REBLOG: Pope Homo? Francis Approved Homoerotic Synod Text, Says Cardinal

 

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.

M

 

 

 

 

Hitler And The Synod

Meet The Papal Thieves

Father Z has it in English, and Kath.net has the original in German.

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.

M

 

 

Pope Homo? Francis Approved Homoerotic Synod Text, Says Cardinal

The smell of sheep was becoming unbearable

 

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.

M

 

 

 

 

The Great Pretender

“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.

M

Athanasius Contra Franciscum, Or: The Prospects Of Nuclear War

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.

M

 

 

The Poet, The Cardinal, And The Rudderless Ship

Can’t imagine he would put Francis in Paradise, or even Purgatory…

 

 

Ahi serva Italia, di dolore ostello,
nave sanza nocchiere in gran tempesta,
non donna di province, ma bordello!

Pedestrian translation: 

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. 

M

Francis Censors The Relatio Synodi.

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. 

Mundabor

The Ways Of The Clergyman According To M

 

 

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.

M

 

 

 

 

 

Sensus Catholicus And Common Sense: On The Proper Way Of Catholic Warfare.

 

The Whermacht is coming. Wait, let us discuss whether Pell is truly 100% perfect!

 

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.

Mundabor  

 

   

 

 

     

 

The Ugly Truth Begins To Emerge

“Forward!”, says Francis…

 

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. 

Mundabor

 

Let Us Not Be Afraid Of The “H” Word!

The picture of this Papacy.

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.

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The Remnant” Video: The Comment

This is one in the fray…

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. 

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late…)

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.

… and even the Pontiff Emeritus had to intervene…

 

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.

M 

Required Viewing: “The Remnant” Strikes Back

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.  

A Positive Effect Of Last Week’s Chaos

Paul VI's beatification in pictures

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:

Rubbish.

M

 

 

Francis’ Next Move And The Catholic D-Day: A Reflection

Heresy Beach under attack. Thursday, 16 October 2014.

 

 

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.

 

Mundabor 

 

Si Tacuisses, Philosophus Mansisses

I keep reading Cardinals who sound as if they belonged to a different religion. Actually, I keep reading Cardinals who do show, by their own talking, that they belong to a different religion.

The latest one is Cardinal Ravasi, the Lou Reed fan, very eager to take a walk on the wild side. Ravasi reacts to Cardinal Burke's invitation to the Pope to quench the heresy, and says in his innocent ignorance of everything Catholic that no, the Pope could not do that, because his intervention it would have ended the debate. Roma locuta, causa finita, said the chap, to show us in life he hasn't been listening to Lou Reed all the time.

The stupidity of this is immense, but is the more insulting if we reflect that it comes from a Cardinal.

Roma not only used to, but has to speak – for all times to come – exactly in order to end discussions that should not have started in the first place! Heresy is not on a par footing with Truth, and the Pope is never ever to be neutral between the one and the other.

Cardinal “Lou Reed” Ravasi does not get this simple concept. He talks as if the discussion took place inside a political party. He has no idea – or does not care – about the principles involved. To him, “Rome” has a duty to encourage discussion irrespective of what is actually discussed.

This man is a Cardinal. A Church with such Princes is truly a Kingdom in serious need of repair.

M

Spinning Defeat

Dream, heretics…

The liberal and worldly press is divided over the issue of the synod. The more realistic commenters limit themselves to observe and report the facts: the Pope has made a big push for what they call modernisation, and he has been soundly defeated. Whilst even these commenters taint the facts with their own bias (and consider, say, the events a negative development), they at least say it as it is. 

Another current among the losers is, however, of the opinion that it is better to deny defeat altogether. This attitude, which Dr Goebbels brought to unprecedented heights in 1942-1945, is actually very old, and probably as old as humanity itself. They proceed, then, to explain to us how good it is that Francis wants to modernise; or that heretical thinking has found an outlet; or that now a Glorious March towards the October 2015 synod can begin.

Stop dreaming and start looking, dissenters and liberals.

A Pope defeated by his own bishops in matters pertaining to his own orthodoxy can only be a Pope covered in shame, and now severely tarnished in his own very character. There is no way anyone who knows two things of Catholicism can think otherwise (this raises the question, though, of how many journalists do know two things of Catholicism).

Similarly, it is madness to think that it is good that the New Gospel found an outlet. Since the Church has stopped barbecuing them with Dominican sauce, heretics have not had many problems in spreading their heresies, nor are heretical bishops and cardinals a creation of this pontificate. The Church must fight heresy, and this she has done brilliantly in the glorious days of last week. Heresy (at least this new extreme form of it) has lost, and it has lost badly. There’s no way to spin a defeat into a victory.

As to the outlook on the future, this is not a fact (the fact is the historical, brutal defeat) but a hope, the hope of future victories. We shall see. But again, it’s easy to talk of victories tomorrow when you are losing badly today. Goebbels did it massively in the last three years of the war. We know how it worked for him.

These kind of deluded liberals remind me of the Old Everly Brothers’ song.

Whenever they want heresy, all they have to do is dream.

M

 

 

The Day The Pussycat Roared

 

I must say, I am impressed…

 

Father Z publishes the translation of the story published by Marco Tosatti on La “Stampa”.  

The extent of the events yesterday cannot be underestimated. It is obvious that a deep malcontent was already there. It is also obvious Francis, Kasper and Baldisseri thought they could keep treating the bishops like the pussycats they have been in the last nineteen months (and for a long time before then). What has happened afterwards could, one day, be remembered as the turning of the tide. 

Notice the dynamic. As rather often in life, it needs for only a few strong men to stand up, and others will find the courage to follow. On this occasion, Cardinal Pell has the honour, though there is no doubt the strong cannon fire from others (I put above all Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Mueller; more worthy of praise because more exposed, and with much to lose) had created the ground for what was to happen. 

One man stands up, and says that enough is enough. Openly, he accuses Cardinal Baldisseri – and for all those who have eyes to see, which yesterday included all the bishops, the Pope – of manipulating the Synod, making of it the contrary of what it was from the very start.

It must be said to his partial credit, and as a little contribution toward washing away a shame that will remain with him for life, that Cardinal Erdo also found some courage to talk. Possibly, because desirous to show himself on the street when back. Stones are hard in Budapest, I am told.  

Interestingly, what happens next is that Baldisseri refuses, and keeps the course. This behaviour, instead of the more natural referral to the Unholy Father, can only be explained with a strategy, decided beforehand, to crush every opposition and get on with the program. “Let the one or other pussycat meow”, they must have decided together with Kasper. “They will be told to shut up, and will promptly comply”. 

It wasn’t to be. Enough was, this time, truly enough.

The bishops rebel like one man. The situation has now changed. This is no revolt in kindergarten anymore. Threats of not coming back to the Synod next year had been already leaked, and there could be no more public indictment of a Pope than this one: to ignore him and say in front of the entire world “let the man blubber, and don’t do what he says”.

At this point, no one could have done differently. Baldisseri is on the ground, his position and credibility now wounded to death. The leaking will obviously become a deluge if he insists. If the bishops leave the room, this papacy will be destroyed, with an indictment obvious even for Patheos bloggers to see.

 Tosatti at this point refers – boy, the synod room leaks like a sieve: hagan lio! – the turning point of the morning: Baldisseri looking at Francis. 

How I would have wanted to be there! These are the moments that make Church history! A bully by both nature and long liberal practice, Francis’ instinct must have been to shut them up, and demand that his wish be their command. But the man has lived too much – wasted years, I admit – not to understand the dynamics at play.

In those moments, he must have seen very vividly in front of his eyes the ruin of his pontificate. Francis The Merciful, Francis The Gentle Uncle, Francis The Apostle Of Collegiality, openly refused by his own Bishops I do not say obedience, but respect and credentials of orthodoxy.  The entire world – not only the Catholic one – would have woken up discovering that the Pope is a heretic. The press offensive would have been an atomic mushroom, because when a bishop refuses obedience to a Pope and says his positions, doctrinal stance and character are not acceptable, he must most certainly explain himself. 

The man knows all this. He is a Jesuit after all. He sees the atomic mushroom about to rise. 

He remains there, dark in the face, silent.

Nay: he remains there, humiliated, and silenced.  

Oh, how he must have hated them! All that he always despised: the “joyless”, “sanctimonious”, “holy-card-faced”, “Pharisees”, “Neo-Pelagians”, perhaps (some of them) even “rosary-counting” Catholics standing there in front of them, an ocean of red and purple caps! Rebelling to him, the Humble Lider Maximo himself! 

Francis did not say anything, apparently. But we know what he must have thought:

“Just you wait”. 

At this point, the battle of the day was decided. Francis was challenged to come out in the open, and he didn’t show up.

The entire narrative of the synod has now collapsed. The reports of the small groups are now published, and it is extremely clear the synod that we have been sold has never happened. Cardinal “I think the majority is with me” Kasper is exposed as a miserable liar. Orthodoxy, as a whole and even if in the usual, weak V II way, was defended from day one, from the vast majority of the bishops. 

This isn’t even a revolt. This is a bloodbath. This is Francis’ comeuppance made “small report”, for everyone to read and stun at the extent of the deception and manipulation. This is a complete, if not sufficiently strong, indictment of the entire “age of mercy”, of the Satanic excrements we have been given up to now, and that were sold to us as the New Truth; because, according to this devil in white, this enemy of Christ and master of lies, “if laws don’t lead people to Jesus, they are obsolete”. 

What will Francis do now? He will do what old Jesuit manipulators always do. He will lick his wounds as he works in the dark, unleashing his hounds against the bishops outside of camera attention.  Perhaps he will send one or two “orthodox” messages, to try to divide the public opinion and to lead some into thinking he may not be a died-in-the-wool material heretic after all. He will work outside of the cameras’ attention to the intimidation of many bishops, as he keeps embracing wheelchairs and making well-planned “spontaneous” stops with his humble Ford Focus. He will, make no mistake, keep being TMAHICH.

But something, I think, has now changed forever. This slap cannot be “un-slapped”. He has been exposed as a liar, a hypocrite, and a manipulator. May this not be said with these exact words, the substance of what the Bishops have said and done yesterday is clear. The bucks stops at the Pope. 

I have said it before (actually, even before things came to yesterdays’ showdown) that this is an unprecedented revolt after an unprecedented blasphemy. 

But at the same time, it was a glorious day. A day that must make the Modernists stop and think, and realise it won’t be a walk in the park. It will be, in fact, a huge mess, and a battle that will be sung in the centuries to come.

One feels today as if Liberius or Honorius had been publicly denounced by their own bishops. It is as if the Ottaviani Intervention had gathered with it the Conciliar Fathers as one man. It is so big.  

Further battles lie before us, and particularly before the bishops. The Jesuit will come back with a vengeance, and no trick or weapon will be left unused. The bishops must understand what is going on, and resist as one man, denouncing all of them every attempt at intimidation made to one of them. They are (largely, and loosely, but still…) on the side of orthodoxy. There is no way in hell a Pope can fight them en masse and save face.

But this here was huge. 

Pray for the Bishops, that they find the strenght and moral fortitude, now that the conflict has exploded, to continue on the path of Truth.  

It was the day the pussycat roared. These things do not happen simply out of human forces. 

What a glorious day. 

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

Cardinal Burke Asks. Francis Answers.

Faced with the unprecedented scandal of the Relatio, Cardinal Burke asked the Pope to intervene. 

But Pope Francis had already delivered the answer, on the same morning the address was made public. There can be no clearer endorsement of the Relatio, and no clearer answer to Cardinal Burke’s question, than the one the Pope had already delivered.

We need to stop pretending that Francis may be anything else than a heretic. We have to do with a Class 1 Modernist here. 

Cardinal Burke, Mueller etc. know already how things stand. They must make a public stand that goes beyond asking Francis whether what he allows his minions to do day in and day out, corroborating it with various blasphemies of his own invention, is fine. They must say that it isn’t, and defy him to uphold truth or be called a heretic and enemy of Catholicism. 

The reality is staring at us. Let us not look the other way. 

Mundabor

 

Akita And The Synod, 10 October 1973 And 13 October 2014

Akita, 13 October 1973. The Blessed Virgin to Sister Agnes Sasagawa:

“My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you. You will inform your superior.”

After a short silence:

“As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.”

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

“The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them”

“With courage, speak to your superior. He will know how to encourage each one of you to pray and to accomplish works of reparation.”

“It is Bishop Ito, who directs your community.”

And She smiled and then said:

“You have still something to ask? Today is the last time that I will speak to you in living voice. From now on you will obey the one sent to you and your superior.”

“Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved.”

 

Rome, 13 October 2014. Relatio post Disceptationem: the Synod’s Bishop to the Catholic world: 

A new sensitivity in today’s pastoral consists in grasping the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation. It is necessary that in the ecclesial proposal, while clearly presenting the ideal, we also indicate the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.

It was also noted that in many countries an “an increasing number live together ad experimentum, in unions which have not been religiously or civilly recognized” (Instrumentum Laboris, 81). In Africa this occurs especially in traditional marriages, agreed between families and often celebrated in different stages. Faced by these situations, the Church is called on to be “the house of the Father, with doors always wide open […] where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems” (Evangelii Gaudium, 47) and to move towards those who feel the need to take up again their path of faith, even if it is not possible to celebrate a religious marriage.

In the West as well there is an increasingly large number of those who, having lived together for a long period of time, ask to be married in the Church. Simple cohabitation is often a choice inspired by a general attitude, which is opposed to institutions and definitive undertakings, but also while waiting for a secure existence (a steady job and income). In other countries common-law marriages are very numerous, not because of a rejection of Christian values as regards the family and matrimony, but, above all, because getting married is a luxury, so that material poverty encourages people to live in common-law marriages. Furthermore in such unions it is possible to grasp authentic family values or at least the wish for them. Pastoral accompaniment should always start from these positive aspects.

All these situations have to be dealt with in a constructive manner, seeking to transform them into opportunities to walk towards the fullness of marriage and the family in the light of the Gospel. They need to be welcomed and accompanied with patience and delicacy. With a view to this, the attractive testimony of authentic Christian families is important, as subjects for the evangelization of the family.
Caring for wounded families (the separated, the divorced who have not remarried, the divorced who have remarried)

What rang out clearly in the Synod was the necessity for courageous pastoral choices. Reconfirming forcefully the fidelity to the Gospel of the family, the Synodal Fathers, felt the urgent need for new pastoral paths, that begin with the effective reality of familial fragilities, recognizing that they, more often than not, are more “endured” than freely chosen. These are situations that are diverse because of personal as well as cultural and socio-economic factors. It is not wise to think of unique solutions or those inspired by a logic of “all or nothing”….

Each damaged family first of all should be listened to with respect and love, becoming companions on the journey as Christ did with the disciples of the road to Emmaus. In a particular way the words of Pope Francis apply in these situations: «The Church will have to initiate everyone – priests, religious and laity – into this “art of accompaniment”, which teaches us to remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other (cf. Ex 3,5). The pace of this accompaniment must be steady and reassuring, reflecting our closeness and our compassionate gaze which also heals, liberates and encourages growth in the Christian life» (Evangelii Gaudium, 169).

Various Fathers underlined the necessity to make the recognition of cases of nullity more accessible and flexible….

As regards matrimonial suits, the speeding-up of the procedure, requested by many, as well as the preparation of a sufficient number of operators, clerics and lay people, dedicating themselves to this, requires an increase in the responsibilities of the diocesan bishop, who in his diocese might charge a specially trained priest who would be able to offer the parties advice on the validity of their marriage….

In the same way the situation of the divorced who have remarried demands a careful discernment and an accompaniment full of respect, avoiding any language or behavior that might make them feel discriminated against. For the Christian community looking after them is not a weakening of its faith and its testimony to the indissolubility of marriage, but rather it expresses precisely its charity in its caring.

As regards the possibility of partaking of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, some argued in favor of the present regulations because of their theological foundation, others were in favor of a greater opening on very precise conditions when dealing with situations that cannot be resolved without creating new injustices and suffering. For some, partaking of the sacraments might occur were it preceded by a penitential path – under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop –, and with a clear undertaking in favor of the children. This would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis, according to a law of gradualness, that takes into consideration the distinction between state of sin, state of grace and the attenuating circumstances.

[…]

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

—–

It is as if the Devil himself had appeared to the Bishops and Cardinals.

M

 

Synod: Francis And Satan Are Dancing The Tango, Part Two

 

 

 

Continuing our short comment over the satanic abomination published by the Vatican yesterday, we find the argument of sexual perversion introduced. 

This is, make no mistake, the clear indication that the Homomafia is now running the show at the Vatican, helped by the man who, whether a homosexual himself or not, decided they were not a problem because they don’t go around with the “Vatican Gay Lobby ID card”. Today, for a change, I will abandon the “what they really said” method.

If you ever wondered why Francis buried in the sand the famous 300 page report, you can cease wondering now.

So, there it goes:

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The smell of brimstone is strong in this one.

I have never heard of “homo detector” devices being put at the entrance of churches, and when it “beeps” people being chased away by ushers crying: “Go away!” “No homosexuals in our church!”

The Church has never forbidden the approach to the altar to pedophiles, homosexuals, murderers, incestuous people, and people screwing animals.

What the Church has always said, is that these are abominations. Therefore, on the one hand no pervert is allowed to act on his perversion, and on the other hand no pervert is allowed to give scandal by advertising it.

Which introduces the problem of “welcoming”. The soul is welcome to contrition and repentance. The homo is not welcome as homo. He is not welcome if, in any way whatsoever, he wants to have his perversion accepted, “valued”, “evaluated”, “appraised” or “appreciated” in any way whatsoever; because this would be welcoming scandal, not souls, and leading souls to hell, not heaven. 

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge.

Homosexuality isn’t a “question”. It’s a sexual perversion. It leads people to hell. Its obvious (not “natural”; actually, unnatural) byproduct, sodomy, cries to heaven for vengeance. It’s in the same ballpark as screwing one’s dog, or one’s father, or one’s little nephew. That’s it. Live with it.

Still, our little Satan’s whores now dare to tell us that such perversion should move us to “elaborate a realistic path of affective growth”. This means, for all but the stupid, that the pervs are encouraged in their “feelings” for each other. The “integration of the sexual dimension” is, and cannot be read in any other way, an acceptance of sodomy, perhaps waiting that two sodomites who are told how much sodomy accompanies them in their “affective growth” then suddenly cease to commit sodomy because… because… no one knows why. The end is another bomb, as the “educative challenge” seem to be addressed not to the homos, but to the Catholic people, who must be “educated” to the “welcoming” of sodomites in their midst. 

The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

The little bastards get very sneaky here: as they repeat, with a very low voice, that the sacrament of marriage and two sodomites or lesbians living together in sin aren’t quite the same thing, they effectively put homosexual “couples” almost on the same sexual footing as the sacrament of matrimony. The defence of the doctrine is here reduced to saying that Holy matrimony is still on a better footing than two sodomites living together! O you Angels in heaven, do you hear them??

The gravity of this is immense.

But fear not: there will be Pollyannas around so happy to write that the little whores have “upheld Catholic doctrine”.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

More whoring. Open sodomitical scandal is nothing more than a “problem”. Does it lead to damnation? Well, looky here: some faggots make a living out of other faggots! Isn’t this a beautiful “sacrifice” from, say, the old man who pays for the young pervert? I am so moved I want to cry. Do you have a handkerchief?

About the children, we are told that even their adoption from fags and lesbians is now a-ok! Lord, protect us and the little ones from these devils!

————–

I say it once again: there is nowhere to hide. No level of imbecility can justify anyone in pretending that

1. this is not atrociously satanic, and

2. this is not orchestrated by TMAHICH

TMAHICH is the man who put the liberal whores in the team in charge of writing this abomination. TMAHICH is the man who wanted both this Synod and the way it is going. TMAHICH is the man attacking Catholicism at every step, in every way he can.

In a way, and shocking as it is to say this, the situation is not entirely bad. I mean, it is obviously atrocious, but the upside of it is that the mask has fallen. Those who accept to pretend that the mask is still there have abundantly deserved to be punished for their folly, because they obviously value their quiet life and the desire to avoid uncomfortable questions infinitely more than Christ.

Francis here, Christ there. Francis is comfortable and easy, Christ is uncomfortable and difficult.

Pick your side, and pay the price.

Mundabor

 

There’s No Wobblying In Heaven: On The Dangers For The Church.

 

 

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.

M 

 

Peron-Style Collegiality: Francis Strikes Again

 

 

The all-informed Rorate Caeli has another bomb; and this time, the bomb is originally delivered by no other than the radio network of the Patriarchate of Lisbon. 

Follow the link and read the long version of the facts. 

The short version is that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) has once again showed his true colours behind an extremely thin veil of “neutrality”.

The act of the humble Bishop, whilst obviously in itself perfectly in the man’s right, is so worrying that the Patriarchate of Lisbon openly criticises it, with the works still in progress.  

Note the choice of the words: 

The fact is worrying those who want to maintain the current discipline of the Church regarding these issues, considering that all the persons named by the Pope are of a liberal tendency, unlike Erdö.

This is – as such declarations go – a brutal indictment of the Unholy Father. “We want to defend orthodoxy, and we are now worried at seeing that the Pope himself is scheming to undermine it”. 

No, read it again. That’s exactly the message, and this is exactly the situation. 

Charitable voices have expressed the opinion that perhaps Francis wants to keep “balance” between the two opposing fractions. This simply cannot be.

Firstly, it is simply inconceivable that, after the Bishops clearly steer the debate in the direction they consider orthodox, because traditional, a Pope would say to them: “no, this is not right. You are giving Tradition too much space. Those who speak against it must also be represented, in order to make the debate more balanced!”. 

Secondly, raise his hand who believes that, had the situation been the opposite one, Francis would have appointed Burke, Bagnasco & Co. as members of the group in charge of the composition of the final report. If this had been the case, TMAHICH would have shouted “Collegiality!” so loud that even the furthest peripheries would have heard it; and he would have praised the attack on Tradition as the work of the Holy Ghost.

And in fact, one of the countless hypocrisies of this man is in his continuous appeals to collegiality whenever it serves him, and his most brutal autocracy in his governance of the Church. Pope Janus would have been a more likely name. 

 Time to wake up to the sheer danger this man represents for Holy Mother Church.

Kudos to the Bishops and Cardinals who refuse to bend to the climate  of “collegial intimidation” clearly created by this shameful man. Time to reject his schemes, and say to the world what kind of man this is.

The Patriarchate of Lisbon has done us Catholics a great service today. Let’s hope the men of good will continue on this path, and do not yield to the veiled threats and intimidations which, make no mistake, will now become massive. 

The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History is now Pope. Let’s see if the Bishops and Cardinals have their salvation dearer, or their privileges. 

Mundabor

Cardinal Kasper Must Be Declared Heretic And Banished From The Bosom Of The Church

Bad news for Cardinal Kasper…

 

Excellent post from the “better Archbold” on NCR. (Quick! Read the article before the NCR censors it again!).

Below is, taken from the article, an excerpt from Leo XIII’s Satis cognitum:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing withgreater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

The obviously unmerciful, “no space for luv” Pope Leo XIII obviously was of the opinion that scum like Kardinal Kretin “Kirchensteuer” Kasper should be (bar, obviously, an improbable repentance and retractation)

declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church

One cannot but agree with the words of the saintly Pope. It is truly time that those Cardinals and Archbishops who have their salvation dear begin to speak clearly, and say that there is no place within the Church for people who put their greed, their simony and their thirst for popularity before Christ, and actually insult him as not loving and not merciful enough, not relevant for our society and disconnected from the reality of the XXI century with his unprecedented “challenges” (clearly, they never heard of Sodom).

Cardinal Kasper has been spitting in the face of the Lord Crucified uninterruptedly in the last months; this he has done both in personal interviews, and in the assiduous work of demolition made with the majority of the German bishops, and with all those “serene and profound” tools of Satan who have accepted to side with him.

If you are with Kasper, you are on the side of Satan.

Even if you are so fond of your black shoes, and so proud of your humility.

Mundabor

Faggots Ante Portas

Loves Pope Francis.

 

As the disgraceful Synod begins, an army of perverts is converging on Rome like it’s June 1944.

I wonder how many among even the most hardened, professional Pollyannas will still pretend to believe perverts must be accepted as perverts within the Church; as if their proclaimed perversion did not, in actual fact, translate not only in perverted activity, but in the perversion of the Church.

Whilst the urban legends of homosexual saints are clearly tosh, it is certainly possible that a person afflicted by this horrible perversion reacts to it in the right way and decides that his homosexuality must be not embraced or whitewashed, but on the contrary fought against and lived for what it is: a horrible perversion that must be fought against until death. The various groups like Courage, and the counsellors now under increasing persecution in the United States, do just that: they help people on the wrong (per) direction (versio) to find the right one.

Yours truly does not throw his arrows against the homosexual – or the pedophile, the incestuous, the one affected by bestiality – who recognises his problem, sees it for what it is, and acts accordingly out of fear of the Lord and love for His Church. The attentive reader will immediately notice that I never call such people “faggots”. In this, yours truly thinks he is fully in line with the thinking of the Church not only after, but also before V II, in which is the only guarantee of orthodoxy. Homosexuality is a huge problem. The serene acknowledgment of it, and the awareness of the absolute necessity to put an end to homosexual behaviour, is already a great step. May those so honest get rid of their affliction in this life, and be richly rewarded in the next.

But I draw a line in the sand whenever I hear hypocritical, subversive talk of “acceptance” and “inclusiveness” of homosexuality.

Did the Church every “accept” pedophilia? Did she ever “include” incest? Of course, of course she calls the pedophiles and the incestuous to repentance! But never would she, lest she betrays her role, consider such horrible perversions as acceptable in themselves!

The Church loves the person because he is an immortal soul. She does not love the person as sinner, much less accepts or includes his perversion. This must be repeated again and again, because it appears thickness is rather well spread among Catholic – or pretended such – keyboards.

Another basic concept most “everyday Catholics” do not get – which is utterly disquieting – is the obvious distinction between sins that go with nature, and sins that go against it. It must truly be a perverted generation the one that does not get basic principles not only of common sense, but of the god-given order of the world.

The affirmation that, say, “the church calls homosexuals to chastity, but then she does the same with heterosexual people too” is, at its root, profoundly subversive. It sends the message that the one or the other sexuality are the same in the eyes of the Lord, and therefore the same rules are applied. It also sends the message that homosexual attraction is in itself fine – a misconception held by many a perverted mind nowadays – and the problem only begins when penises start floating around looking for the wrongest possible places.

This is not only bollocks, but perverted bollocks, and I defy any of these “understanding” Catholics to tell me they would know, on being informed that their son is attracted to boys, think it just fine, provided no sodomy occurs. Whereas the same father would proudly acknowledge his son’s attraction to girls and, in fact, think it just fine, because that’s exactly how it is. In this latter case, the attraction is fine even if fornication occurs, because in this latter case what is wrong is the fornication, not the attraction. The attraction for the opposite sex is from God, from the same one is from the Devil.

All this is lost nowadays. The desire to please perverts is such, that their very perversion is swept under the carpet, and downplayed in every possible and impossible way.

This is indecent, and outright disgusting. It reminds me of the Eighties, when the liberal press insisted in telling us how “natural” sexuality in children is; no doubt, because there were a lot of pedophile journalists then, exactly as there are a lot of homosexual journalists now.

Now, an army of faggots and dyke converge on Rome like it’s June 1944; they do so because they smell the blood, and they know that I do not say hostility, but not even laughter and ridicule will submerge them.

This is a clear sign of how deep we have sunk into the moral abyss: that perverts have become an accepted part of our everyday life, people whose “feelings” should not be “hurt”.

“Sodom light”, I call this.

In fact, not even so very light.

Mundabor

 

 

Synod: Back To Basics

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.

Some examples.

“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.

M

Synod: Let The Leaking Begin

The unprecedented step of a synod reminding one of the Soviet Politburo was, very obviously, taken so that the most shameless prelates may discuss in private what they would not – at least for now – dare to say in public.

We have already seen that this is working, with even the idea of leaving aside those nasty words like “sin” being floated around. TMAHICH is, no doubt, rejoicing.

The way I see it, there is one simple way to at least damage, if not altogether stop, this mechanism: leaking like there's no tomorrow.

Bishop Titius proposes something outlandish – say: ceremonies of “collective forgiveness” with concubines, where they are collectively absolved and can then line up for communion; things like that -. His proposal in on the blogosphere the day after, with his Christian name, family name, diocese, and photos of his residence. I doubt many others will feel encouraged to continue with the exercise.

The secrecy is there to encourage the breaking of taboos. The leaking would make this shame public, and help to stop the worst from happening. TMAHICH would soon discover it's not so easy to stage a worldwide demolition exercise.

Dear Bishops and Cardinals of good will, if anyone is reading me now, please take my words to heart.

Let the leaking begin.

M

Polygamy And Mercy

Creepy.
Like this synod.

 

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”?

M

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi… And Lex Dicendi

 

 

 

First you may want to read here.

Then, you may want to read here.

And as you are there, you may want to re-read what I have published mere hours ago, here.

One thing is certain: the smoke of Satan is filling the air of this Synod.

Mundabor