Blog Archives

Some Answers

Paul-icon

 

 

I am asked (not directly; but together with the other readers) the following questions:

1. If I have a basic trust in the Holy Spirit working through the Body of Christ, the Church. 

2. If I have a rock-solid belief that that the Pope is working for the best of the church and the promulgation of the Catholic faith, and

3. if I can listen to him and obey as my shepherd and the Vicar of Christ.

As such questions are another symptom of the diabolical confusion nowadays being pushed  everywhere, I thought I’d give my answers: 

1.

Yes. I have a basic trust. In the end, the Holy Ghost will not allow the Church to be destroyed, and He will drive Her back to sanity. But seriously, that’s it, and the assurance is no more than that.

I do, obviously, not believe that the Holy Ghost endorses every madness happening within the Church. If I had thought that way, I would have supported the Arians when Pope Liberius of Pope Honorius supported them, and I would have believed that there is no Particular Judgment before the Universal Judgment because Pope John XXII (evidently, in this logic, hand-picked by the Holy Ghost and therefore wanting the heresy) was fully persuaded of it until, apparently, the day before he died.

2. 

You got to be joking. I have a rock-solid belief that this Pope is working for the best of himself, and the promulgation of the faith in Francis The Black-Shoed Bus-Travelling Social Justice Hero. Again, the Holy Ghost never promised us we would not have a nincompoop. Actually, there is much reason to believe He would punish us with one. As long as we refuse to understand this simple fact, we will deserve further punishment.

3.

I listen to him, and I am mostly horrified. As to the obedience, it will not stretch to the point where the Pope conflicts with Truth. Actually, with the actual red-nosed clown the confusion is such that I cannot obey to both, him and Christ. Therefore, I choose Christ.

As Francis’ disgraceful pontificate goes on, my admiration for St. Paul grows by leaps and bounds. He had the guts to publicly rebuke Peter when he was straying, and he did so with the man whom Jesus Himself had appointed, and he himself (Paul) not even one of the original Twelve. One notices a certain difference with today’s Cardinals and Bishops.

No Paul in sight, then. But this does not mean that a Pope is due obedience simply qua Pope.  He is not an oriental Satrap, and Papolatry has no place among us. 

———

Mundabor

 

 

Francis Proclaims Himself The Incarnation Of Orthodoxy.

One of the most alarming signs of the decay of Christianity in the West is the inability to put things in the proper context. In particular, this finds expression in the unquestioned acceptance of snippets and quotes used in a completely different way than the one meant by their original authors. The most dramatic example is certainly the “do not judge” quote, but one can see this mentality at work everywhere.

Say, a Pope of the past has criticised the abuse of riches: this is used to advocate a Socialist society that would have horrified that very Pope. Or, Padre Pio has stressed the virtue of obedience: this is used to demand that we be accomplices in every clerical abuse. I could go on.

The reason why this at the same time ignorant and subversive tactic “works” is that in the past the uneducated masses knew they were uneducated, and realised they had to rely on the guidance of people with a better understanding of things; besides, they were in fact guided by people who really had a sound understanding. In dramatic contrast, millions of barely literate people nowadays think themselves “educated”, and are persuaded that they are the ultimate metre of right and wrong; and are helped in this by a cowardly clergy intent in telling them all day what bright minds they are. It is, in such circumstances, certainly no surprise that every word of the past can be raped by contemporaries, amidst the applauses of the crowd.

The last example of this has been given, in the most shocking of ways, by Our Own Very Humble Jesuit-In-Chief. He has, during the crisis meeting with some FFI representatives about which Rorate and others have reported, apparently said two old things in new, and very scandalous ways:

1. The quip of St. Ignatius who said that if the superior says White is black, they must believe it, and

2. The assertion that the Pope is, tout court, the guarantor of orthodoxy, so whatever he says is orthodox.

The first phrase is most certainly a grievous abuse of a sincere call to obedience, made in times in which the spread of heresy within the Church in the measure we see today was unthinkable. The Unholy Father, the Humble Bishop, abuses of this to demand blind obedience no matter what, in the most shameless and most un-Catholic expression of Führerprinzip he has had the insolence of using up to now.

The second phrase is, if possible, even worse: it is an open invitation to shameless clericalism to the point of Papolatry, the arrogant demand that he be obeyed whatever he may say or order, because whatever he may say or order must, in virtue of his being the… Bishop, orthodox.

This isn’t Catholicism anymore. This is the talk of an Oriental Satrap, or of a Roman Emperor demanding to be deified.

Surely, Francis must accept that there is a Truth according to which his every action can be weighted and, if necessary, criticised? If he accepts this, every talk along the lines of 1. and 2. above must be balderdash. If he doesn’t, he thinks he is God, or at least wants you to treat him in the same way.

Francis is quite the Jesuit. The oh so humble Embracer Of Wheelchairs is the first one to abuse of his office with an arrogance that would beggar belief, if we would not know the man very well by now. The prophet of “do not judge” reveals his agenda, that can be summed up in: “do not judge me, whatever I do”. His demand that he be considered the true embodiment of Orthodoxy whatever he may say would be a scandal in any Pope, but it is the most so by one so evidently ignorant, so appallingly inadequate, so tragically incompetent, so shamelessly Jesuitical like this one.

Pope Uriah becomes more and more disquieting. And what disturbs more is his total lack of shame and self-control.

Mundabor

 

 

 

Fuehrerprinzip, The Catholic Way.

"To the Fuehrer Our Faithfulness"

“To the Fuehrer Our Faithfulness”. Really?

One day, in God’s good time, the present phase of stupidity and drunkenness within the Church will be overcome. We might have to wait centuries for this, but we know that the Indefectible Church always recovers. If you believe in the Blessed Virgin of Quito, though, you know that things have to first come to the point where everything seems lost. One can’t say Francis isn’t working with great alacrity so that this moment approaches as soon as possible.

Still: one day this madness and drunkenness will be gone, and those distant generations of Catholics will learn in the history books of that dark past, when Popes declared in public that atheists can be saved, dared to put “perhaps” hateful words in the mouth of Blessed Virgin; had forgotten the Fear of the Lord to the point of stating more than a slap on the wrist is not to be feared; thought Jews did not need to be converted because the Covenant still applies to them; and the other interminable list of stupid or irreverent or blasphemous things we have been reading in these disgraceful times.

When that blessed time of sanity comes back, many will ask: “how could it happen?”.

How could it happen that Pope and Cardinals spit heresies out of their mouth as if they were just the ticket, and indispensable truths? How could things come to the point that giving communion to public adulterers is openly discussed, and publicly supported by Cardinals? How could it be that salvation became a given for pretty much everyone, of whatever faith and none? How could Christ be betrayed in such manifold way; so aggressively, so publicly, so shamelessly?

The answer is very simple. The entire drunken – or evil – mess happened in part because it was concocted by evil people, but in almost equal part because too many saw the evil and preferred to stay silent.

The present demolition is not exclusively the work of the most evil or cowardly generation of clergymen to disgrace the Church since the time of the Arian heresy, but it is in almost equal measure the work of the countless silent enablers; the lazy, the cowardly, and those who think it smart to demolish what the Church has always believed and sacrifice Catholic Truth on the altar of a blind loyalty of decidedly Nazi character; a blind loyalty in which – as already seen in the case of the notorious Führerprinzip – any and every attack to Truth brought by Francis and his pack of reforming wolves is accepted on the basis that the Pope has said it, and a Catholic must therefore obey; without any reference to the Truth the Pope is called, first of all Catholics, to promote, defend and transmit intact.

The Nazis did not have a Sacred Tradition. They had not received any Depositum Fidei. They were in front of something utterly new, for which past rules of behaviour were said not to apply. What the Führer says, was followed. It was followed, because he said so. If he changed his mind, it meant that it was fitting that he now thinks differently.

Exactly this is the thinking of those advocating obedience to the Pope exclusively in virtue of his being the Pope. Francis is their Hitler. The Führerprinzip finds, by them, almost daily application. This blind following can be disguised under the usual fluffy words, like: “If the holy Father says so, it means that the, oh, Holy Spirit is, oh, guiding him in that, oh, direction!”, but in the end the meaning is clear: whatever Francis says is fine, because he said so. Fuhrerprinzip; that is, in the end, Papolatry.

This Papolatry is an even bigger mistake than the blindness of the Nazis of old; because if a Nazi could, in his blindness, at least delude himself that Christianity had to be thrown in the rubbish bin of history and a new Humanity created out of the new ideology, no one who calls himself a Christian can for one moment imagine that God has now changed His rules, and the Christianity of the past does not find application merely because the Pope says so.

The Pope is the protector of the rules, not the maker. To think that a Pope can change God’s rule is a madness bigger still than believing in the Führerprinzip.

I do hope more and more people will come to understand this in the years to come, but I am under no illusion that countless souls will be lost. The blind will follow the blind, and many of the cowardly or lazy will be led by this Pope and his cohort of willing wolves to deny Christ one piece at a time, as Francis himself denies Christ when he states that Jews don’t need to convert, nor do atheists, nor does anyone who “follows his conscience” and will get, if he denies Christ, a “slap on the wrist” at most.

Francis careless lio is a danger for countless Catholic souls. It is the product of a boundless pride (yes: pride) that lets him think he can reinvent Christianity. Many will follow him, because it is convenient to remain on the comfortable side, to refuse to see, to refuse to hear, to make Truth disposable so that our comfortable life may not be affected.

Mind my words: this Pope would be able to even participate to a “gay pride” parade. Countless would applaud him.

Many, in the centuries to come, will wonder how it could happen. This is how it could happen. Through the silence, the cowardice, or the complicity of most.

Mundabor

Papolatry Is The First Enemy

Going around several Internet sites, it is astonishing how often one reads one of the heresies and blasphemies of our times being dishes out by people who believe they are orthodox Catholics: the idea, namely, that the Holy Ghost not only handpicked the present Pontiff (which in itself is already heresy, and I would say blasphemy), but even guides him in everything he does.

Therefore, our deluded and poorly instructed friends have – or so they think – found the panacea for all the ailments of this disgraceful pontificate: whatever Francis has said must be fine, because the Holy Ghost guides him in everything.

I do not know whether this kind of thinking is most developed in Anglo-Saxon countries because people are exposed to the Protestant bollocks of “the Holy Ghost moved me to …” (Insert here whatever they wanted to do anyway, including divorce) in a way unknown in traditional Catholic countries. Still, it can't be denied it's the Anglo-Saxon countries that seem to be sleeping most soundly in front of Francis' heresies, whilst in countries like Italy, France and Spain the biggest newspapers and mass media now routinely and quite openly voice the discomfort of orthodox, observant Catholics in front of Bergoglism.

This Papolatry leads to absurd conclusions, and it is not entirely surprising the “relax, the Holy Ghost is guiding the Pope”-crowd do not see the absurdity of it. If one can believe God can inspire heresy, there is absolutely nothing he could not be made to believe.

A truly extreme example of this already extremely brainless thinking is in the comment of that chap some days ago, who wrote something on the line of “I want to see what all these angry rad trads will say when Francis changes the Teaching of the Church with a dogmatic statement”, obviously meaning such an event would prove he, not them, right.

One is truly witnessing a show of brainlessness proud of its own stupidity; a stupidity so big that it does not recognise that the alleged argument only proves the absurdity of the premise.

One of the most important tasks of Catholic blogdom in the next years will be to fight Papolatry, and repeat very often that the Holy Ghost cannot be made responsible for the sins of men and the immorality, cruelty or outright heresy of the many Popes who have so disgraced the Sea of Peter in the past.

Liberius, Honorius, John XXII and the others should be frequently mentioned – together with sound Catholic doctrine – on our blogs, so that the very knowledge about heretical popes become mainstream and the lie of papal impeccability exposed.

Whenever you can, point out to the reality of heretical popes in your social circle and at the same time stress the greatness and Indefectibility of Holy Mother Church, to which heretical popes can do no more than some unsightly scratch.

This should, in my opinion, be stressed not only with confused Catholics, but also with everyone else, lest for example a Proddie vaguely examining the idea of conversion feel discouraged from doing so because he thinks the Church is what the pope says”, or should lose respect for the Church because he has no respect for the person of Francis (and how can you blame him…).

Papolatry is the greatest enemy. It is the food out of which every subversive attemp of Francis is fed. If Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, Papolatry is what allows Modernism to be smuggled within Catholic mainstream in the first place. Papolatry is the oil that keeps Francis' heretical engine running. It is what allows countless deluded souls to exhibit themselves in astonishingly illogical mental contortionisms to justify the unjustifiable, and may well be used tomorrow to try to push the very unthinkable – like giving communion to public adulterers – down their throat. Demolish Papolatry, and Francis' heretical machine will grind to a halt like an engine left without oil.

Again, the genius mentioned above is an extreme example, but one wonders how many would be unable to make 2+2 if the Synod of next October were to take the demolition ball and use it for “pastoral” work against the Church.

Fight Papolatry as you can. At home, with relatives, at work, with friends. Unless the Catholics on the street get this, every battle will be a lost one.

We are in front of a true Modernist. Pray that he be converted, but fight his heresies – and possibly, those of his successors – to your last breath.

The Pope's good sheep. But God's first.

Mundabor

 

Finding Excuses

At times I am tempted to think there are some Catholics who measure their faith from the amount of self-delusion and utter blindness they display concerning the actions of Popes.

Apparently in the Vatican there are so many wolves you would think it is a forest in Abruzzo, but who put the alleged wolves there is obviously not worth the thinking. Until it turns out one particular wolf actually luncheswith the Bishop of Rome, who partout does not want to get rid of him. The Pope has also routinely been “badly advised”, as if the advisers were the ones with the responsibility of picking good advisers. The last one, I have read this morning in my comment box: the Bishop of Rome is now concentrating on the WYD, so he can't deal with Monsignor Ricca.

Look, the Pope is not a moron. He can choose for himself. Making decisions is, actually, the most important part of his job. Important decisions aren't so terribly frequent, particularly if one has good advisers and is not a compulsive control freak. This is why the most powerful people are in the end the ones who work the least; this is also why one can be a ninety years old leader, and a force of nature like Enrico Dandolo.

The Pope always has the time, because he does not have to do the preparatory work. Also, he always must have the brains, because otherwise he should not have accepted the offer, or should resign if he can't lead the Barque anymore; so the “he is old and weak” meme doesn't work, either. Ask Enrico Dandolo about that.

The Pope is in charge. To be in charge means not only to have the power to make decisions, but to bear the responsibility for the decisions one makes. Those who think the Pope is being inadequate criticise him, but those who think he is an old nincompoop led by the hand by his advisers positively insult him.

Nor is having a bad Pope something that denies Catholicism in any way. Having a good Pope is not part of the deal one gets as a Catholic. In fact, it is revealing that as V II promotes indifferentism and general ignorance of sound Catholicism, it also subtly but forcefully promotes Clericalism. Those who aren't instructed will rely the more on what the priest tells them, and will in time naturally believe that if the priest – more so, the bishop; more so, the cardinal; most of all, the Pope – did something, then it must be right.

In this blog I insist on the readers to make for themselves a sound foundation of Catholic doctrine, using sources after V II only if they are 100% above suspicion (say: the excellent SSPX books). This is very important now, but might become it more and more in the future as the foreseeable Papacies feed us with nothing more than easy, non controversial platitudes.

Part of this solid foundation is to know that a Pope is infallible only in extremely rare cases; that he is not picked by the Holy Ghost, but by the Cardinals; that he does not have to be a living saint and can well be a great sinner; and that he can well go to hell, where several of them very probably are.

Please stop making excuses for a Pope, because if you see the sin and bend over backwards to justify it you aren't being pious, but merely an accessory in this Pope's sin.

And don't worry: the Church eats bad Popes for breakfast, and she will bury the current Bishop of Rome as she has buried many bad, very bad or utterly rotten Popes in the past. The Church who survived every Empire and will stand when the United States are a footnote in the history books does not need for Bishop Francis to be a saintly man to keep existing, or to justify Christ's Truth. You believe what the Church believes because it is the Church of Christ, not because the Pope of the day is a saintly man.

Don't make excuses for the Pope as if he were the dumb child in the family. He is not a child, and he is most certainly not dumb. Look at his actions with the purest heart you can muster, and if you think he gives scandal, with the hand on your heart have the courage to say so; in charity as much as you can, but in truth all the time.

Catholicism always, Papolatry never.

Mundabor

Papolatry.

Curiously, the Abbe’ de Nantes never accused him of heresy: Pope St. Pius V.

From a sedevacantist site (I do not go there first; google leads me there) a rather funny (if, in the end, serious) list of excuses for the Pontiff’s appointment of Archbishop Mueller, which I give below to you with few modifications:
  • Benedict is surrounded by wolves – he’s an innocent lamb fearing for his life
  • Benedict is a victim of “The Vatican” – he can only appoint whom the Vatican bureaucrats tell him to appoint – he has no real authority
  • Benedict is going senile or off his meds
  • Benedict is weak and can’t resist the peer pressure
  • Benedict is in a liberal dream – we need to pray for him to wake up
  • Benedict doesn’t know Mueller is a heretic – how could he possibly be expected to ensure the man he appoints as watchdog of orthodoxy is orthodox himself?!
  • It’s all a big mystery – no one knows what any of this means
  • Who are you to accuse someone of heresy?
  • Just because Mueller is a heretic doesn’t mean we can know he’s a heretic
  • Just because Mueller makes heretical statements doesn’t mean he actually believes what he says
  • Mueller isn’t a heretic until Benedict says he is one — and since Benedict will never do that, Mueller can never become a heretic
  • Mueller isn’t a heretic – he’s just way smarter than all you simpletons put together.

I am no sedevacantist, and can therefore not accept the Pope be no Pope just because he makes mistakes, and at times serious ones. Many Popes before him have done, many will do. My duty as a Catholic is to bear all this with patience, do what I can to react against it, and hope that the day I die this will be counted in my favour.

But there is no denying the shocking amount of denial going on particularly among the laity. Religious know a Pope can even have heretic opinions (and reputed theologians think some did), he will merely not proclaim them in a dogmatic way. Many among the laity, on the other hand, seem to think that if the Pope were wrong then Catholicism would be wrong, and must therefore try to find any kind of excuse  to explain how what is wrong is, in the end, right.

If you ask me this is not even clericalism anymore, but simple papolatry.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: