward”. He expresses himself with the trite rhetoric of a motivational speaker at the salesmen convention of some smartphone producer.
If Francis does not “hear the spirit” whilst drunk, which is not to be excluded, then he must most certainly be listening to Satan himself, who is whispering in his hear how very popular he will become if he decides that hey: the Spirit has spoken: who are we to judge? And lo and behold: the way is open for any heresy and any blasphemy.
Or perhaps Francis has, in an extreme effort of Clericalism, appointed himself the new Sibylla Cumana of Christianity. God speaks to him, and tells him “we must change everything, Buddy. Glad I am able to speak to you, because your predecessors were either completely, or almost completely deaf. Myself, what a cool guy you are!”
The insolence, the shamelessness, the sheer blasphemy of this man is breathtaking. Open your eyes, read his statements again, and realise how serious the situation is. Now it's simply Francis against God.
It is very clear that this Pope – be it because he is stupid, or evil, or both – is a direct threat to the salvation of Catholics, and a further threat to the salvation of other Christians. He is the Public Enemy Number One of Catholicism, a menace compared to which even Obama appears an amateur.
It is as if the Brigate Rosse had, in the Seventies, reached all the top positions of the Italian institutions; but few would have objected to it because hey: you don't criticise the President, the Prime Minister or the Presidents of Camera and Senato.
The Pope himself is working every day towards the destruction of Catholicism. The Enemy is among us and has, if you allow the comparison, reduced King Theoden to his willing idiot – or to his evil idiot – as his minions, like Grima Kasper and Wormtongue Maradiaga, whisper to his ear words of betrayal and surrender.
I have not lived those ages, but it seems to me that the threat represented by this man is slowly rising to the level of Pope Liberius, or Pope John XXII. True, Francis is not thinking – at least for now – of making any heretical wannabe “dogmatic statement”; but It is obvious the unthinkable is not really unthinkable for him, and I wonder what would be worse. In the case of an heretical “dogmatic” statement we would know the Pope is actually not such, and we could happily ignore both the statement and the man; whereas in the case of a subversive Pope you are stuck with the reality that the Pope is evil, but he is still Pope; a reality not many, in these times of poor instruction, can cope with.
Francis is, as the October Synod slowly approaches, throwing away the mask. He will get into it telling to everyone that “the Spirit is speaking” in some mysterious way known to him alone, but we must not keep “the Spirit” (read: Francis' heresies) out. Bar a divine intervention, it is clear to me he will have his way. The choir of the helpers will be deafening. The sheep will willingly baa. Most bloggers will applaud. The secular press will be delighted. The world will embrace him. The Church will receive a wound worse still than during the French Revolution, and perhaps almost as bad as the Arian heresy.
Once again, realise the genesis of Francis' heresies: this man is entirely secular in his thinking, in his talking, in his outlook. He is a Socialist with a white habit. He will trample everything that goes against his agenda of Socialism for the world, and popularity for himself.
To Francis, Christianity is an excuse. He isn't more Christian than Obama. Let us say it again: I doubt he believes in God. He certainly has no fear of Him.
You have no excuses: it's Francis or Christ.
Pick your side well.