In the wake of the October Synod, around 200 copies of the well-known “Remaining in the Truth of Christ” are sent to as many bishop using the Italian postal service. Only two or three reach their addressees, all the others simply disappear.
Whatever you want to say of the Italian postal service: no, it isn’t as bad as that, at all.
Now a journalist, Manfred Ferrari, has information, and makes names: the books have obviously arrived to the Vatican post office, and have been stolen from there to prevent them from being handed to the Bishops.
The journalist makes the name of the person allegedly behind it: Cardinal Baldisseri.
This, my dear reader, is theft, and who has organised this is a thief. Let us see what Cardinal Baldisseri has to say about this, if he deigns to say a word after such a grave episode, and such grave accusations of what must be, even in Argentina (but perhaps not in Bergoglioland?), a very grave offence.
What kind of people these apostles of mercy are! Bullying hypocrites like Father Rosica; vulgar thugs like his Basilian confrere, Father Scott; and now apparently even thieves, not ashamed of stealing en masse from their own bishops!
But then again what do you expect when the Merciful In Chief is a man who brags of stealing a crucifix from the hands of a dead man, and considers such feat absolutely brilliant and worthy of a wink-wink of admiration.
What a walking canalisation these people are. And the brashness, the sheer arrogance of how they go on about their business, safe in the knowledge of the protection of their own disgraceful superiors, is what angers the most.
Whoever did this did not do it to help the line of the five Cardinals (read: Catholicism). Whoever did this must have been high enough to be able to order something like that and enforce obedience. Whoever did this either did it with Francis’ explicit approval, or he did it in the knowledge that upon knowing the facts Francis would have smiled on his “entrepreneurial spirit”.
A bunch of bullies, boors, and thieves. Starting from the very top. This is the Vatican as we write the year of the Lord 2015.
Pope Francis had, with usual hypocrisy (I do not call him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, or TMAHICH, for nothing) pretended he was on the sidelines during the synod, allowing the “debate” (including perversion, and sacrilegious undermining of Sacraments) and then intervening at the end like the good uncle who cares for orthodoxy.
Well, that was another blatant lie, as we all knew but is now officially official.
You must notice a couple of revealing elements here. Emphases mine:
1) Cardinal Baldisseri’s bomb: “The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence,” “Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”
2) The reason Cardinal Baldisseri gives for dropping the bomb: “This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease,”
I can see a clear pattern here. Baldisseri is feeling the heat for his scandalous behaviour at the Synod. He is more or less fed up of being identified with it by all the mainstream Catholics (the informed Catholics know Francis was behind everything, because they think). He then separates his responsibility from the one of the Unholy Father, and lets the bomb drop: “don’t blame me”, he says, “this is Francis’ work”.
Baldisseri is obviously the little lapdog of Francis, but it is true that in this case the responsibility for the text lies entirely by Francis. Francis is in charge, Francis read, Francis green lighted the text, Francis answers for it.
Another difficult day for the Pollyannas, then.
But don’t worry. They are stupid enough. They will swallow new excuses.
The text of the relatio, and the scandalous events happened before and after, do demand that we pose the question: is this Pope homosexual?
The relatio post disceptationem was a piece of clearly homoerotic rubbish. It cannot have come from the mind of a normal, healthy, straight man because normal, healthy, straight men are disgusted by homosexuality.
Therefore, even Francis has such a dirty mind that he has some sort of lewd sexual excitement by mixing with sexual perverts (as the latest example of the Trannie has proved once again), or he is homosexual himself, and promotes the homo agenda at every step.
Either very lewd, or outright pervert. Tertium non datur.
I continue to pray for both his immortal soul, and the end of this pontificate.
“Vatican insider” has an article about the way TMAHICH sees the Synod. The amount of lies and deception spitted in only one talk is impressive, even for a Jesuit. Let us see at least some of them, because time is a tyrant.
The Pope was never a guarantor of orthodoxy: not before or during the Synod, and obviously not now. He invited a discussion without taboos, which means he invited every possible heresy to be dished. He himself encouraged heresy, and let it known he sides with it, all the time since February 2014, with his “serene and profound theology” comment.
The Pope blatantly lies about the preliminary report being published, under his watch, without the bishops having even seen it.
The Pope pretends to forget a fundamental truth: that to protect the Church from heresy means not to allow heretical talk and action in any way, shape or form; not to allow it to be publicly discussed, much less praised as “theology on one’s knees”.
The Pope omits to tell you that he himself ordered the heretical parts of the preliminary report, rejected by the bishops, to be part of the “discussion papers” to be distributed the world over. A more blatant support for heresy cannot be imagined.
The Pope blames the press for creating a “sports team” environment; which is stupid after he himself has encouraged heresy to emerge. When heresy emerges, great strife ensues. He causes the chaos, then blames the press for reporting about it.
Francis is trying to put a spin on the mess he has created, and on the heresy he keeps promoting every day, by presenting himself as the good party chairman reassuring the basis that the party line will not be abandoned. But the Church is not a party, and discussions about the “church line” is exactly what he must not allow in any way, much less encourage.
What a sad, tragic figure this Pope is.
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.
Ahi serva Italia, di dolore ostello,
nave sanza nocchiere in gran tempesta,
non donna di province, ma bordello!
Ah, slave Italy, hostel of sorrows,
ship without a helmsman in a great tempest,
not the lady of provinces, but a brothel!
This is the way Dante describes Italy in the sixth Canto of his Purgatory. The Country, once so great a Lady of Provinces, is now a rudderless ship in the great tempest of the world events, and is now reduced to a brothel after her past greatness. Machiavelli famously quotes these passionate verses in the last chapter of Il Principe.
These verses are extremely well-known in Italy, and the first line is an almost proverbial way of referring to the troubles of the Country. These verses are, no doubt about it, well present to the mind of Cardinal Burke, too, as well as in that of all notable members of the Curia.
I can, therefore, not avoid thinking that when the good Cardinal chooses, of all possible ways, the image of the “ship without a rudder” he is not saying that the rudder has been unexpectedly stolen by illegal immigrants; but that, rather, the helmsman just isn’t doing his job.
This latest interview – which you can read following the link – is another pearl. I refer to what I have already written about Burke’s style, and note that in this interview he keeps following the same path:
1. He makes clear that he is not making an attack ad personam. He merely states a circumstance of fact.
2. He complains once again that the Pope is not intervening to defend truth.
3. He tells the lie on the supposed approval for Pope Francis, when he says that he feels compelled to “tell a truth that many currently perceive”.
4. He hammers once again on the infamous “who am I to judge?”, and slams it with the following sentence, that I report here verbatim:
“The acts must be judged; I do not think that the pope thinks differently. They are sinful and unnatural. The pope never said we can find positive elements in them. It is impossible to find positive elements in an evil act.”
This interview shows, in my eyes, that the Catholic front has no intention whatever to allow the Pope to scheme a prepare another attempt at Great Fraud without any resistance. It seems to me that several voices are speaking in unison.
Mueller, Pell, and Burke have been firing every few days since the end of the synod. They insist in proposing the same criticism that had emerged during the synod. It seems very obvious to me that they are not isolated at all, and it is far more probable that the heretical side is. It seems also obvious to me that the refusal of the Cardinals to allow Francis to take a stance will soon, and certainly, next October, put him in an untenable, entirely discredited position.
He is not getting any discount. In a football (soccer) metaphor, he is the object of man marking, and a very strict marking at that. He will not be allowed to play freely. His marksmen will be on every ball. Francis may be a slippery offender, but I have the impression these defenders can be rather the bulldogs if they want to.
And yes, I am persuaded that even if TMAHICH does not get the reference, all Italian prelates will get it very fast: Francis is refusing to steer the Church to safe waters, and has made of Her a brothel.
The truth is here.
Do not insult your intelligence thinking the man “does not know”.
Of course he knows.
There, here is an alarm clock for you. Brand new. Courtesy of Mundabor.
Francis has already started to sabotage the document of the synod he himself has called, because the prelates who voted them were, unfortunately, Catholic and gave him one on the nose.
If you have a blog, please consider posting about this scandal and asking that the Relatio Synodi be translated in exactly the same languages as the other documents, and given due prominence as the official document and result of the Synod.
This man is beyond parody.
If you follow Catholic priests – as I do – you might notice – as I think I do – a certain “style” of criticism, that to me seems rather uniform. The main rules I can recognise are the following:
– the civility of the criticism (excessive, if you ask me, in most cases; but then again I am not a priest) and
– the limitation of the criticism to a fact or a statement, without ever targeting the person, if the person if a fellow clergyman.
I notice this very often in the priestly blogs I follow: there is the statement of a fact, and the criticism of the fact. There is the report of a certain statement, and the refutation of that particular statement. Clergymen of this type do not attack other clergymen as people (some other clergymen, of another type, do; Cardinal Kasper comes to mind; but not the ones I am talking about).
I have read, at the time it was finally published, the full transcript of Cardinal Burke’s interview to BuzzFeed. I was in no doubt that the actual words of the interview, when they were made public, did not contain a direct criticism of the character of Francis as person, as much as a very strong criticism of a certain behaviour in a certain, particular circumstance. Which, in the case of a Pope, is a very strong criticism, but not a personal attack.
The difference between “what the Pope does is bad” and “the Pope is bad” is not a milder criticism in the second case. It is, in my view, the desire to make clear that the criticism is a factual one, not a personal one. This is, I think, always important among the right kind of clergymen; but it becomes even more important when Cardinal Kasper blathers all the time about attacks to the Pope and enemies of the Pope.
In some cultures, this difference between the person and the issue at hand is more blurred, and there is a more or less implied understanding that you criticise a man as a result of an action or a statement of his; whilst in other cultures – like the German and, I begin to think, the ecclesiastical one – the distinction between the criticism of a person and the criticism of his stance are far more marked. The Germans even have an adjective (“sachlich”), which conveys this idea of being “linked to a thing”, rather than to the person attached to it. Whilst every language has such expressions, in the case of the Germans the frequency of its use conveys to the Foreigner the particular importance attached to it. In the case of churchmen, I doubt there is an equivalent expression; but the praxis is, it seems to me, just as solidly established: he who attacks the person looks bad; the battle is always fought on things, not people.
Therefore, I am unable to see in the recent clarification of Cardinal Burke any kind of backpedaling or watering down of his criticism. Besides, the man is a legally trained mind, and for legally trained minds distinctions of this sort do matter.
On the contrary, it seems to me – and I may be wrong on this; time will tell – that with his brutal repetition of the exact content of his criticism – the exact one; without softening of any sort – the Cardinal has sent quite the contrary message. A message which I for myself read thus: “please do not describe me as the personal enemy of the Pope; but my criticism of what he does is still there, and for the sake of clarity I will repeat it word for word”.
I have just written that the way I know these things, the criticism is often followed by a “soft retractation” meant to deny the implied, but very obvious criticism. In this case, it seems to me that the Cardinal is not ready to do even that; conscious, perhaps, of the huge dismay every little apparent giving away of Catholic ground could have on countless faithful Catholics.
I am, though, simply unable to see any difference in the clarification, which has to me the very same meaning I had already understood: what the Pope is doing – a specific conduct: not intervening against heresy – harms the Church. Headline writers tend to be imprecise and untechnical, something a rigorous legal mind like Burke will not let stand without correction. Honestly, I did not even need the clarification, because I got the Cardinal the first time, and I always discount the titles.
I do not know how strong Burke and his are. I have no way to read their mind and measure their determination on a scale from one to ten. I pray that the Lord may give them, and all those willing to take this battle on their shoulders, the determination to fight, and to fight well.
I suspect, in fact, that now a very complicated and subterranean game will begin, in which both sides will alternate public interventions with a very intensive corridor work. The result of this work will, probably, only become clear in October 2015. I cannot tell you how it will end. I am fairly optimistic, but then I always am. I carry the Roman sun inside, and if at times I do not see the shadows, I still think this Roman sun is a very good help in seeing the reality around me. Yes, I have my worries for the huge battle in front of us.
But Cardinal Burke’s clarification is, as far as I am concerned, not one of them.
I wish I could find an old post about the Church teaching in dealing with bad laws.
The gist of it was that first one tries everything he can to avoid the laws becoming such in the first place; if this fails, then one tries everything he can to have them repealed; if even this fails, then one tries to have them destroyed one piece at a time. But to destroy the law a piece at a time will always, for the sound Catholic, be the better choice than an unreal battle to have the law repealed, when it is just not realistic to obtain the optimal result.
Example: abortion. Catholic teaching in the matter is simple and clear: First, savage battle to avoid abortion legislation. If this partout fails, savage battle to have it repealed. If this partout fails, “salami tactics” (this is a nice German expression) which means: the targeted result is pursued, and hopefully obtained, one slice at a time. In this case this means proposing and having passed everything from higher medical standards for abortion mills, to the shortening of the periods in which abortion is legal, to the obligation to have a scanned image obtained, to longer waiting times, etc.
The thinking behind this is the solid common sense that is behind sound Catholic minds: if I can’t save – for now – one million aborted babies, I will try to save at least one hundred thousand of them. The first step will then, hopefully, lead to the second, and the third.
In this example, and in many others to which the same principle may be applied, you do not renounce to a positive intermediate result in the name of an end result that cannot, for the moment at least, be achieved at all. You do not renounce to a law shortening the time in which it is legal to abort because “this would mean to be accomplices of abortion”. What you do is: uphold Church teaching in all things (you will always be vociferous against abortion tout court; because what is impossible in this generation may be possible in the next, or the following one, and because the Church’s stance against abortion is the Truth of Christ), and take every slice of the salami you can.
Is it possible to have partial legislation against abortion? Well: go for it, for heaven’s sake! Do not condemn babies to die because the law is not beautiful enough for you! When babies are dying you save as many as you can, you do not sacrifice them to your beautiful, but unreachable ideals!
This is what the Church has always done in her dealing with secular powers, at least until Vatican II: the entire Catholic Truth, whenever I can; as much of it as I can, always. Therefore, in certain Countries She managed to be State Religion; but in those Country where she could not manage to do so (say: USA, United Kingdom), she tried to obtain as much freedom of religion for Catholics as possible. She did not say “I am not interested in freedom of speech, or of cult, for English Catholics! Either you make of Catholicism the State Religion or I am very happy to retreat in the Catacombs!”
You do not allow a secular State to push Catholics in the catacombs just because you cannot be the Religion of State. You do not allow the Church to be pushed underground just because the ideal of a Catholic state cannot be realised. You may feel more beautiful in the catacombs, but countless souls will be lost – seen from an earthly perspective – because of your quest for purity. There is no doubt that the Church in the catacombs was purer than the Church out of it. But the aim of the Church is to spread all over the world, not to stay beautiful in the catacombs.
When Constantine allowed freedom of cult to Christians, they did not refuse it because Constantine himself wasn’t even baptised. When Paul went all over the Mediterranean to gain converts to Christianity, he did not demand the demise of the Roman Empire as a precondition. When countless missionaries converted local kings and local warlords to Christianity, you can bet your hat that in many cases the thus converted King kept having a number of concubines around him. Those missionaries certainly knew it very well. They took one slice at a time. In the case of the king’s conversion, they got to pretty much the entire salami, but again if they had asked an exemplary life of him, in many cases not one slice would have been obtained.
Dreaming is one thing, doing is another. Keep dreaming if you want to. This blog is for those who prefer reality.
Does this mean that the Church must capitulate to (oh, that word) “gradualism”? Certainly not! Not, at least, if it is meant – as it was meant at the synod – compromising with the Truth.
On one hand, to uphold the Catholic teaching in its entirety is not only advisable, but absolutely mandatory. On the other hand, to have this Catholic teaching reintroduced in phases – as long as it cannot be done in one go – is the only viable way, and it is the way the Church has always chosen. Do you think Cardinal Consalvi would say to Napoleon “either you make of us the State Religion again, or we don’t care if you kill every Catholic in France”? No. Do you think he demanded from Napoleon that he starts living an exemplary Christian life? Come on. What the man instead did was to lead Napoleon to the recognition of the advantages for him in having this Church as the State religion again. I am sure he did not expect a mystical Napoleon after that. But I am rather sure he was pretty pleased with what he had accomplished anyway. By the by: Napoleon ended up dying in his bed, a Catholic, with the comfort of the Sacraments.
I could go on until tomorrow, but you get the drift.
Why do I write all this? Because this applies to our age exactly as well as to all ages before, and after it.
I get positively scared when I read commenters stating that I should not support Pell, because Pell would not pass the SSPX-Test. No he wouldn’t. Nor would Piacenza, or Mueller, or even Burke! They wouldn’t, because they are, all of them, polluted by V II, the one more and the other less. But for heaven’s sake, to discuss the merits of Mueller’s orthodoxy when Satan himself is launching all his armoured divisions against the Church seems criminally negligent to me.
We run the risk of having the Church as we know it – and be it in the largely defective V II version – wiped out of a good part of the West. We run the risk of a confusion of faithful, of a spiritual chaos like the planet has never, ever seen. Forgive me if I do not have any time for your complaints against Cardinal Pell!
The same applies, of course, to other matters, like freedom of speech. As I write this, freedom of speech is the only thing that keeps Christianity, in many Western Countries, away from the catacombs. It leaves me breathless that to defend freedom of speech would be something bad, because it does not correspond to some Catholic dream certainly not realisable in our generation, and probably not even in the next one.
At times I think that in some Catholics a mentality takes over, that in Italian is called “tanto peggio, tanto meglio” or “the worse, the better”. As if it were a matter of no importance whether in the West Christianity can reach everyone or not, or whether the West keeps as much as it can of Christian mentality and civilisation; as if it were irrelevant whether the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street, bleeding copiously, by a drunken mob, or is as strong and vigorous as can reasonably be hoped in the present, sad, circumstances.
“But Mundabor! It is good if the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street bleeding! Don’t you know that she will not die anyway?”
“But Mundabor! It is good if Christianity disappears from all over the West and is reduced to the catacombs: just think of how beautiful the fifteen of us will feel once we are there!”.
Please let us not joke here. Lives are at stake. Souls are at stake. The Christian West is at stake.
Thank God every day instead,and pray Him every night, for the likes of Mueller, Pell, or Burke. Pray that God send us many more of them, and be they of the V II garden variety, provided they are willing to fight against the extreme Francis variety. Pray FIRST that they may find the strenght to lead us in battle against the extremely strong army of Satan that is forming its ranks as we speak. And pray SECOND that when the battle at hand is won, a new awareness may be created about the real root and first cause of all this mess: Vatican II.
We are about to be invaded by the Wehrmacht, and we should discuss about the credentials of the only generals we found – and lucky to get them – ready to lead our army?
Don’t make me laugh.
There is an article on that pit of iniquity called New York Times that, for once, deals with the events of the last weeks in a half balanced way.
Forget the man’s rubbish about “the gays” (he writes for the NYT after all, “where sodomy and lesbianism are embraced and proposed”), and focus on the main points of Mr Douthat’s article:
1. The Pope was the instigator of the attempt at the Church’s sacramental life
2. He has failed to see it executed.
3. The Bishops (at large) did not follow him, because they never could.
4. Were it to happen as the Pope desires, a situation of – proclaimed or de facto – schism or vacant see would kick in as the bishops who still are Catholic refuse to share responsibility with those who aren’t. Pat Buchanan made a similar point last week. They are clearly both right.
It does not take a genius to get all these points, but it is notable that a Mr Douthat – a mainstream journalist writing for an atrociously secular and anti-Christian publication – gets them. It means that in the next 12 months more and more people, even not interested in the ways and life of the Church, will get one thing clear: that whatever their personal errors and warped way of seeing life, they can’t just demand that the Church converts to them. She will not, because she is the Church.
An outsider like Douthat sees, though, very clearly what many of our own Pollyannas still do not want to see: this Pope has already led the Church on the brink of the abyss, and there is no guarantee he will not decide to jump into it, carrying with him as many as he can.
In Catholic language – which Mr Douthat does not use – it means that this Pope is the enemy of Catholicism, and a threat to the Church the like of which has not been seen since John XXII.
Even the parts of the secular world with a functioning brain begin to understand the stakes of this tragic game.
It is astonishing – and inexcusable – that so many parts of the Catholics still do not.
I never tire to repeat that the misguided and deluded “sensitivity” of a world obsessed with “niceness” (“you brood of vipers!” How nice is that?) is what made the advance of the sodomites possible in the first place.
Words are weapons. A powerful barrage of clear, unmistakeable condemnation will always have a devastating effect of the enemy troops. It is only when the defences are down and the enemy is suddenly treated with respect, “sensitivity”, and even reverence that his advance is not only made possible, but helped every step of the way; helped in his march of conquest, in fact, by the very sissified army that should actually shoot at him.
If you want to fight sexual perversion, you must call it with its own name. If you do not dare to call it with its own name, you do not really want to fight it.
The same peril looms in the aftermath of the Synod. The heretics and perverts will now try to start the Great Sensitivity Offensive. Words like “sinner” and “adulterer” will be decried as offensive, inappropriate, unworthy of a decent Catholic. Most of all, a word will be kept as far away from the public discourse as possible: heresy.
Like the word “sodomy”, the word “heresy” says it all; they both express not only the strongest condemnation, but the fact that this condemnation is deeply rooted in Christianity. Both words have on heretics and perverts the same effect Holy Water has on the devil.
In the next twelve months, a great opportunity is given to us: use the momentum – and the moment of lucidity – created by the Synod to expose in the clearest possible terms what we see around us: blank Heresy, propagated every day in our midst from Bishops, Cardinals and a Pope with no faith or shame.
This theme must be hammered in the ears of the faithful incessantly, because most of them still oppose some resistance in acknowledging what is, after the Synod, entirely evident: that the Pope has heavily and shamelessly steered this Synod toward blatant heresy: not only leading the charge against two Sacraments, but openly espousing Modernism as he publicly declared that God’s laws can be changed.
The Pope is a material heretic. So are all of his helpers. Francis has remote-controlled them in such an open way – the public support for Kasper’s “serene and profound” heresy “on one’s knees”, and the appointment of the Six Little Pigs to draft the Relatio, are only two of the most blatant – that no one in possession of a sound Catholic reason can avoid seeing it.
We must make the “H” word heard, and make it heard often. We must go to the 2015 Synod after a twelve-month barrage on the very real dangers of such exercises as long as one like Francis smears the throne of Peter. We must follow and challenge the heretical statements of him and his minions. We must educate the common Catholic to the sad reality of a material heretic as Pope, and explain to them that this is not only a perfectly legitimate possibility, but something already occurred in the past. We must do what it take to make the perception of a grave crisis caused by a shameless Pope as mainstream as we can. We must hit this godless man in what he loves most: unchallenged popularity, and adoration of the masses.
Let Catholics boo him, as atheists and perverts celebrate him. See how he likes it. It is sheer suicide, and he knows it very well.
The widespread perception of an attack on Christ, led by the Pope, is the best guarantee that in twelve months’ time (unless the Lord makes us the grace of ridding us of him beforehand) a solid wall of bishops – inside and outside of the Leonine Walls – will stop and destroy any attempt at perverting the Truth Christ gave us. We must use these months to prepare the ground well, because there is no saying what stupid things might be at least attempted if we don’t.
We must help the orthodox bishops to create such a climate that in twelve months’ time abominations like the one of Bishop “Faggot” Forte will not be even thought of. We must expose the heresy now, or run the risk of having it dished to us before very long as an official Church document. We must give strength to the hand of those who want to strike down heresy, and encourage them to hit hard.
Do not be afraid of the “H” word.
I have already published a post about this wonderful video.
I invite everyone who has not done it to view it first.
There are several points in this video, of which one is the main one and others are added considerations. First the added considerations.
1. Bill Donohue was very wrong (actually: factually very wrong) in downplaying as “leak” something that was officially announced and the official “preparatory” document of the 2014 synod. This downplays the gravity of the entire matter, and lulls Catholics into thinking reality is what our wishes make of it. I have dealt with the matter here.
2. Pat Buchanan (a Catholic, I think) had a wonderful column about the fact that this Pope is leaning so far out of the window, that a vacant sea is not inconceivable anymore. I enjoyed the column a lot (web search engines may help you to find it) but did not find the time to write about it.
3. Astonishingly, there seem to be Catholic broadcasters (here is, clearly, meant Michael Voris) who feel ashamed even of reporting opposition to the Pope. Burke’s criticism of the Pope’s stance is, if not personal, very strong, and deservedly so.
4. There have been “wayward” Popes in history. Heck, there have been heretical Popes in history! The names should be circulated more: Honorius, Liberius and John XXII are three safe candidates; Formosus ( I add) is a probable fourth one. I wish I could find again the sources about other Popes, but these four here seem to be the biggest. Before Francis, that is. We must spread the word and say this out loud, because in the modern clericalist atmosphere filled with ignorance and feel-goodism, most would fear their religion will crumble if they ever admit the Pope is wrong, or a heretic.
5. There have been paragraphs in the definitive Relatio Synodi, which are very bad. Are we desensitising ourselves to them, particularly to sexual perversion?
Personally, I think not. I found many paragraphs bad, but merely “V II-bad”, not “Francis-bad”. The new paragraph about perverts merely says that homosexuals (homosexuals, not sodomites; we are talking here of the perversion, not the sodomy or even the active militancy!) must not be discriminated against. This is not only the same tone of the JP II catechism (actually, it is indicative that the paragraph has apparently been rejected by the bishops; it tells you what many of them would do with JP II’s catechism if they had a choice), but can only be approved of if it is read with the mind of the actual sound catholic, rather than of the rabid liberal.
Not even I (and you know what kind of “welcoming” chap I am) would refuse to sell to an homosexual the means to stay alive ( I do not say a “wedding cake”, which is an obvious statement; but bread, milk, tomato, mozzarella, and the like…); nor would I, if I were an employer at, say, the Land Registry, refuse employment to a poor chap because I suspect he has a perversion. Homosexuals must eat too, and provided they do not give scandal and behave in the proper way I think they have the right not to be starved. I do not think this is anything new, and it is not known to me that homosexuals in the Papal States were refused bread, or wine, or a tenancy, if they did not give scandal. This would have been considered, even then, unjust discrimination.
The reasons why the bishops have refused to approve it was, I think, to give an additional slap to Francis, saying to him “you wanted to ram heresy down our throat, now you get slapped in the face even for things we could otherwise approve without problems”; and also – an issue I, in my innocence, had not examined – to avoid that even these words may be mis-construed as something different: then the very same words may be made to mean, in the Age of Mercy, something completely different than in the old Age of Catholicism.
All this, though, is accessory. The main issue is another, that is:
1. that the Pope read and approved the text of the relatio post disceptationem on the Saturday before the publication;
2. that, therefore, all the heresies therein contained can be traced back to him;
3. that the Pope has acted like an Oriental Satrap in disrespecting his bishops at every step: putting in charge a cabal of ultra-liberal, silencing the bishops so that the world does not see orthodoxy at work, publishing a text the bishops had not approved, (imposing the Six Little Pigs to draft the final version, I add); imposing the publication of the preliminary report (which is on the internet anyway), and finally imposing the publication of the final text (the Relatio Synodi) including those paragraphs explicitly not approved by the required majority.
4. that Burke, Chaput, Mueller & Co. are saying, with thinly veiled words, that the Pope was behind all this, and the Pope was the one who wanted to weak the discipline of the Church in matters of sexual morality. That Cardinal Pell meant, when he said that the Synod was being manipulated, exactly that the Pope was manipulating it, and this behaviour had to stop.
Summa Summarum, the Pope did all exactly as he wished without listening to the bishops every time he could (preliminary relatio, appointment of the “little pigs”, decision to keep paragraphs that had been excised), and promptly looking for cover every time he could not (the second relatio in most paragraphs, and the posturing as the “wise mediator between truth and heresy” in the final speech).
There is a fifth issue, on which I must offer a most optimistic outlook than the two excellent men in the video.
Yes, there will now be “discussions” about sodomy, & Co. But I can’t see how this discussion can be silenced if the Pope not only does not silence it (which Burke invited him to do, unheeded; I think we will hear more about this), but rams it down the throat of the Church.
And if discussion (scandalous! obscene!) must be had, then better from a position of clear defeat for the Modernist position, and clear approval of the Catholic position; a Catholic position which the bishops will take care to have well explained to their own sheep, lest they themselves, the bishops, get grilled next year at the Synod 2015, and then stoned in public by the homosexual minions of Francis. A man who, as we have already seen in the case of the FFI, “does” persecution and revenge with reckless abandon.
Yes, the dissenters will dissent. But this they would have done anyway. It is much better that they open their mouth as dissenters, and are seen to be so. All the others (which means by the way: the overwhelming majority in Africa and Asia) will discuss, get very angry at the Modernists, and go to the 2015 synod better prepared, and with well-sharpened swords.
And what will Francis do? Leave African or Asian bishops out? All hell would break loose. What then? Impose silence and censorship again? Don’t make me laugh. He caved in once to avoid a public and unprecedented humiliation, he would do it thirty more times.
This here is a Jesuit. His motto could be “In defeat, cowardice. In victory, revenge!”.
Do you want to know what I think? Francis had his moment, and he lost bad. He made a surprise bid for Russia, and was stopped at the outskirts of Moscow. The surprise attack has failed, and he now has in front of him an army so overwhelming – if they only want to fight – that there is no way he can reverse the destiny of the battle, unless it is for the incompetence and cowardice of his opponent.
If you ask me (warning! Born optimist!) this battle is not for Francis to win. It is only for the the Bishops (and Catholicism) to lose. But Francis is now a lame duck. The world has seen it already, and it is coming to terms with it. The Newsweek article I have already linked to is an example of a new reality slowly starting to “sink in”.
A year of battle is before us.
But the events of last week showed that ours is, by far, the better army.
If we (and the Bishops and Cardinals) do not lose faith and go on pounding – and several of them have done it already, and new ones are coming in, like the very late Cardinal Piacenza – Francis and his little troop of heretics will be exposed as a bunch of heretic morons.
At that point Francis will leave the battle, and let others have the blame.
My dear readers,
if you ask me, and if you have any trust in your humble correspondent, the video below (hat tip to reader scarygoat61) is required viewing.
So much so, that I will post this without further comment, and will make my considerations (for anyone who will want to do it; but you don’t have to, as the video is good enough) in another post, that will assume this video has been seen.
There are moments when I think that we can behold victory not (hopefully) only on the day we die, but in our lifetime. This is one of these moments. The war will be hard, but if I look at the first major battle I start to think it is Axis against Allies here. Which, patriotic as your truly is, could only have only one outcome since 7 December 1941.
Enjoy the video.
In another amusing development, the Beatification of Paul VI has been almost ignored in the uproar caused by last week's events.
Think of it: it is clear that Pope Paul's Beatification was planned as the final apotheosis of the Great Push Towards Hell. On the day Francis gloriously proclaims a New Religion for our time, his Glorious Predecessor, the man who saw the beginning of this Glorious Push brought to completion in the Council, is also remembered. Look, world, how the Spirit is Guiding them both!
No doubt, Stage I of the Revolution had to be celebrated in the same day as Stage II made its formal, triumphal appearance in the world. The Synod Fathers would have been praised as the new and more daring generation of Council Fathers, building what they once started to new, breathtaking heights. Francis, the Humble Innovator, would have stood there in front of the entire planet, hailed by atheist, perverts, dissenters, and assorted enemies of the Church as he says to those he has just betrayed that he is merely continuing on the path of the V II “tradition”. By beatifying Paul in death, he would have beatified himself in life.
It wasn't to be. A burning defeat is what TMAHICH got instead. The final address to the Bishops had to be hastely rewritten, trying to mask Francis' complicity with the heretics – actually: Francis' steering of the heresy – and attempting to paint him as the good old uncle, saying “tut-tut” to both Traditionalists and Heretics in that oh so gentle, amiable way of his when he is not massacring some beautiful Catholic order.
In all this mess, Pope Paul was as irrelevant in death as he was in life. A fitting destiny for the man who refused to stop the already clear drive towards betrayal, and allowed all this madness to start in earnest.
Two words on this beatification (Paul does not deserve better) to close. I do not know if the man is in hell, and it is to be hoped he saved his sorry Modernist head in the end. He certainly got the grace of a slow death with the sacraments and abundant time to repent, so one can only hope he made the most of it. Still, Beatifications are not binding for Catholics. Therefore, Yours Truly will hold this beatification to be the same as everything Francis does:
After the great debacle of last week – denied by some of the Liberals and, obviously, by all the Pollyannas – the question can be posed of what will Francis do next. Then we can speculate of what will happen after that. Allow me to say how I see it.
Broadly speaking, it seems to me that he has the following options.
1. Resign and wheelchair off to Argentina.
If Francis sees his future as Pope as bleak, he could make an extreme gesture and simply resign. He would instantly acquire the status of Best Pope Evah by those whose popularity he is courting: Western Non-Catholics of all stripes.
A kind of Loser Cincinnatus, he would go back to his cobbler, his newspaper agent and his beloved slum trannies. An aura of non-judgmental, Dalai Lama-like mock sainthood would follow him everywhere. Atheist, Jews, Witches, Homos, Adulterers, Concubines and unrepentant sinners of all sort would erect a huge monument to the Revolutionary Pope. Whilst I am sure he enjoys the immense apartment, the company of perverts, the helicopter and the power, what he loves most is himself and his own popularity. This would, therefore, be an option if not immediately, perhaps if he gets another thrashing or two. Alas, I doubt that his outlook is so bleak, or that he may see it that way. Therefore, this one looks improbable at least for now.
2. Adapt to the role as Pope, and say farewell to the Revolution
This Pope loves his popularity above all. It is very questionable whether he would choose to become the hate figure of Catholics in life and for generations to come. May he hate Catholics, I think he hates mass unpopularity more. A Pope not followed by his own is a joke of a Pope no matter how many perverts love him, and I am sure that much he understands well.
If we are lucky, he could decide that this is the end of the revolutionary experiment, and he has neither the age nor the strength to really roll the dice. Therefore, he could avoid the Nuclear Option and simply be content with being Pope Stupid, rather than Pope Heretic. A massive conflict could see him even defrocked. He is, in this scenario, too much of a Jesuit to risk that.
This is, I think, also an unlikely scenario. But it could become far more realistic if Francis gets another couple of humiliations like last week’s one. He is a Jesuit after all, which means: weak with the strong, always ready to swim with the tide, and with no shame at all.
3. Continue as now, but more guardedly and carefully.
In this scenario, Francis learns that he has sent his tanks in the open field and they have been massacred. He also understands further open defiance will yield the same results. Therefore, he decides it’s guerrilla time.
Removal of as many uncomfortable bishops as he can without risking open backlash; appointment of liberals and friends of perverts (or perverts) as bishops, but not too obvious ones; continued “off-the-cuff” heresies, but mixed with more traditional messages.
This, I think the most probable scenario. The trouble with that (for him) is that Francis does not have the time to work slowly on his project and see it triumph in, say, twenty years. There are thousands of bishops, a jungle of religious orders, many seminaries are now producing decent priests, and Traditionalism has never been so strong in 50 years. Look at Summorum Pontificum advancing as the old… Jesuits fill the hospices. This is a guerrilla that is also a race against the time. If he tries to be Gorbachev, chances are he’ll end up like him. The Church is, like the Soviet Union, a huge apparatus that (leaving the Holy Ghost aside) a heretic can’t reshape as he pleaseth. Francis’ guerrilla will make damages, but the Church will bear them all right, and rectify them in time when TMAHICH is gone.
4. The Extreme Destroyer
Francis decides that enough is enough, and sets up to make a massacre; remaining as much under cover as he can, whilst still being the Puppetmaster.
An example of this could be the already ventilated and now resuscitated proposal of factually castrating the CDF and leave the Bishops’ Conferences free to decide as much as possible, even in “doctrinal” matters.
The problem with this is, if you ask me, that it will never work. The principle that the praxis must adhere to the doctrine has just been convincingly reaffirmed. I am unable to see how Cardinal Napier or Burke would accept communion for adulterers provided it is limited to some Western Countries. There is, actually, every reason to believe this “doctrinal anarchy” would equate to the dismembering of the very Body of the Church, an outcome that only the most fanatical Kasperites will support.
It is not possible to have home-made Catholicism. The word itself decries this possibility as absurd. I may be the eternal optimist, but I think that if Francis were to try something like that, he would end up under an orthodox truck in no time, and at that point he would be a seriously lame duck.
The breaking of taboos is a two-way street. Next time, the criticism will be faster, more spread, and more explicit. Look at the immense status of people like Cardinal Burke now. If they push, It’s “Pope Over Board”!
Think of this: Francis has already been tested, and he has lost. Has he gone for the all-out confrontation? No. Are the Bishops and Cardinals stupid, that they do not know that he will seek a rematch, and revenge? No. Is he strong enough to brave them? Come on, he’s a Jesuit. He did not have the balls last week, will he grow a pair at (almost) Seventy Nine?
Call me the eternal optimist, but I don’t think he can. This here just has no guts for it, or we would have known already. In my eyes, he rather runs the risk of becoming a pathetic figure, torn between the armchair “Che” and the reality of an abysmally bad soldiery.
He was tested, and was found wanting.
You can say what you want of “Che” Guevara (and whatever you say, I will say worse), but he certainly had no fear to put all at risk, and to accept frightful odds uncaring of consequences.
A “Che”, this Pope is not. He has all the hate of Che Guevara, but none of the balls.
Whenever he finds an army of Catholics close the ranks against him, he will always choose the armchair rather than the jungle. As he did last Thursday. Of course, he will need to find this Army or he will walk all over Catholicism. Of course, a losing Wehrmacht still is the Wehrmacht! But with God’s Grace and our prayers, and if the Spirit of the Synod continues – and I can’t see why not – I can’t see how he can win.
We live in extremely worrying, volatile, heretical times. I am aware that this prediction may prove completely wrong. But I can only write on this blog to the best I can observe, and with the most realistic reasoning I can extract from these observations.
TMAHICH isn’t the Antichrist, and he has already failed abysmally even as apprentice False Prophet. Heck, not even his Bishops esteem him, and not very many seem to fear him.
I see last Thursday as a Catholic D-Day. Destination: Berlin. Yes, the army opposing us is still frightfully strong. Yes, there is no doubt savage fighting might be in store. Yes, complacency now would be fatal. But not ten months after D-Day, Hitler was dead and Nazism in his last gasps. I do not think very many thought it could be so fast.
I dare to forecast, here, how this man will be seen after he’s gone: as a stupid, evil, dirty old man who wanted to remake the Church in his own (stupid, evil, and dirty) image, got a hammer on his teeth a couple of times too much, and thought better of it.