Many a disheartened commenter writes on soft-traditionalist blogs and vents a sense of total disorientation, veering on despair, for what is happening during this satanical Papacy. Everytime I read them, I am persuaded that at the root of this is the lack of proper historical perspective.
Those who are well rooted in History know that the Church has already gone through terrible trials: from the Arian heresy to the Great Schism and from the French Revolution to the Western Schism, the Church has looked on the brink of destruction many times already. Muslim hordes swept through Christian Africa once, and for more than a century they seemed rather unstoppable. The Heresy of Luther torn Western Europe into two, and factually obliterated Catholicism in… Poland! If we think that Francis is an epochal catastrophe, what would St Benedict think, who had to cope with the aftermath of the dissolution of the Roman Empire in Italy?
The historical perspective allows us to see the sad events we are living in their proper context. Granted, never could a Pope make so much damage than today; but never was it so easy, for all those who care for truth, to find it and become extremely adept at it no matter what the Pope says. For the first time in history, an immense number of Catholics is vastly better educated than the Pope, and can spot his lies from one mile away. The same social media which spreads Francis' heresies like wildfire also give witness of an extremely strong reaction to them. Only those who want it will be deceived.
For those well rooted in History, Francis could never be a reason to doubt the Church, Her Indefectibility, Her being protected by the Holy Spirit, Her being Mater et Magistra. Francis may think he is a great innovator, but he will be remembered as nothing more than a particularly smelly fart in the history of the Church. We have to live with the stink. But we know that seen in the historic perspective, this stinky fart will soon dissolve in the air.
There are no excuses for doubting that Our Lord made His Church indefectible. There are no excuses for believing the lies of the Protestants. Get a better historical perspective of our times if it helps you to understand, but never doubt and never instil doubts in others.
No matter for how long Francis keeps farting.
Every time Francis speaks from his lowest orifice (which is, as you all know, very often), I take a tour on “moderate” blogs to see what people comment there; that is: what your average non-traditionalist Catholic, who at least appears to give a damn, thinks.
Normally I see three categories of people: those who are seriously upset and say so (they are possibly Traditionalists, though); the never-dying Pollyannas; and those who write something on the lines of: “Phew! This was said from an aeroplane/off the cuff… again! So it’s not infallible! Yahoo, the Magisterium hasn’t changed! I can now relax, smile, and keep thinking everything is fine!”.
The first position is, clearly, the only acceptable one. The second might well lead to damnation, because at this point it is nothing else than shameless, willed complicity with continued attacks to Christ and His Church for the sake of one’s comfort; the third, which I hope is mainly due to ignorance, must be eradicated fast.
The Pope can’t change the Infallible Magisterium more than he can change the course of the planets. Therefore, this idea that we can smile and relax because the Pope has not changed what he cannot change anyway is a huge red herring.
Unfortunately, too many very badly catechised Catholics still seem to think that Catholic Doctrine is something with which a Pope can do everything he wants, provided he does so “infallibly”.
Truth can never contradict truth. Nothing can be truthful, that contradicts established Truth. No Pope has, ever had, or will ever have any right to simply proclaim a “truth” today which is in contrast with Divine Truth. He is intrinsically unable to do it in the same way as you are intrinsically unable to grow wings.
If the Pope were to wake up one morning, and were to infallibly proclaim that a new commandment, “Thou Shalt not Condemn Fornication, Cohabitation, Sodomy, and Adultery” shall be added to the existing ones, there would be interesting discussions about when he has ceased/will cease to be a Pope, and whether he should be burnt at the stake after he has been deposed. There will be tons of ink employed in explaining that we must resist a heretical Pope pending his deposition or death. There would be interesting debates whether to use the paper with the new pronouncement as fish wrap, or toilet paper. But most certainly one thing would not change: the Commandments.
Therefore, it is perfectly absurd to rejoice and delude oneself that things are fine (or only moderately uncomfortable; as in the case of the embarrassing uncle always prone to put his foot in his mouth) merely because Francis hasn’t changed the course of the planets, or transformed himself into an elephant, or grown a third foot.
The scandal of a heretical Pope does not consist in his doing what is impossible to do, but in doing what is very possible for a Pope to do, and which we are witnessing every day: spreading heresy and blasphemy, attacking the Sacraments, criticising everything that is holy, praising everything that is evil.
This is what is happening, and therein lies the problem.
Papal heresy must never be downplayed. It’s a huge evil. We have real problems here, we can’t just delude ourselves things are fine merely because we don’t have the imaginary ones.
Amoris Laetitia (subtitle: “on the graces of those living in public adultery”) has been released, and it is worse than the worse expectations of your truly. I have obviously not read the entire pile of rubbish (nor will I ever do it), but I have followed the hints appeared in the press, and you don't need more than 3 minutes to understand the scale of the attack to Truth.
I was expecting fluffy and ambiguous statements, which can (and must) be read in an orthodox sense, in the style of the closing Relatio of the synod. But this is much worse. This Apostolic Excrementation seeks to demolish the very concept of objective situation of sin excluding one from communion. It seeks to impose on Catholics the idea that one can publicly live in sin, and be aware of his situation of publicly living in sin, and not be in mortal sin because he just doesn't want to get it.
There is a complete disregard of the (obvious) considerations JP II made about the objective scandal given by those who, objectively, live in scandal. And it is, without having to mention JP II, a complete disregard of the most elementary common sense.
I have no way to copy and paste right now. Read the paragraphs starting from 301 to 306. It is purest heretical poison.
Once again: this encyclical pretends to base on what is already Catholic teaching (of course there can be circumstances which diminish culpability; we all knew that), and extends its meaning to encompass any publicly sinful, publicly adulterous, uninterruptedly sinful behaviour and lifestyle.
I am at lunchtime now, and will write more as time and adrenaline allow. Please allow me some time to get into the details in a controlled emotional manner.
But don't believe those who tell you “it could have been worse”. It could not have been worse, when we consider that open heresy would never be proclaimed from an official document. This is as heretical and subversive as a Pope can get.
This is not only on Francis' head, but on the head of all those who do not condem the obvious attacks to the Sacraments (both communion and confession) and the family. From Cardinal Mueller to the last bishop, may the Lord in His Justice punish all those prelates who make themselves accomplices, and be it that with their silence, of such an abomination.
The time to stand up and speak up is now. One day we will all die, and we will be asked what we have done as a godless Communist ravaged the Church.
And no, no one will be able to say that he just did not get it.
1. Every ambiguous papal document and statement must be read in the sense that is in conformity to Truth.
2. What is not in conformity to Truth is, to various degrees, heterodox or openly heretical; it must not be respected, and it must be openly and vocally fought against.
3. No Pope owns the truth. No Pope can change established doctrine. If he tries to do so, this is an exercise in heresy; but the doctrine itself has not changed.
4. The heretical priest or bishop starting or condoning a heretical praxis is a heretic; no obedience is due to him in anything concerned the heretical praxis. The heretical bishop or priest must be openly and vocally fought against.
5. The heretical priest or bishop is not such because he reads an ambiguous document. A clergyman has to know the truth. Such a man is heretical simply because he wants to. He does not even need the excuse of ambiguous documents. No heretic ever did. 300 German priests already sacrilegiously give communion to adulterers. A bad document may encourage a heretic to proclaim heresy; but again, he does so because he has subscribed to the heresy already.
6. The same goes for the laymen, in what pertains to evident truths. No adulterer can, no matter what any papal document says, claim that Truth, or doctrine, has now changed. He who says so denies evidence and lies to himself. Correct him brutally, lest he gets the habit of spreading his lies around in impunity.
7. Every priest, bishop or pope is responsible for the flock entrusted to him. Inaction in front of abuse and heretical praxis does not excuse him; nor does it excuse the sheep under his care.
I have written just a few days ago about the perception of the Catholic Church as the Barque bringing safely to the other shore the bad swimmers – and even the outright lazy seamen – provided they still make, sinner as they all are, the quantum of effort required of them. I have no illusion that the average Catholic in even very pious past times was not the type his contemporary Calvinist or Puritan would have considered an example. I have also no doubt that in past, more Catholic times most of the worst sinners were still Catholic enough to understand themselves as the sinners, rather than thinking they are the spotless victim and the Church the oppressive stepmother. Sixty years, and how the times have changed!
In Federico Fellini’s “Le Notti di Cabiria” we see the traditional Catholic religiosity at play: a small group of prostitutes goes in pilgrimage to the Sanctuary of the (if memory serves; don’t bet your pint) Divino Amore. There, among the huge mass of faithful – we understand the meaning of true “inclusiveness” here: the prostitute in the shrine, elbow to elbow with the saintly girl, with the chaste mother, and with the countless simple popolane – Cabiria asks the Blessed Virgin to give her the strenght to abandon her sinful life, and to choose a path of hope and wholesomeness. It will not be so easy at first, and the poor woman will be utterly betrayed in her naive hopes. But Providence – the same Providence who led her to visit the shrine – is at work in the darkest hour, and God turns even the wickedness of a most evil man to a good end, if we cooperate with His grace.
At the end of the movie – after a scene among the most celebrated in the history of cinema – we leave the cinema in tears, with the implicit, but still clear message that the young woman – betrayed and robbed, and almost killed, but now with a new hope in herself – will find the strenght to cooperate with Grace and reform herself.
We note here the following: Cabiria does not blame the Church for her sinfulness. She does not decry her “exclusion”. She does not call for a change in doctrine allowing her to receive communion. She does not consider the country “prostitutephobic”. Sinner among sinners, but more gravely a sinner than most (at least in those more innocent times, in which fear of the Lord was far more widespread), she realises in what need she is, and her supplication to the Blessed Virgin tells us that she already begins to really understand. As we all know, there is understand and then there is really understand.
Is Cabiria, then, “excluded”? No, of course she isn’t. The Church that succors all sinners does not leave her out. Fellini shows her to us in the middle of the multitude, from the saintly to the very sinful and from the very simple to the educated, all together in their tight spaces, all pretty much packed and pressed together as it was so common in those times; and still, not willing at all – least of all the good girl, and the chaste wife – to even imagine that the prostitute should be denied her moment “in front” of the Blessed Virgin. And there she is, the prostitute, in the middle of them; asking the Blessed Virgin for the strenght to change herself, rather than demanding that the entire world (and the truth) may change so that she may think she does not have to.
How different this attitude is from today’s. Today, we are right by default. We are all little wannabe-gods, and do not notice the folly of it. We are right by default. Therefore, if we are at odds with the Church, it follows that the Church must be wrong. Because lurv. Because “inclusion”. Because “mercy”. Because heresy. Because Satan.
Today, a person can publicly severe his ties from the Church because his being at odds with the Church makes, in his logic, the Church obviously wrong. It pains me to say so, but I have the impression that this attitude puts one in a worse position before God than the one of the shameful prostitute. I do not doubt both will receive a terrible punishment. But who, pray, will God punish more severely: the miserable wretch unable to overcome her weakness or the willful, vocal rebel against Him?
There aren’t many Cabirias nowadays. Not even in Catholic Countries, such as they still exist. There are, however, a lot of Eltons, Elton’s helpers, and Elton’s Priests. Heck, we even have Elton’s Cardinals, and something very similar to Pope Elton. Which is why, by the way, the real Elton is such a fan of the Evil Clown. Similia similibus solvuntur.
No, the allegedly oh so oppressive Church of pre-Vatican II did not “exclude”, at all. Her arms were always ready to embrace. She called prostitutes to mix themselves among the faithful, to take part in the same pilgrimage of the good girl, to stay in prayer near the chaste wife. But it was an embrace calling to repentance, not to rebellion. It was an invitation to embrace Truth, not to deform it. It was a reminder of the infinite worth of every soul, not a celebration of a sordid life.
Cabiria’s life was entirely wrong, and she was clearly bound for hell. But in those times a strong and charitable Church took care that the moral compass was not entirely lost, that the needle would still be visible, and point to repentance and redemption. Elton’s life is a moral bankruptcy much worse than Cabiria’s. He has trampled the compass and crushed it to little pieces amidst anti-Catholic cries of joy. He will have no other compass than the one made by himself, whose needle points firmly towards hell. He will consider it perfectly normal to say out loud that not he, but the Church is wrong. Fool.
Cabiria’s problem was big enough, but Elton is so deep in the dung he does not even smell the stink anymore. Cabiria could still see a bridge she did not have the strength to cross; Elton has destroyed the bridge, and now looks at the ruins with joy.
It would still be less bad to be a Cabiria, than an Elton.
This, my dear readers, is one of the rare occasion when I link to a (quality) Sedevacantist site. I do not need to repeat here (but I do it anyway) that Sedevacantism is wrong, you might endanger your soul if you follow it, and I will continue to delete any comment even vaguely smelling of Sedevacantism, because in this blog we prefer to deal with reality – however unpleasant – rather than fabricating a reality of our own for our own reassurance.
Capito? Very well..
The article merits the very rare honour of a mention on this blog because of its very extensive, and very catholic explanation of what a Catholic is supposed to do or not do in time of heresy or emergency, or when the enemy tries to strike at the foundation of Truth.
I leave you to read for yourself the parts concerning:
- the “uncharitable” words of Our Lords. Words which, if written today in a catholic blog, would attract all kind of accusations of being uncharitable, inflammatory, and utterly counterproductive.
- the distinction between right criticism and contumely, a concept utterly lost in the Patheos-like blogosphere.
- further proof of “uncharitable” words from the Old testament.
- The necessary requirement that the accusations be truthful.
After you have perused the first parts, I will attract your attention on the last one: the retaliation ad hominem in the face of enemy attack.
Here, I leave the word to the author, Father Felix Sarda Y Salvani. I liked the emphases, and kept them.
CHAPTER 21 Personal Polemics and Liberalism
“It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines” some may say, “but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?” We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.
The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads, they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust into the background. We have reason–and substantial reason–on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased.
The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate of themselves. Left to themselves–if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them–they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective, when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them, the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would not be common sense.
The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their bands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat [“out of the fight”], he can do no more mischief.
It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an “i'” As a French writer says: “Truth is the only charity allowed in history,” and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.
The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal–a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.
Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.
A disease is inseparable from the person of the diseased. Francis is an Evil Clown because he is a heretic and enemy of the Church, and for no other reason. I don’t know the man. As far as I know he could have died in Buenos Aires without myself and countless bloggers even becoming more than vaguely aware of his existence. But I know the heretic. Now that is the problem.
Very often, says the author, it is indispensable and meritorious before God and men to attack those who uphold error. I suggest that one reflects ten thousand times before doing so with a Pope. But I also suggest that he reflects, with the same intellectual honesty and fear of the Lord, whether the heresy upheld by the very pope does not make the pope infinitely more worthy of personal attack and mockery than anyone else. Then at some point you will have to decide what is more important to you, Christ or Francis; and in front of such unprecedented attack I do not think Christ will look very mildly on you if you think you can sit on the fence and content yourself with “on the one hand” and “on the other hand”.
The situation of a pope constantly and publicly attacking the faith is unprecedented. Un.pre.ce.den.ted. Christ and His Truth are always the same. Choose this day to Whom your allegiance goes, and do not think being a pansy will bring you anywhere. Christ did not come bringing pansies. He came with a sword.
We must inspire contempt and horror in the heart of the multitude. The multitudes aren’t very impressed if you write that, with all due respect, you think that the words of the Holy Father have been, perhaps, and how shall you put it, a tad imprudent. This is going to go exactly nowhere, though it might make you feel better in the moment.
The reader must have the reality smashed in front of his face. Contempt and horror. That’s the way.
It is not enough to criticise the cannon. The gunner must go down. If you can look at the last two and a half year and not understand who the Chief Gunner is, I smell reprobation in you. Amazingly, an army of bloggers very well know who the Chief Gunner is. But they think they are fine with writing that the cannon is very bad, but the “holy” gunner is probably just badly advised, and they are sure he is the holiest of men.
Is it permissible, then, to aim at the gunner?
“Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach”.
Amen. Read it again. And again. What shall we do: look at heresy advance and oppose our polite disagreement?
“When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war”.
Look! A man! Not one of those polite pansies of the “I wish our dear pope Francis would talk less to the journalists” sort.
We are in the middle of a war against heresy, in which the Pope sides with the heretics and leads their army. The sooner you get this, the sooner the huge cognitive dissonance in your brain will dissolve and make place for a clear understanding of reality.
Reality is shouting at us in the face. It says that there obviously is a Pope, and that this Pope is a heretic (as happened in the past already). What is different today is that the Pope’s heresies travel around the word in hours, and they basically never stop coming in one form or another. Today’s papal heresy is more dangerous than any heresy of the past, with the possible exception of the Arian one. Today’s heresy is both far more pervasive and far more insisted than the ones of the past. It is also more dangerous, because whilst the man will never fool a properly instructed – or even serious and sincere – Catholic, he will create a cultural ripple effect that will spread very wide, and countless atheists or indifferent people will take it as a matter of simple truth that the church “changes” and wants to “steer a new course” on adultery, fornication, sodomy & Co, like any political party or protestant sect. This equates to neutering the message of the Church for everyone who does not know it already. It’s the perfect de-evangelisation tool. Satan at work all right.
Look at reality. Realise that you cannot shape your own world at your own liking. Face the reality of an Evil Clown as Pope.
And then take your sword and your rosary, and fight as bravely as you can.
You don’t want to die and say: “I wanted to be polite”. You want to die and say: “I saw the evil, and I called it with its name”.
Let the sword wound mortally.
We have had in the last days another demonstration of how far things can decay within the Church, and how fast. A Pope openly flirting with formal heresy, and to all intents and purposes stating he does not care if he falls into it – because he knows better, you know, what with being so humble and wearing black shoes…. – is something most of us – and certainly yours truly – had not expected to happen.
Things can go south very fast now, and there is no saying when the next bomb will explode and how big the conflagration will be.
Nowadays, in the modern age of worldwide information networks, we are all accustomed to a world of fast actions and reactions. But this is not how the Church works; both because the ways of her inner workings are still radically different and because – I think – God demands from us that we exercise ourselves in patience, prayer, hope, and submission when the chips are down.
Look back to Pope John XXII, for example. The scandal around his thesis went on for a long time, a couple of years rather than weeks or months. Those who were informed of the matter certainly did not lose hope, and did not abandon their faith, because they had to get up every morning knowing that the Pope was somewhere between a satanical, heretical bastard and a stupid, arrogant child in search of a world stage. They did not decide that it was for them to judge if the Pope is Pope. They did not lose faith because of the obvious obscenity of the heretical show unfolding under they very eyes. They probably did not even expect what in the end proved a rapid solution of a crisis that could have gone on for very long.
Or think about the Arian Crisis. Faithful Catholics had to wait decades to see orthodoxy vindicated. Surely, countless people died during this crisis, never knowing how long it would take after their death before the mess ended; but they died in faith, knowing that in the end Christ would triumph.
The Western Schism was almost as brutal. Imagine a situation in which two people – for a short period of time, three – make a claim to the Papacy; and they are not the usual lunatics, but people attracted to their cause substantial chunks of the clergy, and splitting into two many of the major religious orders. The Western Schism also went on for around four decades.
We must reflect that what is required of us first is faith and humility, and a humble submission to whatever challenge God in His justice decides to throw at us. Difficult as it is to do so, it is our duty nevertheless.
We are now possibly on the brink of such a tragedy. We could witness a situation in which a Pope proclaims a formal heresy, and there is no strength among the Cardinals to challenge him. We might live a situation in which the heretical behaviour of a Pope is condemned – as happened in the case of Honorius, or Formosus – only after his death. This means that – as happened in the other cases – the heretical behaviour went on without being officially challenged during the relevant papacy. This could have been more understandable in the case of Honorius – whose heretical thinking might have been more concealed and difficult to detect -, but it is difficult to think that Formosus’ many alleged failings went unchallenged for any other reason than convenience. Very possibly, the scandal of an unchallenged Pope is what moved Stephen VI to the bizarre, utterly macabre “cadaver synod” (note here: a synod is called to sit in judgment over a Pope), but be it as it may, there can be no doubt no scandal had been grave enough.
What did the faithful do during all those troubled times? They kept the faith. They prayed for the return of better times. They accepted with patience and Christian resignation the challenges sent to them, knowing that the just God who sends the punishment will also send its end when the time is ripe. They did not think they had the right to decide who is the Pope. They did not think they were authorised to believe the most childish, outlandish, outright retarded stories about popes who are elected and then bullied into ignoring their election. They did not think they had the right to decide that there is no Pope at all, until it pleases them to change their mind; after which event there will, of course, be a legitimate Pope again.
We might soon live another of the troubled times mentioned above. If such a tragedy were to happen, it would be not only a punishment for the quasi-apostasy of many fake faithful, but also a test of faithfulness, obedience and patience for those who still keep the faith of our fathers.
Patience, penance and prayer are, I think, the key. We might have need for it fairly soon, so let us start to train ourselves now. Let us make so, that the work of the devil, allowed by God for our punishment, may be a way for us to merit more, perhaps even to escape hell. Let us turn the devil’s work upside down and, by God’s grace, turn Satan’s rubbish into spiritual gold. As God sends us troubles, He also sends us the way, if we collaborate with him in obedience, to overcome it and gain from it a spiritual advantage.
Alessandro Manzoni’s words should be our guide: Dio non turba mai la gioia de’ suoi figli, se non per prepararne loro una più certa e più grande: God never troubles the joy of his children, unless it be to prepare for them a more certain and greater one.
Patience, Penance, and Prayer.
This is how you react to an evil Pope.
It seems to me the more The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) feels isolated, the more he tries to counterattack with assertions that can only be defined as opposed to Christianity, if not outright blasphemous at least in their end result.
Firstly, Francis has taken on this disgusting (heretic, possibly blasphemous) habit of telling us that whoever does not follow him in whatever heretical (blasphemous?) novelties he preaches displeases God, has no God, is dead inside, or something of the sort.
This time, as you might have read, it is “dialogue”. For two thousand years, Christians wanted to convert. In the age of Francis, suddenly conversion is nowhere to be found. Instead we have “dialogue”, which basically boils down to giving legitimacy to error against a very vague hope that our blabbering may persuade someone to convert out of us telling him to hold on to his Koran.
Who the heck is this old nincompoop; this ass in white; this fat, arrogant, lewd old man to tell us that not only God has changed (an heresy in itself, and a blasphemy in that it obviously denies a fundamental attribute of God’s Divine Perfection), but that he is the legitimate authority, the Chosen One to tell us exactly how God has changed, and how we must behave in order not to displease this, erm, new god Francis apparently knows so well? Give me a stake, and I’ll show you how such arrogance should be fittingly punished (after due deposition, of course; see above in the fixed “pages” for more details).
Then there is the other habit, which enrages me beyond words (even the strong ones), of always comparing Christians to Pharisees.
The evil clown obviously wants to persuade you that the Christians of today are exactly what the Pharisees of yore were: wrong. As the Pharisees were stubbornly attached to an old religion, made obsolete by Christ, Christians who believe in everything in which Christianity has always believed are now obsolete, passé, and left behind by a new god and a new religion; a religion consisting in adoring the Goddess Of Mercy and Francis, her Fat Prophet.
These two heretical, and in the end blasphemous habits both point out to a core message: forget Christianity. We are in a new time of mercy, and this new time has a new god and new rules, and those who follow the Only God and the (forcibly) immutable rules are the bad ones.
My blood boils everytime I read Francis’ pagan preaching; a preaching coming from the Pope, of all people; a satanical cocktail of lies and deception that can only be explained with God’s wrath at his faithless and stupid children; so faithless and so stupid, in fact, that they even reject the concept of God’s wrath. It pains me beyond words that whenever this heretical (or blasphemous) propaganda is spitted by that disgusting mouth, I seldom read more than polite disagreement.
Call him an idiot, a nincompoop, an evil man. That’s who he is, and you know it. Polite disagreement will not make him stop. Worldwide ridicule might.
Let us say it again: the stake is what this man has deserved. I doubt it would be enough to save a man as rotten as this, but you never know.
I am, at least, all in favour of making the attempt.
We all know conversion may happen to anyone. It can be the result of a slow and gradual process, as in the case of the commenter of this blog who stopped to examine the simple perfection of a flower, and decided it could not have been the result of “coincidence”. Or it can be the result of a traumatic or painful event in one's life, which leads one to at least accept that there is a God: the death of Mussolini's brother, or of Putin's mother, come to mind.
When the conversion is, so to speak,fully successful, it changes one's entire outlook. In the already mentioned novel “The Betrothed”, the character known as the Innominato already has nagging doubts, and a sense of uneasiness with his evil and godless life that gnaws at him with irregular, but increasing force. The big crisis – and the providential conversion – of the Innominato is, however, precipitated by the contact with the purity, and the pure faith, of Lucia, the simple heroine of the novel and the woman he has accepted to have ravaged, and ruined.
A strong event, in instalments or not, will be normally required for one to see the light. A strong event will, I presume, also be required to lose it. not that this justifies it, but at least it gives one one key to understand what went on. I once watched on TV a man candidly admit he lost his faith following the death of his child daughter. Terribly wrong, of course; but you get my drift…
I do not think a man of strong faith ever slipped out of the faith inadvertently, one bit at a time. If your faith is strong, it is as strong and as luminous as the Sun. You simply don't forget the existence of the sun. It's just there. The evidence of things not seen. This is the faith; a grace given – thankfully – even to wretched sinners like your humble correspondent.
Why do I tell you old this?
Because whenever I see a prelate going head on against the Magisterium, it is very difficult for me to believe that he might just have slowly, imperceptibly changed, a millimetre at a time, until he became the contrary of what he once was.
No. I believe that when a prelate gives such a spectacle of itself he either never had the faith – the most probable case, if you ask me – or, far more rarely, some cataclysmic event led him to culpably lose it, with the sudden, massive assault of Satan being more than he can muster. The man thought he was guarded, but he wasn't. He felt safe in his conviction, but they weren't very strong. Perhaps he had not amply considered that only God's Grace allows him to remain on the right side anyway.
I simply do not believe in falling into heresy just through slow attrition. Too strong must the defence of sound faith be for that; and if it isn't, then it probably never was.
Why I say this? Because it seems to me that we are confronted with a generation of heretical prelates so numerous in number, and so aggressive in thinking, that I cannot believe all these people were, so to speak, emotionally earthquaked by some horrible circumstance in their life. No. What seems very probable to me is that the Church has been breeding a brood of vipers for decades now; people who never had a sound faith or a sound vocation, saw their role as the one of provider of people's emotional – as opposed to spiritual – needs, and were content to masquerade their unfaithfulness to Christ behind a lip service to the Church as they transformed more and more into social workers. In Francis they see one of them in power, and push to make him transform the Church in the direction they always wanted to have it: away from Christ, but near to “the people”; that is, the world.
Have we ever had signs of strong faith in, say, Jorge Bergoglio? Can we recognise in his life a phase of strong Catholic convictions, then mysteriously disappeared? I can't. Rather, what I see is the coherent picture of a man who never gave a straw, but played his cards well.
We know that he smoked pot; that he loved and still loves tango; that he stole a crucifix from a corpse in its coffin and even as Pope has the effrontery to brag about it; and, last but not least, that he consorts with perverts. He admits some of these things – including the pot, but don't forget the stealing from the dead – en passant as if they were minor incidents; or even great feats, fully to be expected in the life of your average Pope. Is this the stuff of priests?
Francis truly makes the impression of one whose biggest credit to orthodoxy is not to have married the line of the most fanatical proto communists within his orders; which firstly is no merit at all, and secondly would have put him in Rome's blacklist post haste; something a prudent man like him would not do anyway. Was he even known for the passionate defence of Catholicism? Did his sermons ever inflate his sheep? Do we have any sign of assertive, faithful apostolate? I can't find any.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same could be said of the Kasper and Marx, Voelki and Nichols, Murphy O'Connor, Dolan and Mahony of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if they all had all this in common: that they never even had a strong faith to lose, and perhaps some of them nevervhad any faith at all.
A Cardinal (and much more a Pope) advocating communion for adulterers cannot simply have forgotten the basics. He cannot have just “slipped” into the very contrary of what he believed. These things don't just “happen”. Shall we believe that an army of bishops and cardinals just “happened” to side with the world?
I don't buy it. I think in very many cases there was no conversion, no problem with lying, no identification with the Church, no fear of the Lord, or even no faith at all to begin with.
This, I think, is the most logical explanation for the Marxes and Kaspers, or for the Bergoglios of our time.
Right doesn't just slip into wrong.
They say one should always speak well of the dead. Strangely, you never see the rule applied to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or Hitler.
Personally, I follow the rest of the planet and interpret the precept as a guideline asking us to be charitable in our assessment of the human – and generally rather private – weaknesses of the quisque de populo. But there is no doubt in my mind that the rule does not apply to public heresy or public scandal when the person in question was a clearly public figure, because in that case the scandal he gave in life will continue to work its evil after the man’s death.
I have heard it said in my native Country that when a pig is slaughtered he does not become a lamb, he becomes pork. Death in itself is no cause of any improvement. A heretic who dies is but a dead heretic. If he was dangerous in life, he will continue to be dangerous in death. He might even become more dangerous, because once he has kicked the bucket his writings and ideas might acquire a vague aura of prestige, making of him a sort of brave precursor, a sorely missed member of a supposedly glorious avantgarde of oh so beautiful, progressive minds. Rahner, Tyrrell, Martini, and pretty soon Küng are all points in case. But this also applies to non-religious, like public militant atheists, terrorists, and the like. The small list at the top is a point in case.
And yes, of course we pray for the dead. I have said my “eternal rests” even for Bin Laden, and do not regret doing so. But this does not change the quality of the man one bit, nor does it make any difference in the danger he still represents.
The ugly truth is that a bastard who dies is a dead bastard, and many are those considered bastards to such an extent as to merit hell. There’s no escaping the cold logic of the fact. The bastard may now be six feet under, but his ideas will continue to float around like extremely stubborn germs. There is, therefore, no reason whatsoever to not keep calling the dead bastard in the appropriate way, at least until the dangerous germs he left behind are dead and “buried” in exactly the same way.
Furthermore, it is particularly in the case of these public bastards that the public must be alerted to their very probable final destination, and warned about the equally probable consequences of following them. There is no world in which the death of a heretic makes following him less heretical. Rebellion has such a nature, that it does not stop with the death of the rebel. Therefore, the rebel must be exposed as such and publicly vilified not only in life, but also in death. If anyone thinks he does not deserve such a harsh treatment, he may want to consider not rebelling in the first place.
Truth is no respecter of enemies. Shame in life and after death must be the lot of those who willingly choose to defy Truth.
Let your gentle words apply to the poor devil, with his human miseries and his sinful weaknesses.
The public friends of the devil, and their open scandal, have no right to such dangerous regards.
The way in which this heretical nonsense of the “god of surprises” has been swallowed by the obedient Pollyannas is a very good indication of the decay of Christian thinking among people who tell themselves Catholics, and of the inability to even understand that this disgraceful Pope is indicating to them the perfect path to hell.
As so very much that Francis keeps saying, these words contain some emotional appeal meant to please the stupid; as if God’s Law were a vegetable, for which “freshness” is a quality attribute.
The contrary is the case.
Our God is a God of no surprises. Being perfect, he is unchangeable. Being unchangeable, He can never have anything new in Him.
This principle, of the unchangeable God, is what provides the basis for the unchangeable Truth of which God’s immutability is at the same time the reason and the guarantee. As God can never change, so can Truth never change. He, and it, will remain always the same, world without end.
Were it not so, God would not be God. Were it not so, there would be no God.
Truth is forever. God Himself assures us that this is so, and that there will no surprises. Produce has a selling window before it becomes stale. The Truth, the Way and the Life haven’t. And if an angel – much less a clown – should come down from heaven and tell us: “God has decided to surprise you!” we.would.not.believe.him.
Francis obfuscates and mystifies. His supermarket-jargon hides one and only one intent: the subversion of God’s law into something “surprising” and, by the very definition of the word, both unexpected and different.
This is another definition of heresy.
Let those who feel so inclined blindly follow the Pope in the pit of heresy and blasphemy he wants to lead them. A faithless Pope will only be followed by faithless people, or by people so stupid – and culpably so – that they are ready to ditch an unchangeable Truth for the produce section of Francis’ satanic supermarket.
We live in times that are so stupid that these cheap appeals to – nay: cheap papal ads of – novelty and freshness are applied to what is Immutable and Unchangeable by the very definition of the word.
And please, *please* do not even *try* to justify the Pope’s words with some fluffy commentary along the lines that Francis refers to an “ever new joy”, and such like nonsense. If you still have not understood what kind of “surprise” Francis has in store for you, the smell of reprobation is strong in you, and you should be very worried by now.
Francis’ “god of surprises” is a god of heresy and blasphemy. It can’t be the God of the Christians. It is some strange New Age fantasy creature.
Our God is a God of no surprises. Do not blaspheme Him by making of Him the same as Francis’ strange, fantasy creature.
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.
God Bless Rorate Caeli, and their indefatigable work for the Faith. One of the contributors whose work is so important, if perhaps undervalued, is Francesca Romana, who has given us countless excellent translations of Italian texts. Translations, in fact, so good, that they are then repeated and quoted in blogs and newspaper articles all over the Catholic world. Yours truly can, of course, understand Italian, but the task of translating all those big texts is a very daunting, time-consuming one (how do you translate “taroccato?” Ah, the beauty of the language, and the airiness of Italian irony… ).
Therefore, whenever an interesting articles comes up in the Italian Press, yours truly hopes that Francesca Romana will come to the rescue of the English-writing blogger. Which, very often, happens faster than you can say ” If laws do not lead people to Christ then they are obsolete”.
Today, Francesca Romana delivered another pearl: the translation of a stunning article from Professor Roberto de Mattei. The article is, basically, the carpet bombing of the Relatio. Nothing is left untouched. At the end of the treatment, what remains are smoking ruins, a testament to the shameless arrogance of the heresy spread by this Pope.
Pope who is, by the by, called into question openly, with the invitation to the Bishop and Cardinal to deny obedience to him.
I invite you to visit the site and read the entire article for yourself. A breath of fresh air after the stench of these days. Published, like other similar intervention, on a mainstream newspaper.
Francis launched two boomerangs on Monday: the Relatio and the “I am better than God”-homily, clearly an open endorsement of the revolutionary paper vomited by Archbishop “Faggot” Forte and Cardinal “Coward” Erdo.
The boomerangs came both back, hitting him very hard on the nose.
Let’s hope the bleeding will be copious.
I started noticing it some time ago. At Mass in Rome – undisclosed time and location; wonderful church, but there are thousands of them there only in the Centro Storico, so I have not revealed anything 😉 – the homily was entirely, and I mean entirely, devoted to the simple fact that there is no salvation outside of the Church. Which doesn’t mean one who dies a Protestant is ipso facto damned, etc. You know, the whole enchilada.
Whilst the priest refrained from saying that, therefore, Proselitysm is the contrary of solemn nonsense, there can be no doubt the watchful pewsitter perfectly understood the message.
It has happened, in the meantime, on several other occasions. In England, Germany, and Italy. Even in Belgium. Yes, even in Belgium!
It happens now with beautiful regularity, and I start to wonder. Does it happen because the Pope has expressed himself in a heretical way on so many subjects, that it is difficult to listen to a homily and not notice the difference with what Francis says? Or is it because more and more priests – even V II priests, but sound ones – have decided that their duty now consist in guerrilla warfare or, if you prefer, counter-insurgency operations from the pulpit, but without mentioning the main culprit?
I have now lost count of the homilies where some anti-Francis point was made very clearly. It even seems to me – but I might be biased – that the number of anodyne “do not kick the cat”-homilies is decreasing, as a number of priests who were given to such an exercise now feel a duty to say a couple of things straight, implicitly – alas, very seldom openly – making clear who the target of the criticism is.
A silent counteroffensive is, I think, forming. The Pope confuses the faithful, therefore the priest must drive home a point or two. They are no lions, mind. It is very seldom they even mention the man. But this is, if you will, exactly the point. They are saying to the wise: “ignore him; and please understand I cannot say more”.
I do not know to what extent a priest cannot “say more”. But we, the laity, surely can.
Not encumbered with a nasty bishop as our superior, and in no risk of being transferred to some elephant cemetery for being Catholic, we can say it as it is, carrying on and amplifying the message of the priest. And the message is very simple: do not listen to the old man. Stick to sound Catholicism instead.
If anyone of you could briefly report of what happens in his own neck of the wood and whether he also notices the trend I have described, I would be very grateful for two lines in the comment box.
It might be just me. It might be that I read all the bollocks of the man and am therefore more easily led to comparisons between that and a sound homily. Or it can be that the message is being sent increasingly more forcefully to the faithful: don’t listen to Francis, he does not speak for us.
It cannot be denied that, had Pius X spoken in the same way of Francis, the scandal would have been gigantic. Probably, the mental sanity of that holy man would have been questioned, because – it would have been reasoned – only a madman can express himself in that way.
Francis is, very probably, not mad. The mad things he says with almost daily rhythm are not the fruit of a mental imbalance, merely of a spiritual one. One things he notices about him, though, is the shameless arrogance with which he not only gives scandal, but keeps hammering on the same scandalous points.
Just to mention one topic, the printed statement about proselytism being “solemn nonsense” was initially, from the usual Pollyannas, justified interpreting “proselytism” as “aggressive and obnoxious demand that other convert”. Francis rapidly put an end to such doubts – for soundly thinking people at least – with repeated assertions that confirmed that he really has no interest in converting tout court: the “no! no! no!” statement was followed by a tipsy video for a Proddie congregation, in which he called his buddy “brother bishop”; then by his receiving Proddie preachers on more than an occasion, and high-fiving with one of them for the enjoyment of the photographers. Then again he went to Caserta and shoot another heretical salvo about the Holy Ghost being fine with heresies. There are probably other episodes; with this man it is frankly difficult to keep pace.
Every time it is the same story: Francis says something heretical or outlandish, more or less blind people start saying “he can't have said that”, he repeats the same concept in all possible variations so that most people understand that he really means it, the Pollyanna deplore the continued wickedness of the media.
This has two effects: it persuades all but the very blind that Francis really thinks that way, and it desensitises the faithful to scandal and heresy.
How many times has Francis “confused” (polite word for: wilfully misled) the faithful? How many times has he given scandal with his words, his acts, his appointments? Fifty? One hundred? Is there one man on the planet who does not expect him to go on that way? How many are those who, faced with the scandal, meet it with the same outrage that would have been caused if the above mentioned Pius X had said the same things, or a small fraction of them?
Francis is banking on the position of seeming untouchability given to him by the, erm, tiara. He will go on and on until even faithful Catholics are accustomed to his heresies, and consider them an innocent trait of a oh so humble man. Everytime Francis gives scandal, the values he attacks are slightly diminished in the eyes of the faithful; then he does it again and again, and the faithful become slowly less vigilant, and less vocal; then he does it another thirty times, and everyone knows this is the new normal if not in the grey theory, certainly in the green praxis.
Gutta cavat lapidem non vi, sed saepe cadendo. A drop hollows the stone not through force, but by falling often. This is exactly the strategy followed by the Unholy Father: repeat your heresies and your boorish behaviour again and again, with no apology and no shame, and they will end up being accepted and considered part of the character of the man, and of the new thinking of the Church.
The oxes will, in time, obediently follow, accept every heresy, and ruminate whatever Francis says without wasting a second thinking about its validity or orthodoxy. He has said it so many times now, how can he be wrong? He is the Pope after all! Who are you to judge?
Refuse this thinking. Let your scandal at the 100th repetition of the heresy be as big as at the first. Do not get accustomed to heresy, or scandalous behaviour. When Francis drops another heretical bomb always think how Catholics in the time of St Pius X would have reacted to it, and do the same.
Let us not get accustomed. Let us not yield to the slow corruption of the minds of this disgraceful papacy. Let us wear as a badge of honour that we do not want to conform to this new age of appeasement, heresy, banality, and vulgarity.
Gutta cavat lapidem. But the Truth is as hard as a diamond. Francis does not care for it, and tramples it with his black shoes for the sake of what to him is the only thing that counts: his own popularity, the edification of the monument to Saint Francis The Great Non-Judger.
Francis will ultimately fail, like all those before and after him. Let him enjoy his moment of glory, then, as many before him have done. The day will come when the fun ends.
If you need further proof Pope Humble hates to be in the middle of good Catholics and avoids them whenever he can, you only need to google a bit, and look at the last events in Caserta.
Firstly there was the blunder with the programme. Francis just wanted to spend the day with his Proddie friends, so he gave instructions to do just that.
Predictably, the local Catholics wondered what was going on, and how it can be that, of all people, a Pope goes out of town to meet the heretics and does not care one bit for his local sheep. It is because he does not give a fig for Catholics, of course; but they found it difficult to accept, and complained. The programme was then suitably amended, with some activities in favour of the local joyless rosary-counters.
And then Francis does go to Caserta, and regales us with the usual heresies about extra ecclesiam omnia salus, according to his utterly heretical, now twenty times repeated ideology. But this post is not about that.
Francis is then eating and drinking with the Proddies, and he enjoys both activities so much – presumably, the second one more – that he decides to continue to eat, drink and be merry and simply cancel his next appointment, where he was supposed to meet some nuns and, I have read, children and other faithful.
Now, the nuns were probably orthodox ones, which would explain Francis' dislike for them. What is truly indicative of the man, though, is Francis' decision to just ignore his next appointment, whatever it may be, because he is amusing himself so much where he is now. If you remember the episode of the Beethoven concert and the empty chair, you realise that for this man not showing up is always an option; only, this time he does not even have the boorish excuse of not being a “Renaissance Prince”. This time, he is truly being a 2014 Francis.
If timeliness is the courtesy of the Kings, not showing up because one does not feel like it, or is enjoying himself too much, or perhaps has even drunk too much, is the behaviour of spoiled models and rock stars. It is, certainly, not fit for a prelate, and is utterly disgraceful for a Pope. And note that this chap here is so brazen in his behaviour that he never ever looks for other people to cover his own boorishness with a veil of convenience (a headache; a light indisposition; fatigue due to the heat), but simply has no problem to let it be known he preferred to stay with the heretics and, no doubt, enjoy their wine.
Now, in case you still have not got the message, let me state it very clear in two languages: questo Papa e' un grandissimo cafone.
This Pope is quite the boor.
Some Catholic bloggers still believe in the principle of non-contradiction. Something the Vatican destroyers are rapidly leaving behind as un-merciful.
One of these bloggers can be read here.
No revolutionary theories, you see. Just good, plain, old-fashioned reading and thinking. Giving to words the meaning they actually have, rather than the one we would wish them to have, or desperately want to believe they must have, lest our papolatrous faith should crumble.
This is pure “reading Francis through common sense”.
It is a huge scandal that, sixteen months into this disgraceful pontificate, most have preferred to give up thinking rather than to stop and examine what Catholicism really is, and whether their fanatical reliance on every word of the Pope isn’t, in fact, a huge heresy itself.
Enjoy the blog post, and the extremely fine Rorate post.
I read with beautiful regularity about the danger of “schism” if priests were to, say, start teaching Catholicism instead of fluffy common places meant to allow the not-so-faithful to feel good with themselves.
I never understood the reasoning.
Such un-faithful are, if informed and willing, obviously schismatics in pectore, but occupying the pews. They have, so to speak, already carried their schism, but inside the Church and their hearts rather than outside of Her; I call it a schism in all but name, and a far more dangerous one than a formal schism.
In most cases, though, I do not think this is what is happening. My impression is rather that many of these people are simply uninstructed, and were never helped to seriously confront Truth.
The uninstructed pewsitter who hears nothing but rubbish from the pulpit will end up absorbing the values of the society around him; values he thinks broadly aligned with the Christian message, because the priest never tells them otherwise; and if the priest talks of the evils of society only to attack Capitalism and free markets he might, particularly if he isn't very smart, one day come to believe that these are the main issues a Catholic should be confronted with.
But I firmly believe that most of these people are not fundamentally bad. When they get the Catholic dish served, they would end up eating and enjoying it. Reluctantly at the beginning, certainly, or complaining that the fare has changed. But in time, and with the assistance of a good cook solicitous of explaining to them why the food is healthy, they would learn to enjoy it and to want no other diet.
Yes, some would go. But they are already gone. Whenever not ignorance, but wilful rebellion is at the heart of their thinking, they would not stay anyway, and they are a cancer the Church should excise from Her body at once.
Bring it on, say I. Christianity is about Truth, not numbers. The pews don't need to be warmed by schismatic backsides, at least schismatics backsides in all but names. A priest who is timorous to teach Catholicism for fear of “schism” is doing much worse: he is nurturing this very schismatic mentality as he allows it to stay within the Church and take over the everyday religious and – unavoidably – political discourse.
Bring it on. Let those who are not in anymore go, and let them go away under the sun rather than continue their demolition work in the shadow of the church. Many, I think, will stay; but again, it is not a matter of numbers.
Besides, it is not known to me that parishes which adopt the Traditional Mass empty themselves whilst the parishioners tun to the next tambourine NO mass, or defect to Methodism. The contrary is the case. Catholicism is attractive, because it responds to a natural, instinctive thirst of Truth.
Let us stop with these “fears of schism”. Let us, in fact, hope and pray for good priests who pose their parishioners in front of a clear choice, asking them to be either with Christ or with the world. By God's grace many will understand, make an effort to change, and never look back.
But there is no reason to allow the cancer to keep metastasising in the body of the Church. We must not only not fear, but wish for the crisis, both in individual consciences and in the Church at large. There is no other way to excise this cancer, because it will not go away from itself.
Bring it on.
A… magistral punch to NuChurch from Sandro Magister, who has analysed the answers to various questions posed in the notorious “survey” by Country.
It turns out that the Countries more sold to the “throwaway culture”, and infected by all those luxury cars Francis so abhors, are actually the least orthodox in all principal matters of Catholic doctrine, whilst the poorer Countries in the third world lead the field in matters of orthodoxy.
We knew it already, of course.
What Magister elegantly points out, though, is that those are exactly the periferie, the “outskirts” Francis always puts in front of our eyes as the real inspiration for rich, sound Catholicism, inviting us not to “close” ourselves – and the Vatican – in the narrow views of the wealthy West.
How comes, then, that the Pope who is always praising the “outskirts” clearly pushes the “serene” heresies of the Kasperites?
Father Z has a post about Cardinal Kasper publishing a book about mercy, which says, but also does not say, what he wants to say, but is not necessarily saying.
I have my own hypothesis about why the Cardinal speaks differently from the two corners of his mouth.
He is a Modernist.
It makes one smile how the tepid conservative want us to be excited with Francis' innovations but take offence when the liberals do exactly the same, though in their case with much more reason.
The idea that Francis simply speaks freely because “that's the way he is” and we like him a lot for that, but then fetch our Catholicism somewhere else from more credible sources just does not work. Francis is the
pope Bishop of Rome, and if he spreads confusion the result of this will be… confusion. How surprising, eh, no?
It is entirely logical and entirely predictable that Francis' stupid utterances be now used and abused everywhere. Of both the use and the abuse Francis is the first responsible, because he is the one who systematically made them possible in the first place.
If a Pope is allowed to put in his mouth such unspeakably stupid words like “who am I to judge?” without drowning in ridicule, why should a Catholic legislator not feel entitled, or at least be tempted, to play the same little cheap game? “Because this just isn't Catholic!”, you will answer. Fine. But someone should tell the Pope, and you should say the same when the Pope says it, too.
The newly-born “Francis effect” is nothing but the tidal wave of stupidity, superficiality and heresy now unavoidably following the earthquake of Francis' utterances. This tidal wave will impact with immense violence all the Catholic shores, causing vast damages everywhere and the loss of countless souls.
The Francis Effect is wanted, and it is wanted exactly in those liberal quarters Francis does so insistently pander to. What is surprising is only the lack of shame of the man, who keeps drugging the patient he is supposed to heal with massive doses of modernist heroine, lest he might recover from his addiction to the church of nice and the “salvation guarantee”.
If you want to put it a different way, the entire situation is like Obama going around smoking joints, and with his supporters saying he is being “instrumentalised” by those in favour of the legalisation of light drugs.
Sow Francis, reap heresy, homosexualism, abortion, and every other disgrace.
This, and no other, is the reality of the “Francis effect”.
“What is a poor Blogger to do”, is the question that I now pose to myself almost every day as Francis' antics multiply, fully uncaring of the scandal they give, or else a more and more disquieting picture of the pre-Francis past of Jorge Bergoglio emerges.
It would be, of course, very wrong and very sinful to address the man in the same way I would with, say, a David Cameron or Enda Kenny. In the case of the Bishop of Rome, we must exercise that restraint that comes not from respecting the man (frankly, I don't. “Unworthy of the habit” is the way I would describe him to a non-Catholic or a Catholic alike), but from loving the office.
Here, though, the problem begins. The enormity of what is happening – an enormity to which many have got accustomed with astonishing speed – cannot in my eyes be expressed with nuanced and in the end ineffective expressions of more or less strong reservation for Francis' actions. In the end, our yes should be yes and our no should be no. The message must come through without any equivocation, and without any hesitation. To simply say that one is “confused” doesn't say much, because put it that way the confusion might not be Francis' fault, not even when such “confusion” is due to obvious heresy. Similarly, when one says that certain expressions could have been avoided, one neglects the enormity of their meaning and denies the enormity of the damage they cause. It is not done with half words.
To this you must add that I cannot change myself in a foreigner by simply writing in a foreign language. We Southern Europeans have rather powerful emotions, or alternatively you northerners and assorted Anglo-Saxons are incapable of any. By us when the blood boils, the tongue will tell. I do not see anything wrong with that, and even if I did I doubt I could do much in the years God has left me.
Unavoidably, the one or other blog post will go against your grain. So be it. This is the blog of a fiery Italian, and if you don't like the way I write there are plenty of Anglo-Saxon bloggers waiting for your click. But if you click here, please make allowances for different cultural climates and dissimilarity of temperament.
Before I write a post, I often ask myself in which case would I be better off if suddenly hit by the already mentioned Boris Bus, or flower vase. I generally end up deciding I would be better off saying it as I see it, rather than playing diplomatician – which I am very bad at, anyway – with events that rival the worst 2,000 years of Church history have to offer in matter of shamelessness and scandal. And I am very sorry, but if you can't see the extent of the devastation and of the open heresy and omnipresent error now embraced as mainstream Catholicism and promoted by the very Pope you are not a part of the solution, but rather – if perhaps unwittingly so – of the problem.
Fair warning must, therefore, be given. Whatever name Francis has deserved for himself and is not – according to my judgment, not yours; see above under “temperament” – grossly insulting of the Papacy, I will use. If he makes a clown of himself, he will be called just that. If he is heretical, he will be called a heretic – and I don't care much if formal or material; this concerns rather his eternal salvation than the scandal objectively given -, and if he behaves like a child, he will be called a child.
It still pains me that I was hoping against hope when others had the gut to see clearly and say it as it is: when Rorate commented Francis' election with the title: “The Horror!” I did not want to believe things were that way, at least not so fast and without abundant evidence. Turns out the title was just right, the evidence is shocking and absolutely overwhelming, and “The Horror” is the title that should go on top of every second blog post about Pope Bergoglio.
The Papacy is not protected, but is rather insulted, if we consider Francis an even halfway acceptable occupant of the Sea of Peter. That Popes can be not only woefully inadequate, but outright heretics we know already from well-documented past history. Unpleasant as it is to have to recognise the pit of heresy and stupidity in which we have fallen, we can't say we do not have the instruments, and therefore the duty, to see and understand what is happening. One day we will be called to state what we have said when we saw the Tango danced on the sanctuary, and why. To have swimmed with the tide will, I am afraid, not be much of an extenuating circumstance. What is happening is far too evident, is a work of demolition carried out with such brutality that the excuse “I had not really understood what Francis wanted to do” will not help much.
One day we will called to say what we have done.
That day, I prefer to be told I was a tad too emotional.
I haven’t been reading anything stupid from Pope Modernist The First lately. I do not doubt he has said something stupid, and I do not doubt his thinking is fundamentally stupid; but the stupidity has not paved his way to something I would actually read.
Now, think of a bus driver. You don’t write a blog post because the bus showed up at your bus station. You don’t praise a bus driver for showing up in the morning, and driving the bus. Driving buses is his job and duty, what his employer and the community simply expect from him.
Forgive me, therefore, for not writing blog posts saying: “phew! Today the Pope has said something that was actually all right!” I do not write blog posts every time my car’s engine does its job, either.
If memory serves, Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic because of the content of one single letter he had written. I do not doubt his conduct must have been scandalous on more occasions than one, but please reflect that one piece of written evidence was enough to have him condemned as heretic for all generations to come.
If Honorius could be condemned for one piece of evidence, think what the successors of Francis will do of him when, eventually, sanity comes back. They will atomise him, that’s what they’ll do.
Therefore, our attention must be focused on the heretical statements this Pope has already abundantly disseminated, let alone those he will continue to disseminate. At times, he will show at work on time and drive his Catholic bus. Most of the times, hopefully. But heresy – or even being a catastrophe of a Pope, if you are so astonishingly gently inclined – is not something you weight against orthodoxy. “Of the last 100 public statements of the Pope only eleven contained Neo-Modernist or Modernist elements” isn’t really a great show of orthodoxy.
This man accepted to become the Pope. As such, he must do what is expected from him. His Employer requires it, and the general public also has a justified expectation that he discharges his duty faithfully.
If one piece of evidence was enough to condemn Honorius, single episodes of orthodoxy cannot be enough to exculpate Francis in the face of the chaos he has created.
Stay vigilant. The driver of this bus will show up at your bus station most of the times; but he doesn’t think much of the Highway Code.
This article signed from Christopher Ferrara and appeared on the online version of The Remnant is the most complete, brutally frank account of seven months of Bergoglio Pontificate I have ever read; though astonishingly I do not think even this can claim to be a full account. The recent interview with Repubblica has pride of place, but many other “incidents” are mentioned.
Still, the sheer quantity of the therein mentioned episodes gives the full scale of what is happening at the very heart of Holy Mother Church.
The article makes it easy and convenient to do what I have written for some time: the best way to understand what is happening is to read Francis through Francis.
His message is clear enough, but its fundamental opposition to sound Catholicism is just as evident. Hence the Contortionism World Championship now in full gear.
Enjoy this brilliant article.
I am, I must admit, a rather short-tempered chap; particularly, as it is natural, when the provocation concerns something I deeply love. You can, therefore, imagine how I feel as I write this, on the day the interview between Dr Scalfari and our Subversive-In-Chief is published.
I have read the Italian version this morning, and (even by the standards to which Francis has by now accustomed us) it took my breath away. “No two weeks without unspeakable scandal” seems to be the real motto of this – we can safely say it – historically appalling pontificate; a pontificate that will go down in history as one of the most infamous low points in the entire existence of the Church.
The translation of Rorate Caeli of the most important parts is here, where you will also find the link to the original Italian. Note: same left-wing newspaper, and same atheist, anti-clerical interlocutor already seen in the notorious 12,000 words interview.
They are becoming real buddies. What a fool Francis is.
What happened here is, I think, one of three:
1. Francis was rather peeved at all the attempts of sanitising him after every interview. You know, the “what he really, really wanted to say is…” semantic and theological acrobatics from every corner. Therefore, he thought he would, this time, shout his perverted heresy (“Bergoglism”, I think history will call it) really, really loud, and make the neutralisation of his heresy as difficult as he can. Or you can put it this way: Francis already told us when one speaks much one runs the risk of being misunderstood. Now he repeats his heresies in much shorter form, so that there is no risk of misunderstanding.
2. Francis has, after the experience of now very many episodes, understood that there is no limit to the blindness of his army of Pollyannas. He now considers them his best allies in his heretic campaign. Thank to them, he is now free to shout his heresies as loud as he wishes, safe in the confidence his useful idiots will keep honest Catholics at bay whilst he spreads them.
3. The man is not compos mentis; he is just not there with the head anymore; he is losing control of his own thoughts, and is now unable to remember even the basics of the religion of which he is at the head. This is the most charitable hypothesis, that I do not want to leave unmentioned.
Now, if the last hypothesis does not apply, what on earth moves a Pope, of all men, to this? Again, I see only two realistic scenarios:
A) The man is a deeply, deeply deluded, pathetic old man who in his misguided desire to “feel good” and, at least as importantly, “feel popular” forgets the very basics of Christianity, trampling with his feet on its most sacred principles. I do not think he has any excuses for this – at least if 3. above does not apply – and cannot avoid thinking this man is marching toward hell like a high speed train. He might repent, of course, and we must pray he does. But look, this is an old Jesuit of 77 very ill-spent springs, with decades of devastation of Catholicism behind him. He shows such brutal signs of reprobation it’s truly scary. He does not even stink of favela anymore. He stinks of brimstone.
B) The man has lost his faith a long time ago, and every fear of the Lord with that. Like many who do not believe in God, he seeks solace in an alternative religion. For him, this is clearly social work and extreme “inclusiveness”. He clearly think he is better than the God in which the Christians have believed these two thousand years. This makes logical sense only if you believe this God is a tale, and you can improve on it.
I wonder, at this point, if Hans Küng would have been so much worse than him. I do not doubt Martin Luther would have been much better. At least Luther required faith in Christ to be saved. It was wrong Christianity, but it was Christianity. The heresy of Bergoglism is a fluffy, effeminate, emotional relativism without any need for faith in Christ and, consequently, without any need for proselytism; the latter is, therefore, a “solemn nonsense”, something that “makes no sense”. You read Francis talking of atheism, salvation and the rest, you understand Francis’ heresy is way past Luther’s, and is rather akin to Kueng’s Weltanschauung: a sort of all-inclusive, everything-goes world religion where everyone feels welcomed as he/she/it feels or defines him/her/itself; without the uncomfortable, unsaleable, and utter uncharitable encumbrance of having to convert people.
We have a Pope for whom Christian faith, adherence to Truth and even a generic faith in God are optional. A Pope not interested in converting people, or even atheists. One who considers such an effort “solemn nonsense”. I can’t imagine any Christian age of the past in which one like him would not have been considered an extremely dangerous heretic for preaching just a small fraction of what he goes around saying every day.
I will leave to another post (or to other posts) some more detailed analysis, according to what my simple, but authentic faith in Christ allows, of some of the things this man has said. We have come to the point where every time the man speaks, the rubbish is such that it can be only tackled in installments. I am also hoping – against hope, it must be said – that the Vatican will accuse Repubblica of having not given a fair account of the interview, perhaps due to translation (?) or other problems. Frankly, though, it’s improbable.
I am extremely curious now to know how the spin artists will spin this. Popcorn is, notwithstanding the intrinsic tragedy of the situation, in order.
Let me close – for now – with a small observation: not for the first time, by reading this man I have the impression he slaps Jesus in the face, and boasts of it with the atheists and the world.
How long Jesus will allow this little deluded heretic full of himself to slap him, is the question.
Usque quo, Domine?
On the “Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican II” blog there is a beautiful blog post posing the question whether Francis, the Bishop of Rome who doesn’t like to call himself Pope, is a Modernist.
I suggest that you follow the link and give the reflections of this excellent blogger your full attention.
As for myself, I will add to the excellent considerations of the blog post’s author a couple of short thoughts:
1. The antics of this man are getting so numerous, that one rapidly forgets the earlier ones as new ones keep coming with astonishing regularity. I had already forgotten the pandering to Muslims during Ramadan, and I have even written about it. Again, it’s an avalanche, and a serious case of papal logorrhea. There is no better way to make any sensible man aware of the deeply confused nature of this man’s Catholicism than to realise one has not been able to keep pace with his blunders.
2. I commend to your attention the beautiful metaphor of the family used in the blog post. I allow myself to report it here in its entirety, so striking it is.
The little ones, who are not yet prepared for solid food, haven’t the wherewithal to even recognize that a problem exists. Others, who are somewhat more mature in the Faith, are so taken with the false idea that Daddy can never be wrong, that they will rush to defend him at every turn, regardless of how outrageous his behavior might be. Still others in the household are informed enough to see the problem, but are too weak to confront it, choosing instead to profess to “keeping their eye on the prize,” essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and humming “Amazing Grace” in the hope that it will all just go away.
The smallest number of those among us, however, will look without fear at the bitter reality that papa is drunk on modernism, and his reckless behavior is so dangerous that it threatens not only those who dwell within the Household of God, but even those who wander in darkness beyond its walls.
Among them, a relative few intrepid souls will do everything in their power to warn the others, both within and without, taking bullets and arrows and all manner of artillery simply for daring to proclaim the immutable truths of the Faith that alone can assure our salvation.
It’s a thankless job, this, but someone has to do it.
Your humble correspondent hopes and prays that the day they die the author of the words just reported, the humble correspondent himself and all the others who have the guts to take “bullets and arrows and all manner of artillery” will, wretched sinners as we all are, get some heavenly brownie points for pointing out to what should be so obvious, but few want to see.
3. With usual timeliness, the blog post author received the first criticism – with the very first published comment – from the usual defenders of niceness, to whom no matter how gentle you are in presenting the truth – and in this case, the gentleness was extreme – you are being “harsh”. Clearly, some people can never resist the temptation to shoot at the messenger. In case you ask, I would not have published that particular comment; but hey, I am a Disciplinarian all right.
Enjoy this breath of fresh air, then, and draw from it the strenght to prepare yourself for a battle that might be only at the beginning, and could well go on for many decades; probably well beyond our grave.
Rending unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, I link to a document published in a Sedevacantist site (something I try to avoid whenever possible; today, in honesty, it wouldn’t be fair).
This document is the translation in English of the introductory part of the Bull Auctorem Fidei, with which Pope Pius VI condemned 85 propositions taught by a regional Synod held in Pistoia (Tuscany) in 1786.
Whilst I am not an expert in the matter, it would appear – if we think of the years and the climate of the time: we are in the full swing of the so-called enlightenment, and at the vigil of the French Revolution – that in the Council of Pistoia some “lio” was made, in the attempt to “modernise” the Church faced with the new “springtime” of the “enlightenment”.
The Sedevacantist site above has, then, undertaken the very laudable task to translate the introductory part of this Bull. It makes for interesting reading, because in it Pius VI expresses with a remarkable – and in light of the present situation, uncanny – clarity the workings of the heretical mind and the methods it uses.
I reproduce here the most striking lines of Pius’ reflections. Emphases mine.
They [ our most holy predecessors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error. Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both thepossibility of promoting error and of excusing it. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine, who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
The methods described by the Pope can be recognised in much of the theology of the last 50 years, in the duplicitous Vatican II documents, in the assertion of much of the moderate “spirit of V II” crowd, and in a good part of the accommodating clergy of our times, nowadays led by the humble Appeaser In Chief.
What method uses Pius to expose the error?
In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.
Whilst the motives can be different in different persons, and there is no reason to doubt Francis is not deliberately trying to corrupt a teaching that he positively knows as right – rather, in his hubris and ignorance he thinks he is giving a faithful rendition of the message, of which he “merely” emphasizes some parts; though, think of it, probably most formal heretics start in that way… – I cannot avoid noticing variations of the same modus operandi Pope Pius VI describes here so well, both in Francis and in the many erroneous theologians that have afflicted us in the last fifty or sixty years.
Again, I read the words and I found them uncanny. They seem written today, by a SSPX priest explaining to us the errors of modernism and the methods used by Neo-Modernists to propagate them. Nihil sub sole novi.
Let us stay vigilant, and let us avoid being enchanted by the “seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner”.
Atheists who die in their atheism go to Hell.
It is a work of mercy to admonish the sinner.
Silence is a way to be accessory to another’s sin.
I always liked Michael Voris’ attacks to the hypocrisy, cowardice and heresy of such a large part of the modern clergy. It is very good that some voice of the Media – God knows, there aren’t many – points out with energy and wit to the immense stupidity of too many of our shepherds, and to the damage they cause to countless souls.
Still, I see a growing problem in the fact that there is a huge elephant in the Catholic porcelain shop, and as far as I am aware Voris & Co. have not managed to express any real criticism to said (oh so humble) elephant. I do remember a mention of a “messy” papacy, but at least among the commentaries I have listened to I have found nothing of more import than that.
Now, I fully espouse – and I am sure most of my readers do – Voris’ thinking: the “Church of Nice” betrays Christ and destroys souls as it substitutes sound Catholicism with the fluffy, self-reassuring tale that provided you are nice you will be fine, and the only thing you have to do is to celebrate your niceness.
It is now perfectly evident, though, that one of the hypocritical, cowardly, and heretical prelates Voris so justly criticises has now become Pope. To make matter worse, the new man is not one to say things half. Every day that God sends, Francis promotes not only that very “church of nice” that Voris criticises, but an extreme version of it.
Can you imagine Voris’ reaction to an Archbishop blabbering around that to criticise is a “violent” and “criminal” behaviour? Such an archbishop would be pounded in no uncertain terms without much delay, and very rightly so. The same applies to prelates who were to go around saying “who are we to judge”, washing the feet of infidels, and obviously inventing a new “religion of conscience”.
Francis does all of this, and he does all of this all the time. Voris is a journalist, and therefore under no illusion that every time Francis publishes one of his letters or homilies or other utterances he (Francis) knows perfectly well which phrases will be picked up by the press and make headlines the world over.
Nor do I have any doubt that Voris does not agree with the narrative of the “misunderstood Pope”. Firstly because he is far too smart for that, and secondly because such a position would destroy his credibility altogether. If it is allowed, or just, or even “charitable” to twist Francis’ words to the point of making them unrecognisable but in some way “acceptable” as the moderate conservatives are now doing full-time (you know the reasoning: “Francis knows that atheists who die in their atheism go to hell, the journalists just did not pick the implicit Catholic message in his explicitly heretical words!” or the like), why should the same not be done for the bishop or archbishop? Why should we not take their own love ‘n peace, “church of nice” utterances under our tender loving care until we have made them say the contrary of what they obviously want to say, and blame the press for, once again, not seeing the (very carefully hidden) meaning of their words?
If the same triple saltos, bending over backwards and assorted equilibrisms that are made daily for Francis were made for the archbishops and bishops who talk in almost as heretical a manner as he does, we would have to conclude that the “church of nice”does not exist at all, or exists only in the fantasies of the secular press.
No. Voris clearly understands what is going on, and the fact he (as far as I am aware) has not even tried to defend the Pope in the last months whilst the sound Catholic blogosphere was continuously incensed at Francis’ antics is a clear indication he has recognised the problem. If this is the case, I do not think there is any real alternative to the acting on it.
Of course, this poses some problems, and I am not so naive or so fanatic as to think a TV outlet with a worldwide following should be using the same tones as an emotional, very assertive Italian blogger writing his emotional reflections in his free time. Est modus in rebus, and the approach of a professional media outlet must perforce be different from the approach of an amateur blogger. Still, with every day that passes this Pope becomes more of a circus attraction, and whilst I cannot imagine anything more stupid than comparing criticism of others to criminal activity, I am sure Francis has other circus numbers he wants to share with us. The problem will not go away until Francis does; therefore, every day that passes makes the ignoring of Francis’ antics a bigger threat to the channel’s credibility, or at least to its incisiveness.
If the people at “Church Militant” were to ask me – which they don’t, though I know the one or other reads me at times – I would allow myself to suggest the following steps:
A media outlet like Voris’ is an ideal vehicle to correct widespread prejudices concerning the Pope. He could regularly point out to the fact that Popes are not elected by the Holy Ghost, have historically tended to have the vices and virtues of their time, and have been heretical on several occasions. This, he could do again and again. In times, this would create a sound basis for a, if must be, crude analysis of the present situation. I notice time and again from the comments on my blog that some of my occasional (not regular) readers do not understand what I write because they do not have (yet, hopefully) the instruments: for example, they think criticism of the pope’s novelties is a self-defeating argument because… the Holy Ghost picked him and must perforce want whatever he does.
This requires the skilled and professional journalist, and I do not doubt the necessary competence is amply available in Voris’ shop. Still, it is possible to criticise the Pope in a deservedly devastating way without using tones that the majority of viewers might find inappropriate; a talent, this, that I cannot say I possess, but that can certainly be expected by a professional journalist. Some examples from the last times includes the excellent comment of Mr Archbold to Francis’ letter to Eugenio Scalfari, about which I have written a blog post, and the unforgettable comment of that distinguished Catholic layman – I forget the name – who stated he would never allow Francis to care for his children’s Catholic instruction. I know this pope is an utter disgrace and a pathetic clown; I know many of my readers agree, and I suspect Voris’ opinion might – just might – not be very dissimilar, particularly considering the way he comments on prelates who behave in a, if we are honest, far less scandalous way than Francis. But all this does not necessarily need to be said on a TV channel, and the unpleasant but salutary duty to call a clown a clown can, I think, be left to the amateurs’ blogs.
Voris is a theologian, and I do not doubt sound doctrinal knowledge is amply present among his troops. If he were to use his channel to present sound doctrine every time Francis dishes some heresy, he would do a huge service to his readership and greatly enhance the prestige of his channel. In time, his outlet would become the go-to place for sound instruction every time the Pope speaks out of his black shoes; which, I am afraid, will be very often. That this cannot be done without a comparison with, and criticism of, the Pope’s circus numbers is, though, rather obvious.
I am, and will remain, an affectionate follower of that worthy channel; but I do not think the dangers of the present Papacy can be further ignored or simply very mildly censored as “messy”. Once again, if Francis had made all his utterances of the last six months as an archbishop, he would have easily won the prize of worst bishop/archbishop around and not only Voris, but all conservative blogs would shoot at his heresies with all their cannons.
The worst of all heretical bishops is at the head of all of them. Whatever criticism is – justly – levelled at them must be levelled at him in the first place, because by behaving as he does Francis does not only confuses countless faithfuls and confirms infidels and atheists in their error, but he also encourages his priests and bishops to do the same.
The fish stinks from the head down. The head of this particular fish smells atrociously. It is time, I think, to look closely at the fish and recognise whence the stink comes.