The opening salvo of this synod belongs to Cardinal Erdo.
After Francis’ usual fluffy, “this but also that”, “have your cake and eat it” speech, the Cardinal – who was culpably weak last year when he allowed the infamous relatio post disceptationem to bear his name as main signatory, but then recovered and disavowed it almost immediately – opened his own speech with the following words:
Jesus Christ is our master, our Lord, and the Good Shepherd.
It is difficult not to see in this an open criticism of a Pope so worldly, so shamelessly secular in all he does, that he managed an entire speech in the US without mentioning Jesus once. Also note the emphasis on the fact that our Lord is a good shepherd, and therefore not “cruel” or “legalist”. Not bad as a start. Not bad at all.
The rest is – if you gloss over the V II verbosity and the usual diplomacy of how good the bad pope actually is, full text here – in line with the incipit.
Cardinal Erdo has – see the link at the beginning for more comment – basically drawn a line in the sand at the very start. This is important, because the man – who isn’t a lion, see above – would not have pronounced such a speech unless he was sure that he echoes the prevalent sentiment among the bishops; not only those present at this farce but – infinitely more importantly if the Obama hits the fan – those outside.
The opening speech seems to me, in fact, a kind of closing speech. “It is what it is” – says the cardinal to the Kasperites – “shut up already”. He does not say it with these exact words, obviously; but among prelates “shut up already” is said in a different way than among us mere mortals.
It seems to me that when a line is drawn in the sand on the very first day, something is boiling in the Vatican cauldron. There must be a pent-up dissatisfaction with Francis’ ways – both in general and at last year’s synod – that moves the bishops to act decisively from the start in order to prevent any kind of “surprise” that Francis may have prepared. No one trusts this man. They know why, and you too.
Think of this: the bishops have just finished to insistently reinforce traditional teaching on marriage; therefore, there is no universe in which Francis can come out one fine morning and say that now the “Spirit” wants to do everything differently. He would dig his own grave, and he knows it. I hope the pressure on him keeps mounting. It will keep him awake in case he is dreaming of some golpe.
The opening salvo was, if you ask me, very effective.
I would go as far as to say that it has landed square on Francis’ and the Kasperites’ head.
Observing the press around Francis' movements and speeches one common theme is apparent: Francis is seen as someone who wants to make the Church different from what she is. There is Francis here, and the Church there, and the two are undoubtedly different. Even those who have an interest in supporting Francis in order to sabotage the Church are forced to do so by stressing how different he is; and, by reflex, how he is sabotaging the Church.
This is a self-defeating narrative. Once it is clear that Francis is different, it must follow for every Catholic that he is wrong, as even my cat understands that the differences here are substantial and not merely cosmetic.
Francis was not able to attack Catholicism on the sly, like a smarter man than he would have done. His lack of basic prudence and sufficient intelligent – coupled with a great theological ignorance, making him unable to detect his huge blunders before they are tweeted worldwide – make this attack obvious, and impossible to be explained away with any sort of Catholic continuity. But at this point, he has lost already. Who will believe him? Those who have an interest in following him even knowing he is wrong. But this is no surprise, and no news. If the Pope declared his allegiance to Satan he would become the darling of Satanists. It is, therefore, no surprise that he should be popular among perverts, communists, enviro-nuts and public, unrepentant adulterers.
This may be all good for a headline or three. Only it isn't Catholicism, and everyone understands it. It is clear by now that no matter how many headlines are written about Francis, they are always about the difference from, not the adherence to, Cathoicism.
This is why Francis has lost the battle. He will always have the wrong crowd on his side, but he will never have the Catholics! They will be, they already are horrified from him! These Catholics may well be a minority, but they will always be those who get to define what Catholicism is even for all the others, exactly in the same way every outsider knows the orthodox Jew is the “real” Jew, and the “progressive” Jew is merely a secular chap using religion as a social tool.
You can't demand that two and two be five and present yourself as a Math teacher. You can't demand that alcohol be freely available to everyone and candidate as head of the League of Temperance. You can't demand that communion be available to adulterers and present yourself as a true Catholic.
Francis has lost the battle. He could not get Catholics on his side, and they will be his doom in life and after death. He is now irredeemably branded – and rightly so – as a subversive and enemy of the Church. He may rape the Church, but he will never win her.
He will always be remembered as the rapist, not the protector. He may carry with him the abortionists, the perverts, the nutcases of all sorts. But the battle for Catholic hearts and minds, that is now lost forever.
As the days of the Synod approach, we know that two main points are on the heretics' agenda: adultery and sexual perversion.
Some very interesting contributions have been written to the effect that the adultery issue was meant to be the Trojan Horse for the “laundering” of homosexuality. I personally have the following views on the matter:
1. As numbers go, adultery is a far more pressing issue for Father Heretic than sodomy. Among the nominal Catholics in his parish there will easily be 50 public adulterers for every public dyke or sodomite, and whilst fags have relatives who may well “symphatise” this is no less true for the adulterers. Basically, if the German Pater Haeretisch wants to garner consensus and Kirchensteuer-money around him adultery beats sodomy hands down. Adultery's laundering is also, undoubtedly, his main economic interest.
2. However, Pater Haeretisch may well be a pervert himself, and in this case the matter of sodomy will touch him in a rather more striking way, the usual conflict of the sodomite – the knowledge that he is wrong, dirty, and a pervert – being amplified by his supposedly being a man of God. One can imagine for many of these Pater Schwulette the issue is more pressing than even the Ka-ching of the parish tills.
3. The one aim does not negate the other. Adultery is, grave as it is, a sin that still goes with nature. Sexual perversion is, as going against nature, a completely new ball game. There is no imagining that the laundering of sins against nature would not achieve, a fortiori, the result of laundering sins according to nature. Even an atheist immediately recognises – though he may not admit it to you – the substantial difference between the two situations, because sins that go against natural law are etched in the conscience of every man however big his effort to conceal it.
Therefore, at the Synod we will have a highly explosive mixture of issues which touch the wallet of the heretics and issues which torments them. They have Francis on their side, but Christ is against them.
How thus battle will end in the end, you already know. But we want it to have an end, actually, sooner that “in the end”.
We must continue to denounce adultery as well as sodomy; the faggot priest as well as the avid or simoniacal one; the sins that go with nature as well as those that go against it.
Francis and his army of clowns will not prevail. Not in the end but, preferably, not in October either.
Let us examine the programme of the Evil Clown for the foreseeable future.
1) Second half of September: America trip. Francis will legitimise and pamper one of the cruelest Communist regimes ever. Then he will move to the USA, where he will indirectly but clearly push for illegal immigration, environMentalism, the socialisation of Western economies, and the atrocious UN program of world governance and (though Francis will pretend not to like this) population control. Expect a lot of off-the-cuff rubbish about “inclusion”. Expect an awful lot of CO2 emissions, too….
2) Synod. It is clear Francis will be pushing a heretical agenda as much as he can. If he feels strong enough to adopt Kasperism, he will do. If not, he will push it as far as he can without being thrown out of the window himself. Expect an awful lot of vague language about “pastoral work” and (again) “inclusion” and “acceptance” meant at accommodating the German-speaking heretics as much as possible.
3) Year of False Mercy. Whatever the outcome of the Synod, a great Heretical Offensive is already scheduled, starting from December. Justice is “out”, Mercy is “in”. Expect relentless rhetoric of unconditional salvation given either for the asking (without the repenting) or just for the breathing (without even the asking). More fodder for German heretics, of course.
The path for the next fifteenth months seems very clear: Pope-driven satanic deception everywhere. Dalai-Lama-ing like there's no tomorrow. No rhetoric too stupid, no comparison too absurd.
This appears to be the programme. The programme appears to have been written without considering its addressees: devout Catholics. it is a course in prostitution of Catholicism to the heathenish masses. It is as satanical as it can be reasonably imagined before the False Prophet.
With God's help, it is now for devout Catholics to minimise the damage, and use this Evil Clown as an occasion to re-establish sound Catholicism. With God's help, Satan will not see his plans of maximum destruction realised.
But I think that one thing must be clear to all devout Catholics: irrespective of the degree of wilful complicity of the man, Satan is at work through him. The sooner we realise this, the better equipped we will be to face whatever challenge the future has in store for us.
Prayer, penance, and militancy.
Lord, give me strength! I am now in front of the very difficult task of conveying to my readers what kind of rubbish individual this man is, without calling him with half the names he has deserved. This man is a challenge for Catholics' adrenalines. For example, this morning I read this.
FrancisThought is here very clear: the often fabled “early Christians” were such good pastoral theologians. Then came the Church Francis hates, and she “divorced” theology from pastoral ministry, basically getting it all wrong and not serving the faithful for many centuries. Then again V II came, and put this train wreck on its tracks again. I lucky we are now. We must merely let the “Spirit” work.
The intervention is full of veiled invitations to Kasperism, and uses the images and figures of speech of the Kasperites. Theology must place Trafition and reality in a “dialogue”: hey, let's “dialogue” with perverts, shall we not? No, let us not call them to repentance: this would be a “divorce” between theology and pastoral ministry!
Those who challenge Catholic doctrine must not be “ignored”, because if you do so you “do not take seriously the principle of Incarnation”. What the heck does this mean anyway, that God became Man to confirm people in their “struggles” and “questions”?
Then there is this pearl of stupidity: that the ultimate source of theology is in “the praying people”. No, you damn fool. If the “praying people” are those out of which theology stems, theology will have all the errors, “struggles”, and “doubts” they have; and many no mistake, by “praying people” the man does not mean the orthodox rosary-counters; because he knows very well that, sinners as they all are, they are aligned with doctrine to 100%, and they have no “doubts” or any kind of “struggle” about it.
This Evil Clown vomits the heresy of Kasper almost every time he open his mouth. We should start calling it the heresy of Francis, and it would be more appropriate.
This man is Christ's enemy number one. Let's pray the Lord silences his heretical mouth soon.
I can’t hear anymore all this talk of the new ways how the Church must include, or integrate, or let feel welcome all kind of, obviously, unrepentant sinners.
What exactly did the Church in the time of St Pius X do that was wrong, and why?
Were there, in those times, no adulterers? No children born out of wedlock? No sodomy? Don’t make me laugh!
No. There was a massive amount of sin, because human nature is, after the Fall, automatically predisposed to sin.
Were our forefathers, then, “insensitive” to the “plight” of the adulterer? You bet they were! They were very sensitive to the danger of damnation, and had therefore no time for the rubbish of those who aren’t. If you believe that adulterers are in grave danger of hell all the rest follows; if you waste your time talking about “new ways of accepting them” you simply do not believe that adulterers are in grave danger of hell.
Think of it logically instead of emoting like a seventeen years old girl, and you will realise that there really is nothing in the middle. Every talk of “new” acceptance means an acceptance that does not include: 1) admission of grave sin and grave scandal, 2) repentance, and 3) amending of one’s way and putting an end to scandal. Therefore, any talk of “new” acceptance means making people more comfortable on their way to hell. Crucially, though, it makes the other pewsitters feel good and sensitive. Sensitivity is the opium of the small “c” catholic.
What did St Pius X do, exactly, that was wrong? Can you give me exact details? Did he not know that the child of the adulterers would feel bad? Of course he did! But you see, the likes of that great Pope were infinitely more interested in the salvation of souls than in the comfort of children! The Blessed Virgin in Fatima makes the children very uncomfortable, and does not give them any of the sensitive rubbish of the modern times!
Nor can you say that in those times such adultering couple and their children were rare. Firstly, and insofar as this was the case, they were rare (or less frequent) because the “insensitive” rules were openly preached and brutally enforced by a strong Church or, among the Proddies, by strong Christian feelings. Secondly, such situations were, actually, very common whenever Christian rules did not arrive, or where they were despised; the slums of (Protestant) Victorian London are a rather striking example of this.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t uphold Truth, and preserve “sensitivity”. You will never save souls by adapting truth to the sensitivity of children. I was told the brutal truths of hell when I was four. I am sure it did not harm my soul one little bit. Of course it would have hurt me to hypothetically discover that, say, my parents were living in sin. But then again this “hurtful” society created children whose parents were not living in sin! Conversely, it is this stupid sensitivity and fear to hurt anyone that creates the adulteries, the scandal, and the children born out of wedlock!
Was Pius X, then, not inclusive? On the contrary, he was very inclusive of the repentant sinner! Did he feel any need of “new” ways of including adulterers? No, it is very obvious the great Saint did not feel any need for them at all! Was he, then, unaware of how unpleasant it is to be born out of wedlock, or to be condemned by your community for living in sin? Of course he was not!
I could go on, but I think I have made the point.
There is nothing wrong in the way the Church has always done things. There can be no way, no way whatsoever, they were wrongly “insensitive” and we must find “new ways” to accommodate any sensitivity that was wrongly neglected before.
Let us realise that all this rubbish talk of finding new ways is the direct consequence of the loss of the fear of the Lord. If the fear of the Lord were still there, the priorities would be arranged differently.
Disagree with this, and you must admit that the Church was “not inclusive” or “not welcoming” in all her past history, all the way up to the enlightened Peron Generation: where air conditioning is evil, God scolds you but does not slap you, and it is necessary to “raise hell”.
St Pius X did nothing wrong. His Church was inclusive in the right way, and it was so out of real charity and love for the salvation of souls. Whatever harshness this charitable mentality caused was the unavoidable consequence of the harshness of the simple truths about salvation and damnation.
It is our generation that does not know what fear of the Lord is, and therefore forgets real charity and sinks in an ocean of diabetes-inducing talk of welcome and inclusion.
Get your priorities straight. The rest will follow from there.
The story in short: a powerful “Catholic” lay organisation claims Church teaching in matter of adultery and sodomy must changed, because… they prefer it that way, and the Evil Clown agrees with them.
The young bishop of Passau, Oster, makes something very Un-German: he speaks out, all alone, against the evil. The usual attacks ensue. But this time, five other Bishops (all of them, apparently, fairly young) speak out very clearly, thank the Bishop of Passau for his words and firmly take place beside him.
Results? The front has broken. Actually, it's clear now that there has never been one, and only the German desire to appear “unite” and not be seen as fomenting “division” could lead to the explosion being delayed until now. The German heretics, claiming a situation of “emergency” and opening threatening with schism, have now completely, completely lost face if a couple of days were enough to have six of the twenty-seven German bishops very officially opposed to the Kasperites.
Mind: that six have spoken does not mean that twenty-one side with heresy. It simply means that one letter was enough to give the lie on the heretical claim of a German “special need”, and to show to the entire world that even in the hotbed of European Heresy there is no compact front against Catholic teaching, at all.
It's a complete loss of face. I am very confident other bishops will speak out for Christ in the next weeks; but even if this were not the case, the six bishops have caused utter and complete devastation in the camp (as in-camp) of Kasper, Marx, & Co. What they can now claim is, at most, that heretics are a majority among German bishops. Fat chance to win with that.
The dream of a compact wall demanding a different “pastoral” treatment for the German sheep is all but gone. Kasper & Co. stand now openly refuted, and possibly in the next weeks openly humiliated, by their own bishops. What a sad end. What an inglorious way to go to hell.
I start to think that October might go down in history as a very clear reaffirmation of Catholic truth; because if you know Germany, you know that group thinking is very strong there, and the marching out of line fully against the Country's grain. That exactly in Germany one bishop's initiative should be enough to let the supposed hive mind collapse in a matter of days tells you a thing or two about what must be brewing elsewhere.
Marx and Kasper should get the stake, and the stake is what they would have had in times which value truth more than niceness. I doubt my suggestion will be adopted – there would be the need for the one or other legal change too, you see… – but it certainly is the punishment these two, and their main helpers, have deserved.
Which leads us to the Evil Clown: the man who started the entire mess by openly praising Kasper's “theology on his knees”, and will now prudently distance himself from the position he has done the most to further.
Francis is obviously on the side of heresy. He has pushed it, and continues to push it, every way he can short of an ufficial declaration of allegiance. Every Catholic with some discernment knows he is on their side. But as a Jesuit, Francis will find a way to throw his allies under the bus, and deny he ever wanted anything else than… socialism, enviro-mentalism, and cheap publicity for himself.
For the German heretics, it's now 1944. It's not sure they will lose, but the situation looks clear enough.
Sandro Magister has an interesting article (in Italian) about Francis and the Synod. In his usual way, Magister says in a polite way what many already know: Francis did all he could to support Kasper, but the October fiasco showed the task is beyond his strength. He also understands – says Magister – that next October the resistance will be much stronger, because people are prepared. Therefore, quite the Jesuit – a word used in Italy with a strong derogatory meaning, though Magister seems to pretend not to be aware of it – he has decided to distance himself from the Kasperites, avoiding the support he had previously given them. Magister follows with a long list of Francis interventions which seems, since October, to strike a more traditionalist tone in matter of family, children etc.
In part, I disagree with Magister. It seems to me that Francis' continuous stress on “mercy” is Kasperite to the very bone marrow. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that Francis avoids leaning out of the balcony in a very explicit way in this matter, limiting himself to the covert support he can give with his “symbolic” gestures like receiving Trannies.
It seems to me that Francis will – and I quite agree with Magister on this – be his usual self Jesuit and avoid a confrontation that would crush his pontificate to the ground. Rather than trying to officially change your religion, he will try to direct you towards his own one: the mix of social hatred, third-rate pacifism, third-world rhetoric and environmental madness with which he bores us pretty much every day.
If you must have such an Evil Clown as a Pope, it's better to have a Jesuit one. He will run for cover whenever he sees dark clouds approaching.
Or, as Magister puts it – implying, by the way, that the man is a heretic – he will be a “realist”.
Some good news for a change. Cardinal Sarah – the outspoken defender of the Sacrament of Communion and of Catholic teaching about sexual perversion – has been appointed head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (note the last words well). As V II Cardinals go, Sarah is certainly orthodox and conservative, i.e. Catholic.
Thankfully, I have not noticed anyone (up to now) trying to persuade us that this appointments shows that Francis is A Good, Orthodox, Conservative Pope People Do Not Understand. That time has, I think, gone forever.
Personally, I am not ready to give the man the least shred of credibility, whomever he may appoint. The man obviously hasn't changed, so our view of the danger he represents will not change, either. Why has Francis, then, chosen Sarah, of all people, for the position? My spontaneous thoughts:
1) He needs some prestigious African prelate near him to avoid the accusation of ignoring that Continent. Therefore, he puts an African at the top of what Africans do worst: liturgy. It minimises the damage for Francis, at least. How bad Sarah is in liturgical matters is also to be seen. Tornielli seems to trust him in liturgical matters too, which is a good sign. But this here is also an anti-Kasperite in the middle of the Vatican, which can never hurt.
2) Francis wants to show that he can reward outspoken prelates, as long as they do not criticise him personally. Burke out, Sarah in. A conservative in the Curia like before, but a less uncomfortable one for Francis. For now, at least.
3) He wants to divide the anti-Kasperite fraction, sending them partly to the wilderness and partly to Rome. I do not think it will ever work; but he might think so. A genius, he ain't.
4) He has given up on his revolutionary project. He is old, and it has become clear to him he will not be able to attempt any “revolution” without a huge, long conflict; a conflict which would doom his papacy for all centuries to come. He will continue to talk rubbish, of course; but no revolution. This seems to me, for the moment, only a possibility; but I do not consider it such a remote one.
Old, he is. Hypocrite, he is. Vain, he most certainly is. This one isn't the born and bred ideologue, the hero uncaring of the consequences, the Che Guevara of doctrinal demolition. This one is… a Jesuit. He will be strong with the weak and weak with the strong with the same easiness with which you breathe.
Time will tell. Let us not get too enthusiastic. The one in power is still TMAHICH. But he is clearly in the defensive now.
Today, we did get some good news. I cannot imagine any way in which bringing Sarah in can be seen as a sign of Francis' strength. No, it is a sign of Francis' weakness. He must appease the Catholics, lest he ends like the turkey at thanksgiving. He must bring in some African. He must give signals of normality. The bombardment of criticism since the Synod has not ceased, and in the meantime even the readers of the “Huffington Post” know he has put himself in a lot of trouble.
At the Synod, Francis has taken a pump gun and has shot himself in the leg. He is now trying to regain the face he has lost. It won't be easy.
It's too soon to say that Francis has thrown in the towel. But it is certainly enough to say that he is under great pressure, and must now act to avoid that the pressure becomes intolerable.
It always strikes me as odd that those most fixated on the opportunity, or necessity, for adulterers to receive Communion are those least likely to believe in Transubstantiation.
But then I reflect that to them the value of communion is not in what it is, but in the way they are seen by the community; that is, in a matter of pure egotistic self-righteousness.
Those who blaspheme the sacrament when it is about Christ, proceed to deify it when it is about them.
All normal, then.
And it came to pass The Destroyer had the gall of, after appointing Kasper as only opening speaker on the matter of adulterers and describing his as “profound and serene theology”, complaining that the press is now rather focused on this impending earthquake. Yours truly has reported.
A very good comment comes from this blog:
If I want to teach my family about morals and I hire Charlie Sheen, one must assume I’ve done my homework and selected the right person to convey the message I wish to have conveyed. I own the outcome.
With all due respect, it is simply not believable to select Kasper, sit back and watch the circus of dissent and confusion he conveys on your behalf, and then claim you did not wish this outcome.
Not owning the outcome feels deceptive and that is impacting credibility and trust.
Very well said.
We see the duplicity, the double-tongued hypocrisy, the lie, and the outright fraud of pushing a revolution and then saying one is surprised the revolution is causing so much stir, and people should focus on the daisies now in full bloom instead.
We see it. Francis, who is a Jesuit, doesn’t. Sir Humphrey should explain to him a couple of things.
Another brilliant reflection:
The Roman Catholic Church ordained and hired dissenters on every level and the situation is catastrophic.
Announcing the fix is in, hiring a man leading a schismatic movement and then claiming he is shocked by the outcome tells us it is the same old show only now at the top.
It gives the appearance the Pope is among those who operate under the old chestnut of passive-aggressive deception. That is bringing a boatload of other problems he didn’t expect upon his papacy.
It seems more and more evident to me that normal, reasonable, mainstream Novus Ordo Catholics (or at least, for now, bloggers) are more and more waking up to the immense scandal of this papacy. Their number will grow as Francis makes his enmity with Christ’s teaching (yes, I mean exactly that: enmity with Christ’s teaching) more and more evident. The Pollyannas will swallow everything unquestioningly like the average Stefan Mustermann during Nazism, thinking that if the Fuehrer has said so, why it must be right. But many, many others will realise the Church has no Fuehrerprinzip, and the Pope must respect Catholicism like everyone else and, actually, before everyone else; because being servus servorum Dei, the first among the servants of God, brings not only a very great power, but also a very special responsibility.
Deo volente, the resistance will grow stronger and Francis will realise the popularity with the wrong crowd is paid with a constant erosion of credibility as Pope; which, in turn, makes him less and less credible as the apostles of a New Age of Mercy; because if even yours laugh at your antics you can be Bishop of Rome, but you won’t carry a great weight after all.
Pope Bozo has abundantly trespassed every boundary of common decency, and it is time Catholic bloggers, journalists and common readers start making it clear without undue obedience for a Fuehrerprinzip the Church was never meant to have.
Unless, that is, they aren’t happy with the sacraments being made a parody of, and Catholic morality being perverted and subverted in the most shameless, if “officially unofficial”, way.
The head of the Austrian group “Wir Sind Kirche” (“We Are Church”) was excommunicated, together with her husband, for playing Mass (and, actually, “priestess”) at home. What I think happened is that these people invited a small number of satanic nutcases at home and, after tea and Sachertorte, “concelebrated” a pretend Mass.
I hope the Sachertorte was good, because the thing with the pretend Mass had a kind of a bitter outcome.
This group is, in a way, the Austrian Heresy on steroids or, if you prefer, the openly militant Austrian Heresy. A bit what the SA were to the Nazi ideology. They evidently do not limit themselves to dream of, say, priestesses; they actually play priestess themselves.
Ah, these children! They grow up so fast!
In this case, the children are clearly Satan’s willing tools. They refusal of basic Catholicism puts them squarely in the Presbyterian camp, but at least the Presbyterians have the decency to not imagine themselves Catholics.
By the by, the woman is 67 years old, showing age does not necessarily go together with wisdom, and is apparently using a title of “theologian” without the legal qualifications to do so. Where I come from this is a criminal offence of no small import. I wonder how the Austrian see that. What the matter tells me is that some people would do absolutely everything to attract attention on themselves.
I don’t pity the husband. I pity the neighbours.
Now, it is obviously good that, once in a while, we are informed the rules are enforced. But this here is truly extreme, and to infer from this any kind of “orthodoxy” of Francis would be utterly unrealistic, particularly considering the inquest against the two started in 2011. More probably, Cardinal Müller persuaded Francis that something more robust than a “slap on the wrist” had to take place. We have, anyway, always known this is one madness Francis does not support.
“Wir Sind Kirche” isn’t small fare, as in the German-speaking countries dissent is almost as fashionable now as brown was in the Thirties. They are present in more than twenty Countries, but to my knowledge they are vocal particularly in Germany and Austria. One wonders how the Austrian members will react to the news that their Dear Leader is found guilty of delicta graviora.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because this is one of those events that might open the eyes of the tepid, the ill-informed and the slow. To keep the woman at the head of the Austrian nutcase group would be telling. To oust her would force, perhaps, some soul searching.
When the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, one is forced to inform oneself as to what has happened and, if he is of sound thinking, realise they are excommunicated for refusing to compromise Catholicism. When these two are excommunicated, many will be hopefully led to realise that within this movement Catholicism is not even present in homeopathic doses.
In any way, what is sure is that we can’t infer from the punishment of this really extreme behaviour any return to orthodoxy from Francis.
It would be like praising Stalin because he did not eat children.
“Will God accept being put to the side like a useless toy for much longer?”
These are the last, ominous words of a beautiful article appeared in Riscossa Cristiana, and beautifully translated courtesy of Francesca Romana at Rorate Caeli.
I invite you to follow the link and to read there the entire article.
You will find, there, several other ominous statements. The most beautiful is from Alessandro Gnocchi, the writing partner of the late Mario Palmaro:
“We will find ourselves more and more faced with someone who professes to speak to us in the name of God by telling us that we have no need of Him.”
Gnocchi is right. But I do not want to spoil the fun. Enjoy Marco Bongi’s explanation of why this is the case.
Our clergymen have forgotten God. They worship the world and, ultimately, themselves.
It will all end up in tears. Theirs.
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.