The Eponymous Flower translates an article from the Italian Il Timone, which reports that mass attendance in Poland rose 0.7% in one year only.
This may not seem much, but it is double good news: firstly because in my book 0.7% in only one year is an awful lot anyway, and secondly because this goes against the tide of a progressively de-Christianised Western Europe, starting from Italy (which should lead the pack) but involving even more massively countries like France and Spain.
It also tells the lie about the well-spread legend that religious feeling decreases as wealth increases. Poppycock, as Russia and Poland once again (I mean: for those who still don’t get that the richest country on the Planet is also pretty much the most religious) abundantly demonstrate.
This is not a miracle. This is not the deceased Not-So-Great Polish Pope suddenly throwing faith bombs on the Country. This is the result of something very banal, and very obvious:
even a little orthodoxy goes a long way.
Former priest, now full-time heretic commie Leonardo Boff said it very clearly: Francis is one of us.
He gives facts and places, too: a meeting not happened because Francis was too angry after the thirteen cardinals letter, and an official request of material written by a heretic for his own opus diabolicum.
What kind of chap Boff is would be clear, to casual observer who does not know him, simply by reading this interview: he states he still “celebrates” every now and then, and talks of women deacon with the same levity with which I talk of Italian football.
Such a man openly claims his vicinity to Francis, a Pope who uses his writings for his own heretical “pastoral” documents.
In sane times, such an interview would cause an immediate, scandalised denial from the Vatican. In this case, you may be sure the reaction will be the usual one: silence, and a “wink-wink” to heresy.
From their friends you will recognise them.
Father Spadaro (Jesuit, obsessive Twitter-maverick, and told to be “near to the Pope”), has officially proclaimed and promoted heresy.
The quote is this one:
When the concrete circumstances of a divorced and remarried couple make feasible a pathway of faith, they can be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulty of this option, and leaves open the possibility of admission to the Sacrament of Reconciliation when this option is lacking.
“In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt – particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.
This is clearly an alternative religion.
A religion in which Christ’s command “may be not practicable”. A religion in which it is always possible to define a “lesser evil” and prefer it to a “worse evil” that can be picked at pleasure. A religion in which the priest is made an accomplice (only for those, of course, who at that level of evil still decide they do need to talk to a priest) in the obdurate sin of the unfaithful.
No, this certainly isn’t Catholicism. It isn’t any form of Christianity, either. It’s the new religion of the adulterers, the communists, and the perverted.
Father Spadaro is either possessed, or perverted himself, or extremely evil. There is no way a sane Catholic with a shred of fear of the Lord remaining in him, and who certainly knows better, would ever go on record with the words above unless Satan had taken, in one way or other, complete control over him.
In Christian times, people like this one were burnt at the stake. With Catholic saints painted (centuries later) as present and presiding over the proceedings as in the painting above from Pedro Berruguete. The painting may be historically accurate, or not. I have no time or inclination to make a research. But it certainly shows how Catholic painters thought in Catholic times.
Pray for the soul of the poor bastard.
Or wait for the retractation if the protests are loud enough. This is the way these people work.
There is an achingly beautiful article from Hilary White on One Peter Five that I would suggest my reader take the time to read. It is, if you wish, a tale of redemption, the announcement that the Cavalry has finally showed up or, as the author beautifully said,
For us English, living on short rations in our bomb shelters, it is like hearing that the Americans have finally decided to join in.
The fundamental premise of the article is a handful of concepts that I repeat often: 1) Pope Francis is the unavoidable consequence of a rot that has been forming in the last fifty years. He is, if you wish, the explosion of a huge bubo that had been growing in the past half century whilst the vast majority praised the full airport masses of popes who kept appointing heretics as bishops, and kept tolerating heresy in many overt or covert ways at all level of Church life. 2) Francis has now come, as a plague allowed by the Lord to show us whereto our madness leads; to show us, in a word, that we can’t have Vatican II and orthodoxy at the same time. 3) These are great times for a faithful Catholic, because we can live and die in allegiance to Christ when all the world is against us. This is, as I have also stated, our very own “finest hour”.
However, I must disagree with the author of the linked article concerning two points: whether the war has already started, and whether the Cavalry has really showed up.
At the cost of being cynical, I must repeat that I still do not have much trust in the will of the four Cardinals to really start a conflict. If I were from Missouri, I would say “show me”. The Cardinals have pointed their cannons on Fort Sumter, but they haven’t started the cannonade yet. After months of silence from our hierarchy (including the four), I’d say I will wait until I see the smoke from the guns before I consider this war started.
In the same vein, up to now the interventions in favour of the four Cardinals have been few and far between: a couple of bishops here (I recall three in total), half a Cardinal there. Not much. If, for example, the entire Polish Bishops’ Conference were to release a hard-worded statement demanding that Francis answers the dubia, and does it in the proper way, then I would be persuaded that a strong front line is forming or, if you wish, that a Confederate Army is now operative. What I see up to now is… not much.
Then there is the big question of what happens next. I would like to share Ms White’s optimism that the dubia are the sign that things will soon improve, but I can’t get myself to think it. Decades of cowardice are not likely (bar a huge Divine intervention) to be overcome in a matter of months or in a few years. The poison of V II runs deep in the veins of the Church (actually, it runs pretty deep even in the veins of the Four Cardinals). The confrontation, if it comes, is likely going to end, at least initially, with the crushing of the opposition of Francis and the complicit silence of most of our clergy. What happens next is everyone’s bet, but when I look at our bishops I see an army of 8,000 kitten unfit to wage I do not say a war, but a loud meowing.
Then there is the matter of the apparition of Our Lady in Quito. I believe in the apparition, and am therefore braced for much, much worse than we see today. At some point, I expect Francis – or his successors – to try to “merge” Catholics and Lutherans, or declare Marxism part of the social teaching of the Church, or such like. I expect the bubo to not only explode, but to spread his pus everywhere, probably for decades. Fifty years of madness aren’t forgotten because of four not entirely sane (remember: they are part of the same madness!) Cardinals. Actually, I have a hunch that fifty years of drunken madness might well have to be paid with fifty years of excruciating pain.
But yes, it is a great time to be a Catholic. We will, possibly in the next half century, live and die believing in the faith of our Father amidst a world that ridicules and insults us.
It is a great Grace the Lord is giving us.
At some point, from somewhere, a handful of great generals and fearless heroes like General Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson will appear, and these Lees and Jacksons will lead us to victory; because whilst Lee’s and Jackson’s eventual defeat was almost inevitable, our own victory is already providentially ordained.
But I doubt that this will happen in my lifetime, and encourage my readers to prepare themselves to decades of conflict whatever happens; even if the Four Cardinals abandon us, or are left completely isolated, or are declared heretics by the Evil Clown.
As to myself, as I write this I can’t even have the consolation of at least seeing the start of the war.
In a further demonstration of how far the cancer of Modernism has spread within the highest ranks of the Church, One Peter Five reports, in an article about the Dubia, this stunning affirmation of Cardinal Lehmann.
“For that matter, what, then, is hindering us from taking married deacons – who perform a great service in the Church – and then ordaining them so that they may also take over priestly duties?”
The easy answer to this is “Church discipline and what would happen to such a bishop afterwards, you old nincompoop”. The more elaborate answer is: “why are you still allowed to wear your red habit? Nay, your priestly habit?”
A retired Cardinal inviting his colleagues to such acts of open disobedience has no business whatsoever being a priest, much less a bishop, much less a Cardinal.
And a hypocrite, too. The man never performed such an act of open disobedience when he was intent in climbing the ladders of the hierarchy, but he now wonders what prevents any of his German colleagues from being immediately suspended and, likely, kicked out altogether eventually.
This man was made a Bishop in 1983, and then a Cardinal in 2001, by John Paul the Not-So-Great. He was, by the way, at the head of the German Bishop’s conference. Goats and gardeners come to mind.
The cancer has been spreading for a long time.
This man should be invited to retract his scandalous affirmations or being defrocked. But hey, in the time of FrancisMercy this seems somewhat improbable.
In these momentuous months, I will try to give some clarity – at least according to my limited lights – as to what is the situation in front of us.
A bad Pope can be very bad, a material heretic or a formal heretic.
If he is a very bad Pope, the faithful will have a clear duty to say so in order to avoid the faithful being confused.
If he is a material heretic, the faithful will have to point out that a pope spreads heresies if not in an “officially official” manner, certainly in a factual, “off-the-cuff” one. It is not for the faithful to declare a Pope deposed, or not in charge. The faithful will refuse obedience to the heresies of the Pope. This is all.
If the Pope is a formal heretic, the faithful will have to point out that the Pope is a formal heretic, and hope and pray that (and invite the bishops and cardinals to) the said bishops and Cardinals take steps to this effect. It is still not for the faithful to declare a Pope deposed.
If the Cardinals and Bishops do not act, we are in the same situation already lived in the time of Pope Honorius: officially heretical Pope, who has supported his heresy with a letter meant to solve a controversy and therefore to be used in a public setting and, by extension, to be respected by the entire Church, sits on the throne of Peter. Bishops do not dare to dethrone him. Truth does not change. Pope remains Pope. Divine Providence will deal with this situation at some point, which cannot be seen in the moment (in the case of Honorius, the account was settled only after Honorius’ death; a development uncertain during the life of the heretical Pope).
We are now somewhere between the second and third scenario. Pope Francis has been a material heretic for a long while. Reasonable people can argue whether Amoris Laetitia does or does not constitute – according to how to interpret the willed level of deception and provocation – formal heresy. Francis’ letter to the bishop of Buenos Aires – clearly meant, like Honorius’ one, to be circulated, as the bishop was writing in the name of the Argentinian ones and was not expressing a private doubt – reinforces in my eyes the argument of the formal heresy.
Some Cardinals are now clearly thinking the same, and they are seemingly testing the obduracy of Francis in proclaiming his heresy even as they offer him a way out, as happened in the case of John XXII. They might, or might not, take further steps.
Note here: the SSPX has not declared the Pope deposed, though through Bishop Fellay they have declared him a (material) heretic. The SSPX undoubtedly keep seeing in him the Pope.
My suggestion to all my readers is that they should not lose any sleep thinking whether they should declare a Pope deposed. It reminds me of the people “declaring” Trump “not elected”. The facts look at you square in the face, and nowhere in the 2000 years long history of the Church it is said that it is for the single faithful to make such decisions.
Truth will triumph in the end. This can be in three months, in three years, or in 300 years. You should rather worry yourself with the rather earlier moment in which you and everyone of us will see this Truth in front of ourselves, and will be judged accordingly.
Pope Francis and his possible heretical successors can only try to confuse me for as long as I live, and my death will be the instantaneous end of every confusion. I have no intention of allowing him (or his successors) even one second of doubt. My duty is to soldier on at Christ’s side, according to my lights, in prayer, and without thinking I can decide who is Pope. My religion gives me a sure guidance as to how to deal, in everyday matters, with a heretical Pope. It is not for me to decide to what extent the successor of a heretical Pope is a legitimate Pope (heretical Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by bishops who had remained silent in front of his very heresy). The only thing I can do is to cry out loud for what appears to be the standard solution: bishops – does not matter how many – call an imperfect council which officially declares the Pope a heretic, and therefore declares him already deposed by God by way of his own heresy, and proceeds to elect a new one: and let truth and falsehood fight as hard and as long as Divine Providence allows, and for centuries if it needs be. We will soldier on at the side of Christ and will be happy to die in His shadow, in the midst of crumbling worlds.
But none of these declarations, councils, & Co. has to happen. You need none of this to collaborate with Grace to save your soul. You need none of this to try to work with Grace in the saving of the souls near you. You go on proclaiming the Truth of Christ and hope that this will be counted for you the day you die.
You are a simple soul that will be judged according to your decisions as everyday Catholic, not according to your decision as Popemaker.
I had never seen the like.
Gloria TV does not dedicate one part of their news to the Letter “With Burning Concern”. No. They dedicate to it the entire edition.
Oh joy! The thinking Catholic heads may be a minority, but there are still more than a couple around. As for those who refuse to think, I wonder how much FrancisMercy they will receive when they die.
As I write this, the video was clicked 6,100 times. Please follow the link and spread the word!
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
This definition coincides with what the average Pewsitter answers when he is requested to define schism: someone separates himself from the union with the Church.
Mind, here, that the definition – and the common parlance – refers schism to the Church, not to the Pope. One is not in schism purely because he separates himself from the Pope, or the Pope separates himself from him. One is in schism because he has cut himself off from the Church.
Let us, therefore, imagine Francis (he about whom nothing is unimaginable) state that those who support the death penalty have separated themselves from the body of the Church and are now officially in schism. Most certainly, every well-instructed Catholic would refuse to give obedience to the Evil Clown in such a matter. However, they would most certainly not be in any schism whatsoever. They would be as part of the Church as they always were. They would also (being Catholics) most certainly not go around creating a parallel “church” under, say, Pope Pius XIII Williamson (no, I think even he would never do that). They would never declare themselves “severed” from the Church in any way whatsoever. They would simply point out that the Pope is a heretic, and a heretical Pope will not be obeyed in everything that is heretical or going against the Church.
I also would find confusing to state, in such a circumstance, that the Pope is in schism himself. No, he clearly isn’t, because he has never declared severed the ties who bind him to the social organisation of the Church. In order to do so, he would have to resign and declare himself separated from the Church, which he will clearly never do. One might say that he has put himself in a factual state of schism (as in the case of the notorious Dutch Schism), but even in this case this factual separation would concern him, not you; and would still make of him the Pope exactly in the same way as the Dutch bishops remained bishops, continued to validly ordain priests, and were never deposed.
What Francis would be doing, and what he actually does with Fornicationis Laetitia and his many satanical statements, is “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics“.
Pope is heretic. Faithful remain faithful to the Church, and refuse to obey the Pope. No schism happens. Pope is deposed, or not. If Pope is not deposed, his appointments of Cardinals are valid – and therefore his successors are validly elected – until a Council decides on the matter of the orthodoxy of both his papacy and his successors. If Pope is deposed, Council decides about the validity of his acts and appointments whilst being a heretical Pope.
We, the simple Pewsitters, do not decide any of that. We cannot depose Popes. We are worried about dying in the state of Grace. To do this, it is highly advisable to do our best to help the right side. But it’s not for us to foresee when, and how, the Lord will put an end to this. It is also not for us to talk of schism, because no matter how heretical the Pope becomes, we remain and want to die in communion with the Church. Church, obviously, seen as the Bride of Christ, not the Vatican Gay Mafia, no matter how bad the latter may become.
The Church is the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”, not Francis’ Gay Sauna. It is not for Francis to declare you in or out, if he is being heretical in so doing.
You are still in. He is still a heretic. That’s it.
Once again, it seems to me this talk of “schism” derives from excessive and wrong consideration for the figure of the Pope. It is as if some people would think that if the Pope officially converted to Islam the Catholics would have to a) do the same or b) be in schism, because ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia and if the Pope is now within Islam, then so must you. Nonsense.
Francis will cause no schism. He will cause (more or less) widespread disobedience to his heresy, but he will not be able to cause any schism, or to cause obedient Catholics to declare themselves in schism, or to separate even only one of the faithful from the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Pray for the painless death of the Evil Clown. Pray also for his conversion as sincerely as you can, though I think his death is by far the most probable and the only assured outcome. Pray that the Lord may soon put an end to this scourge. But never, never go around talking of schism.
Let him be a heretic.
You will remain faithful.
Wonderful article of Catholic Family News' John Vennari about the heretical “situation ethics” not only contaminating, but constituting the very backbone of Amoris Laetitia.
This is a comprehensive analysis of the fundamental mistake, the all-pervading heresy of this astonishingly evil document. All is explained in concise and precise, but very understandable terms. This article is probably intellectually accessible to anyone past the age of, say, twelve.
Please, dear reader, follow the advice of the article's author, and work as you can within your sphere of influence to warn as many as you can from the poisonous effects of heresy and error shamelessly promoted from the very Successor of Peter. Facebook, Twitter, and email are probably all morally licit means, however obscene Facebook and Twitter may be.
Please post on your blog, on your Facebook “wall” (if it's called that way) , wherever you think it might help. For ten who ignore it, one might be moved to change his life for the better.
We are not asked to defeat the Enemy single-handedly. We are asked to do what we can to to damage him.
Francis now adds mockery to the heresy and blasphemy already abundantly exhibited in the Apostolic Excrementation.
Asked about the mess he created, he simply dismissed it out of hand with the usual “there are more important things” kind of waffle, and stated he does not even remember the Footnote.
Not only is the man pulling our leg with astonishing arrogance, he is also stating he does not care a straw for the concerns of faithful Catholics!
Perhaps could he make the effort to, actually, pretend to read the darn thing? Not at all! Announce a note of the Vatican with a clarification or, rather, a substitution? God forbid!
No. The man just mockingly dismisses the suffering of millions of Catholics, ignoring them with unspeakable arrogance, as heresy now advances with his clear complicity.
We are living unbelievable times. And they get more absurd every month.
Catholicism is logical. It is a coherent set of rules which fit into each other. They fit so, that if you try to manipulate one of the rules you soon discover this has a domino effect and other rules are affected, creating greater and greater damage.
The Church has always maintained that one who lives in public sin cannot be admitted to the sacrament of confession. The reason is obvious: the Sacrament is not an automatic dispenser of absolution; on the contrary, repentance and firm purpose of amendment are required.
The Church rules are logical. They are merciful, but not dumb. They aren't made for Jesuits, but for Catholics. It being utterly ridiculous that a public sinner may obtain an absolution presupposing a firm purpose of amendment that goes on for exactly the five seconds necessary to get out of the confessional, and then simply goes home to keep living in public sin the Church has always states that, as they say in Italy, here nobody is stupid: first you put an end to the public scandal, then and only then you approach the confessional to obtain absolution for your still not absolved sins of adultery and public scandal.
Nor can any sensible Catholic think even for one second that a person dead to grace (this is what being in mortal sin is) would need, or have any right to ask, that he be absolved from other mortal sins even as he chooses to remains in mortal sin anyway.
It's not a point system. It's not that a major sinner may think he can “improve his mortal sin score” by getting rid of some as he keeps accepting others. To be in mortal sin is to be dead to grace. Dead is dead, and there is no state of being “less dead” because some of the sins are – in hypothesis – absolved. Therefore, there is not only no need at all to have the public adulterer “confess other sins”, but this would be even counterproductive as there is no way this sinner would not go out of the confessional thinking either “absolved is absolved; therefore, I am now in the state of grace” or “I have my mortal sin counts down to one; hey, it could be much worse”. Then the question would pose itself how can a person dead to grace, and who chooses to remain dead to grace, obtain the grace of sincere repentance. Similarly the other question would pose itself on how the priest could, in hypothesis, absolve such a sinner. “Ego the absolvo”, but no communion? What absolution it is, one that leaves the penitent in mortal sin? How can a priest absolve anyone of any sin, who chooses to remain dead to grace?
A person in mortal sin is separated from Christ. The Chuch has always – charitably, and therefore firmly – maintained that such a person has no business trying to go around the point, and must be reminded at all times that when one is in mortal sin there is no fluffing around, and there only one thing to do: put an end to the state of mortal sin. Every other solution would not help the sinner to abandon his sinfulness in the least; on the contrary, it would reinforce him in his deluded idea that he is “almost all right”.
The public sinner must be excluded from communion. He must actually also be excluded from social life, and treated like a pariah in his own environment. He is a public sinner: not only bent for hell himself, but uncaring of the fact his scandal helps Satan to get other souls, too.
There is no way of making a tip-tap dance around this. Public sinner, in mortal sin, dead to grace, and bent for hell. The enforcement of such basic concepts, both on a sacramental and social level, provides the best chance for the sinner to see the error of his way and repent. Every false “acceptance” (and much more so: tampering with the sacraments in any way, shape or form) makes the work of the devil.
Mortal sin and public scandal? No confession unit the scandal has ceased. This is how the Church has always dealt with the matter when Truth came before niceness.
God bless this faithful priest, “Father Celatus” (“celatus” in Latin means “hidden”).
He has a beautiful comment on AL (and Francis in general) here at the Remnant.
More on this as time allows.
Please read this short article, and let it sink in.
With Paragraphs 291 to 295 we are in the part of the Apostolic Excrementation where Francis looks at those shacking up and those in not sacramental marriage (which is shacking up, too; only of a more institutionalised sort) from a Presbyterian/Anglican perspective and, like them, tries to be hip, cool, and “relevant”.
Several justifications are made for public sinners, and there is no evidence of Francis feeling that they are, in fact, living in mortal sin and endangering their salvation. On the contrary, the man approves of “commitment” and blabla, again looking at the “relationship” from a purely secular perspective. The paragraphs from 293 on (“gradualness” in pastoral care) are all inspired by the same sentiment: these good men and women are not in danger of hell. Perish the thought! Look at our committed those public sinners are! Who are we to judge?
This is, of course, heretical mentality through and through. Denial of Christ and his laws. Willful, insisted, burying of Christian morality under a wave of easy, fully secular emotionalism. The language matches the mentality: nothing is condemned, and every mortal sin is an “imperfection” of people who really, really care, but just don’t know it or, you know, can’t spend the money for a church marriage because the great party with 200 people invited comes before the sacrament. Already the fact that “irregular” is always written in inverted commas speaks volumes about the man’s forma mentis.
You can read the paragraphs (if you really want to; not something I am advocating) and immediately become aware of the diffused, ever-present faithlessness that transpires from it. JP II is also abundantly misquoted, abusing him for the edification of a system of systematic avoidance of every sanction, and of every censure, which is the exact contrary of the stated intention of the man (see Familiaris Consortio, par. 84).
The big heretical bomb, however, comes in paragraph 297, where Francis starts by fluffing about in that usual Fag Dalai Lama-way of his, but then piddles outside of the potty-chair in the most tragic of ways, leaving a stinking pool of heresy and blasphemy he insists all the world sees and celebrates:
297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Satan is speaking to us very clearly here. Francis, his Number One minion on earth, is expressing to us the following concept:
No one can ever go to hell. Hell is contrary to the logic of the Gospel. And in case you think this only applies to adulterers, well no, hell does not apply to anyone. Christianity is contrary to the logic of the Gospel, you see.
When has a Pope in the history of Christianity spoken a blasphemy the like of this one!? When has a Pope dared to insult Christ in such a way!?
Any Bishop and Cardinal who does not openly condemn this blasphemous attack to Christ’s Infinite Goodness and Justice is a very obvious, very public accessory, through silence, of this heresy and blasphemy, and if you are a Christian you can have no doubt he will rot in hell unless he repents. Yes, this applies to Burke, Mueller, Brandmueller, Schneider, & Co.
After this absolute peak of satanical blasphemy, Francis goes on explaining to us how to deal with those who not only live in sin, but even think they are right, Christ is wrong, and say so very publicly around them.
How to deal with them? Simple, says the Evil Clown. Allow them to become part of the community. Make them pray together with the others. Make them do some “good deed”. Confuse the faithful even more by having in their midst open enemies of the Church. Destroy in the faithful any sense of sin by showing them how “good” a person dead to grace is, because he is involved in “social work”. Obliterate any consciousness in them that if one dies in mortal sin, no kind of “good work” will ever save them from hell. Allow the bad apple to corrupt the good ones every day of their lives! No one must remain out. No matter how much they are in open enmity with Christ, there will always be some way of inflicting them on the faithful Catholic, that they may be corrupted buy the faithless, the adulterers, the dissenters of all kind!
When Francis opens his mouth, Satan speaks.
There is only way to understand Francis:
Reading Francis through Satan
We live in depressing times. But this does not mean that we have any business being demoralised.
Christ has already won. That stupid, vulgar, ignorant, boorish, lewd clown sitting on the chair of Peter has already lost. You are not only on the right side of history but, more importantly, on the right side of truth.
Obviously, the situation is not exactly exhilarating. But again, it's a matter of perspective. If you think how massively the deception is being promoted, how many – culpably, in various degrees – fall for it, and that you are standing firm in the faith, you should actually feel rather proud (in the good sense) of yourself. You should feel quietly but solidly confident that you are, sinner as we all are, headed in the right direction.
No, I am not demoralised, and neither should you. The stink of heresy – and sycophancy – does make me want to vomit; but this is rather natural given the circumstances. Also, I cannot deny that – however much I try to think of the providential aspect of all this – the astonishing events unfolding in my lifetime make me suffer, and painfully long for the same environment my parents and grandparents grew in. Alas, it's not going to happen. Our generation has been given Francis. Not that haven't deserved him.
Every mother, every soldier will tell you that suffering for someone or something we love has a sweet side to it. Suffering for our betrayed faith also has a redeeming quality, and will encourage us to react by being stronger in our resolve to pray, and do penance, more.
There is truly no reason to be demoralised, and I invite all my readers to not give in, not in the least, to any thought of defeat or surrender. Victory is already won. Our duty consists merely in this: that we are required to fight for this already won battle for the rest of our lives. If the tomb meets us as faithful warriors, what does it matter how long or painful the battle was?
I have no illusions that the rest of our lives will bring more suffering, probably – and particularly for those looking to many decades in front of them – of a much more evident and brutal kind than today's. I see all the signs.
When even open heresy is met by most with nothing more than “puzzlement”, when it is not even openly ignored, you can be pretty sure of this: more and more blatant heresy, more heretical and perverted priests and bishops, more horrid Cardinals and, in the end, more Evil Clowns as Popes. This is what our polite disagreement will bring us, and this is what we have – collectively – fully deserved.
It is only when the Catholic world, or at least a substantial part of it, rises and cries “enough!”, and threatens the Pope with deposition, that things will at least start to change. Up to that point, the “I can't understand the Pope” (thought they do full well) crowd will continue to be the useful idiots of the heretics, and will continue to be led by the nose like the dumb oxes they are.
We know that. We can see decades of suffering coming. But we must not be demoralised.
Our generation has been given the opportunity to do battle for Christ like few others.
Let us feel energised by it. Let us resolve to be faithful soldiers to the end.
This is the war the Lord in His goodness allotted to us. Abandoned by our Bishops and Cardinals, insulted and openly attacked b our very Pope, we can still hear the trumpet calling us to war.
I hear the trumpet loud and clear. Everyone who isn't deaf must at this point react to it. And the trumpet is calling my name, and your name too…
I have only one answer:
Remember the beautiful reaction of the Bishops at the 2014 Synod? That was the day the pussycat roared.
The indignation was strong, and justified. It was, in fact, obligatory, as many bishops started on that day and in the following ones that they would betray their flock if they just let the abominations of the relatio post disceptationem without denouncing the error.
Do you get that? The bishops felt that they had the duty to denounce error, lest their silence confuses the faithful.
Eighteenth months have passed, and in between another Synod in which, again, thirteen Cardinals had the guts to warn Francis about the consequences of allowing heresy to be proclaimed. It worked again, and whilst the wording of the second relation was weak, it certainly did not contain heresy.
It is, therefore, simply unconscionable that only eighteen (and respectively six) months after these two events a papal document should be released which has every bit of the devastating heresy and blasphemy of the relatio post disceptationem, and the following should happen:
– Most bishops just shut up
– Some talk, and ask us to look the other way, as
– They accuse the faithful and rightly scandalised Catholics of being the ones who confuse the faithful.
It is a u-turn that exposes the weakness and hypocrisy of the same people who, only months ago, were proposing themselves as the guardian of orthodoxy, which btw is pretty much their job description.
Go to aka Catholic and read (twice, actually) the wonderful further analysis (there was a first blog post yesterday) of Louie Verrecchio about Cardinal Burke's (and the others') betrayal of their flock. The analysis is so well-structured and so cogent that I do not need to add anything to it. However, let me add some observations of my own about these days:
1) I must, with sadness, realise that 50 years of V II and three years of Francis have desensitised even faithful Catholics so much, that they consider heresy coming from a Pope something that can be simply swept under the carpet; or which in any way, shape or form can be considered the ground for tactical manoeuvres and “cunning plans”. Ladies and gentlemen, this rubbish is what gave us 50 years of Catholic decline – and, in time, Francis – in the first place. Let us continue this way and our measured reactions to blatant heresy and blasphemy will bring more heresy, more blasphemy, an entirely perverted college of Cardinals, and almost unlimited disgrace for who knows how long.
2) We must recover the very concept of sin. Every sin is an offence to God. Heresy is one of the gravest offences imaginable. Heresy officially proclaimed from a Pope is a disgrace that was, until three years ago, even beyond imaginable. And what should the reaction of our shepherds be? Measured response and polite remarks that this is not – if it is not, and it's a huge '”if” anyway – an instrument of the Ordinary Magisterium?
Who cares a straw how this document ranks! Wake up! The Pope is proclaiming heresy and blasphemy from an official document! What's wrong with you?
Every sin is an offence to God.
Heresy proclaimed from a papal document is like a repeated scourging and spitting of Our Lord' face.
I feel as if Christ were scourged again, none of the apostles were around, and some praised the “intelligent” and “prudent” work of those apostles trying to divert the attention from the scourging, and asking the faithful to focus on the beautiful parables of Jesus instead. Madness. Insanity.
We are living moments of untold gravity. Moment that have only a handful – if any – of precedents in the history of the Church.
If you think that this is the time to play for time and play tactical games, simply ignoring the reality of heresy and blasphemy, in black on white, for all the world to see, V II has damaged you far more than you think.
When was an age in Christianity when an attack of such a scale would have met with such effeminacy? Where was a time in Christianity when heresy was countered by the Bishops with the invitation to ignore it and focus on the rules instead? What the heck is that? Christ is being spit in the face, and the bishops should ask the faithful to… look elsewhere? Christ is being spit in the face, and those who decry it should be the one who give scandal? Insane. Diabolical.
Cardinal Burke has betrayed his flock, big time. So have – or will – all those Bishops and Cardinals who will avoid to denounce heresy. Heresy must be denounced and condemned, not ignored.
There is simply no possible universe in which a Pope can speak heresy and a Bishop or Cardinal is authorised to shut up about it!
This is on Burke's head. How he can sleep, he only knows. This was supposed to be one of our best Cardinals, and he reminds me of a Tory party functionary. This is a man who wears the red reminding him of the blood of the martyrs.
For shame. For shame. For shame.