Please follow this link first and read the news about the (of course) anonymous Argentine theologian saying that what is wrong is wrong even if the Evil Clown says it’s right.
After that, let us reflect on the sorry state of the Church after 60 years of V II.
- The need to even state that a Catholic is not allowed to follow a teaching that does not correspond to the perennial teaching of the Church is depressing. I do not blame the theologian. I blame the Argentinian (and all other V II) priests who have practiced Papolatry all these years.
- Just as depressing is the fact that the theologian feels the need to clarify that it is absolutely false to think that “they must now endorse the Buenos Aires approach under pain of heresy”. Apparently, some people think that being a heretic, nowadays, is not endorsing heresy.
- Francis’ Amoris Laetitia statements are called “novel teaching”. Would you call 2+2=5 a “novel teaching?” I would call it rubbish, not novel teaching. Francis spreads and defends heresy and it is time that theologians, anonymous or otherwise, start calling an evil clown an evil clown
Lack of clarity leads to confusion. To say to a confused (and very ignorant, and sorely in need of instruction) Catholic that Francis is proposing a “novel teaching” is very dangerous, because it gives to heresy the dignity of teaching.
Let our yea be yea. let us heresy by its proper name. Enough with walking on eggshells.
The Age of Confusion will only end when clarity of speaking take its place.
I am now imagining what would happen if the Evil Clown were to, say, officially declare Consubstantiation the official truth of the church, with “no other interpretation”. Say, with a letter to a Protestant leader published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Some would say that this is a publicly stated private opinion, and therefore does not really matter.
Others would state that Francis must be somewhat right, because there must be something that has been divinely revealed to Francis alone.
Some more still would say that Francis does not want to undermine the doctrine about Transubstatiation, but merely offer a pastoral interpretation of it.
Some others would say that the Sweet Peter on Earth is being badly advised by “the wolves”, profiting from his kindness of heart. He, himself, must be free of blame.
More still would say that the Pope was, really, talking off the cuff, though due to his advanced age he forgot to let us know.
We would be treated to “ten things to know and share”, at the end of which we would discover that everything is fine but the Pope should work on his syntaxis.
All the above would, obviously, call themselves “Conservatives”.
Cardinal Burke would give interview #327, stating that the end must be very, very near now; and doing, as always, nothing.
In these difficult days, I see around me two ways in which some bloggers and commenters try to escape reality.
1) They say that Francis is not the Pope. Wrong. Francis is the Pope because the entire Church, the entire Church hierarchy and the entire planet see him as the Pope. He is not even challenged. Not even by the one (Benedict) who according to some is the real and only Pope. The surreal consequence of this is the decision that the one the entire world sees as Pope should not be it, whilst the one some of them say is the only Pope says that he is merely a retired emeritus, and Francis is in charge. A challenge to a throne without even a challenger simply does not exist; it is fantasy, not fact.
Reality matters. However sad and unprecedented this situation is, we face it without thinking that we can decide who is, or isn't, Pope.
2) They downplay Francis' heretical acts and statement, because they are ready to bend over backwards and produce themselves in the most bizarre contortions in order to avoid stating another facts staring at us in the face: that we have a heretical Pope.
Reality, again, matters. The discussion whether Francis is in formal or material heresy is, if you ask me, less important than the agreement on the fact that should be universally acknowledged: that this Pope fosters error and must now – by the bishops and cardinals – be forced to recant it or deposed.
If Francis' heresy is formal, then he has factually made himself unworthy of and factually resigned his office together with his membership of the Church; but this renounciation would still have to be declared in order to depose him, and until that moment he would still be the holder of the office. In the same way, if a POTUS is found in the act of committing a multiple murder he certainly deserves impeachment, but he is still in office until the impeachment is voted, declared and made operative.
If, on the contrary, Francis' heresy is material, then the preliminary stage would be a last offer to recant his error, albeit such a possibility could be offered, in theory, also to a formal heretic.
The situation is, if you ask me, as clear as the sun, because it appears in front of our eyes with all the evidence of hard facts: a heretic seats on the throne of Peter. Still a heretic, and still sitting, with no challenger in sight. This has happened in the past, will happen in the future, is very sad, and has probably never happened with such virulence (even Honorius could have been weakly defended; Francis is indefensible) in the entire history of the Church. Still, here we are, confronted with facts, not our fanciful and very Protestant interpretation of them.
A heretic seats on the throne of Peter, and we were never given assurance that this would not be the case. His heretical energy and hate for the Church is unprecedented, but do is the rebellion of Vatican II. The most astonishing betrayal of proper theology and abandonment of proper governance must perforce lead to the most astonishing explosion of heresy from the top and abuse from the bottom. This is what V II looked like from the very start; it merely needed sixty years for the ugly face of heterodoxy to completely emerge.
I am merely a layman. No Pope has ever depended on my opinion to decide whether he is really Pope, and it is perfectly right this way. Do not escape from reality. Use it as you would for everything else. Apply common sense and Church Teaching. The Church will get out of this as she has from all the rest.
Every single time Francis does something atrocious, there is the one or other theologian explaining to us that Francis has not proclaimed a new dogma, or abolished Canon 915, or the like.
Yeah, well, interesting as an intellectual curiosity. Still, I think that the approach is totally wrong, and that we must stop circling around the real problem. If there is a hurricane going on, I am not really interested in the way the ozone layer reacts to it, nor am I reassured by the newly imparted knowledge. There is a hurricane going on, this is what counts.
Canon 915 is not just another canon. It reflects perennial teaching of the Church. Therefore, the prohibition of Canon 915 cannot be changed, sabotaged, or otherwise circumvented by anyone, and be him the Pope.
Every article reassuring you that Canon 915 has not been touched actually sends these messages: a) that it could be made, legitimately, hollow at some point in future and: b) that the Canon is being sabotaged but hey, don’t worry, it’s still there!
This is, emphatically, not the case in point. The point is that the Church prohibits communion for adulterers, and Francis is going against this prohibition. Therefore, any discussion about the matter should begin and end with the obvious recognition that no one, not even a Pope, can change iota unum in the matter of communion for adulterers. All the rest is, again, walking around the huge elephant in the room, pretending not to see it.
Which leads to the second matter: heresy. I am not at all interested in the discussion about whether Francis is a formal heretic in the strict sense of the matter. For me, and for every God-fearing Catholic on the street, heresy does not begin when a dogma is officially put in question or denied, or there is an attempt to change it ex cathedra. Heresy is, in the common parlance of God-fearing Catholics, the willed promotion of heterodox thinking and the working in order to subvert what the Church has always believed, irrespective of whether a dogma has been touched or not. Pope John XXII is, rightly, considered a heretical Pope because he promoted such a thinking, even if the contrary belief of the Church had not been declared a dogma yet.
It follows from this that Pope Francis is a heretic and must be seen as such by every God-fearing Catholic; that every one of his actions meant to sabotage the Depositum Fidei in any way, shape or form must be condemned in the strongest terms, and refused obedience; and that we, the God-fearing Catholics, must demand that our Cardinals and Bishops grow a pair already, react to Francis’ endless provocations, and demand that he recants his heretical statements or face deposition.
Which, if it does not happen, does not cause the end of the world, nor the end of the Catholic faith. It merely causes the age to plunge into a deeper state of confusion, analogue to the one experienced in the time of Honorius, A situation of confusion from which, if the Bishops and Cardinals do not intervene, God will free us at some point, when the justly meted punishment for the madness of Vatican II has been recognised, and its evil acknowledged and repented.
A heretical Pope is still the Pope. Honorius was still the Pope. Marcellinus was still the Pope. Liberius was still the Pope. John XXII was still the Pope. There is no Church record stating that they were no Popes during the time of their heterodoxy. Not even the ecumenical council caused by Pope Honorius’ heresies stated such a thing.
But a heretical Pope is a Pope that should, now, be forced to change his ways or deposed (as happened with Marcellinus and John XXII, and did not happen with Honorius and, in a different way, with Liberius); failing which the bishops and cardinals who have refused to act (talking to you, Cardinal Burke!) will pay the most horrible price for their cowardice.
Catholics lived with a heretical Pope before. They are living with a heretical Pope now. Shit and Pope Francis happen. It is not for us to decide who is and is not Pope.
But it is for us to acknowledge an obvious, factual situation and ask that our shepherds do their darn job already.
In these difficult times, we must remember who we are and what we stand for.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty. I do not believe in Francis, the Lewd Commie.
What I believe is perfectly rational, and logical, and holy. What I am living is the consequence of sixty years of V II madness, something I – and we all – knew already.
It would be worse than childish; it would be satanical to start doubting what has been transmitted to us, merely because something is happening that been, also, believed for a long time.
When the ecclesiastical authorities approved the apparition of the Blessed Virgin in Quito, they were fully conscious of the danger that always surround the (earthly) Church. The devil incessantly works to undermine not only your own salvation, but the Christian institutions here on earth: from priests to bishops and from cardinals to popes, Satan looks for those whom he may devour; and by devouring those he may hope (in a way) that many others may come to him through loss of faith and unbelief.
Do you want to be devoured by Satan? No?
Man up, then, and realise that it is our own collective stupidity that has given us all this; a stupidity that begins with John XXIII and ends with the many poisonous fruits of V II, from the openly, now officially heretical Francis to the openly, now officially cowardly Cardinal Burke, the wet kitten meowing about the end of the world instead of doing the only thing he should do: officially denounce the Pope as heretic and demand that he either retract or be deposed by an imperfect Council. But then again this is one who thinks that the SSPX is “in schism”, go figure…
Many will, very obviously, be damned, to whom it was given to be born in these disgraceful times. I have no intention of being counted among them. Do you? No?
Well then, repeat to yourself every day, and every hour, that you will not squander the immense grace of having been, through God's mercy, introduced to proper Catholic instruction even in these disgraceful times. Pray for strength and solid faith, and work on it every day of your life. Do not waiver. Stand firm like a rock against the waves of heresies coming from Francis and his bunch of atheists and homos.
The Christmas now rapidly approaching reminds us that the wonderful, luminous truth lies in that manger, not in the satanical madness of an old, lewd boor.
After the official proclamation of heresy beyond any reasonable doubt some of the understandably shocked Catholics will now experience, methinks, a certain sense of disorientation. Therefore, it seems to me that it is now necessary to go back in time and search whether something like that has ever happened in the history of the Church, and what happened next.
It seems to me that we are now in a phase of obvious Honorius 2.0 : the Pope was officially a heretic and the Bishops (there were no Cardinals then) simply did nothing for as long as the Pope was in charge, and for some time afterwards.
Did the See become vacant? No.
Did the Church die? No.
Did the world end? No.
The Church, which is Indefectible, survived Honorius, and she will survive Francis, irrespective of how many bishops and cardinals will be sent to hell for the offences done to her.
What happened next? At some point after the death of Honorius, it was decided to right the heresy with the extremely strong move of an Ecumenical Council. Mind, though: as long as he lived, Honorius did not have to retract and I have no knowledge of official resistance of the bishops, or threat to declare Honorius self-deposed (as it was done, though the details are unclear, with Pope Marcellinus) in virtue of the offence committed (“Judge thyself!”, the bishops famously said to Marcellinus).
Yes, we are tested. We are tested by the cowardice and idiocy of the Burkes of the world almost as much as we are tested by the obvious faithlessness and heresy of Francis. But let us put things in the proper context here: just as the faithful in the time of Honorius were not so important that Honorius’ heresy had to mean the end of the church, or of the world, or of whatever is good and holy, we are not so important that this officially heretical pontificate has to mean that the end times are now near.
Instead of waiting for Armageddon (which will come, have no doubt about this, at the appointed time anyway), you had better pray more and reflect that you, and everyone else, is expected to know and follow the manual irrespective of what Francis says.
If the world ends, be prepared. But hey, be prepared anyway, and consider that the world did not end in the time of Honorius.
As I have developed an allergic reaction to meaningless whining and “the end is near” doom saying, I will not publish any comment that does now incite the readers to do (to pray more, to do more penance, to become more active in our sphere of influence) rather than to whinge.
Man up, grab your shield, and go to war.
Yours is not the first generation to experience the seemingly unthinkable.
From what you can read in the link above, it is going to have a nice mixture of what we already know (the arrogance and repression of every Catholic voice and impulse, the astonishing lack of every sense of shame and coherence), what many of us have already suspected (the habitual vulgarity and the explosions of bad temper), and what is new but not surprising (the open opposition of his Jesuit superiors and colleagues, when some of them were still Catholics, to him as a person and to him becoming a Bishop).
It is very consoling to this old heart to see that what was seen, only a couple of years ago, as the unforgiving rant of some bitter bloggers is now becoming a mainstream topic, at the point of having books exclusively centered on the peculiar traits of the Evil Clown being published in several languages.
You are welcome.
As they say in Italy, il tempo e’ galantuomo: time is a gentleman, in that it takes care that everyone is treated fairly. But it is not so, that I – and those who, like me, exposed the crass nature and innate vulgarity of this man – have particular divination instincts.
The reality was there, staring at us in the face. Every Italian mother tongue could easily recognise in the “#azzo” (this is an extremely vulgar Italian word) video the nonchalance, the naturalness of use of the man who is accustomed to pronounce such words often; like you would see in, say, a coarse daily labourer trying to engage in “clean” conversation and failing miserably as his habit has the better of him. It was also not difficult to realise that, among civilised people, refusing to show up at a concert where he was to be the main guest, the host, and the people the invitees where there to see without any warning is the obvious mark and business card of the vulgar boor.
It was all there. One only needed to be willing to see.
I have, by the way, suspected for a long time the Catholicism and general morality of Bergoglio’s parents.
It can, obviously, always be that good parents are tested with a son going totally astray notwithstanding their honest effort. But it is far more probable that negative traits so ingrained in this man (from the obviously extremely vulgar disposition to the great propensity for shameless lies: “soon, soon!”) are the product of either parental environment or careless child raising. Being Italian, I know that demographics: the lowly educated, coarse, vulgar, resentful blue or very low white collars who have been, for decades, the hunting ground of the Communist Party. I have been to school with their children, and I have observed the parents (who were, I am happy to say, so shockingly different from mine). You could easily see that those particular apples had not fallen far from their respective trees. You could also, growing up, easily notice that decent parents never had vulgar sons, only vulgar parents had. You could also see that past the age of mandatory schools (where they almost invariably failed to take advantage of the excellent education system Italy provides to everyone, irrespective of social condition; a trait vastly different from Anglo-Saxon Countries) they rapidly fell behind as those properly raised started to spend countless hours on Latin, Greek, History, Philosophy and other disciplines that, actually, teach you to think, and behave like a decent man, why the sons of the Communist-voting proletariat became exactly like their fathers and mothers, vulgarity and lack of skills included.
I wonder whether some of the coarse, vulgar, bullying, resentful school comrades on my childhood should not have entered a Jesuit seminary instead.
Who knows. In time, they could have become the Pope.
100 years ago, a Communist organisation took control of a Country (and of a huge one at that) for basically the first time in history as the Parisian “Commune” can certainly not be counted as seizing control of a Country.
Communism is – like his bastard little brother, Socialism – the fruit of a godless mentality that does not see reality for what it is – the fruit of the Fall, with all its attending problems – but, rather, for what it should become if the toy called planet earth were, so to speak, repaired and made to work as it always should have. This is the thinking of children, and of godless adults.
Inequality is not a bug, it is a feature. People having the most varied inclinations and the widest differences of willingness, intelligence, resilience, and appetite for risk, it must follow that they will range – in a completely sinless, utterly justified way – on an extremely long staircase concerning their degree of security, prosperity and quality of life.
Poverty – which is the aspect of inequality leftists cry about the most, though I am pretty sure few of them have ever experienced it – is also, as Our Lord taught us, always going to be with us. It must be so, because poverty teaches humility, encourages to prayer, and helps look heavenwards in all one's endeavour; whilst in some circumstances also being the deserved consequence of laziness, profligacy, entitlement mentality, and general wrong thinking.
War is, also, the result of the Fall. It is childish – nay: it is outright stupid – to think that bad guys will disappear from the earth only because nations gather together in a forum that is nothing more but the collection of all rubbish regimes on the planet. The bad guy will never be “history”, and there will always be need of good guys ready to fight and die to stop him.
You can't “make poverty history”. You can't put an end to wars. As Communism is on its way to becoming history at least as an ideology able to run entire Countries – Socialism will possibly always be with us, because stupidity will – poverty has, unsurprisingly for every Catholic, not only remained but it has been generously multiplied by those same people who claimed they would put an end to it. Sanity wins in the end, albeit sometimes at the price of countless millions of victims.
We, the smart set, do not try to make poverty history. We work towards making Communism history. And with Communism, we want to throw in the rubbish bin of history all that nonsense about inequality, “war no more”, and all the thinking that comes from forgetting God. We want, most of all, purge Catholicism from this cancer.
Make Pope Francis history.
Poverty, war, and godless people will always be with us.
Gotta admire a Mr Ed Conlon, writing for the EWTN owned CNA.
Mr Conlon has some kind of superpowers. He sees something no one else seem to notice. besides the rubbish about how bad the opponent of TheFrancis are, what is most amusing is Mr Conlon’s assured assertion that the Pope is clearly against communion for divorced and remarried. The entire planet – and four Cardinals – are moaning the state of utter confusion in which this man has – make no mistake: willfully, and only because he is too cowardly to go beyond confusing – plunged the Church, but this does not seem to faze the author in the least. No, what he thinks is happening is that we have an orthodox pope, but the entire planet is mad because the wrong people (people whom, in part, he keeps employing and keeping in position of great responsibility) distort his message.
This must be the greatest Pollyanna effort I have read this year. It is, actually, between tragic and amusing that as we are about to approach the second Christmas of utter chaos there should still be around people who keep flogging this not only dead, but by now abundantly decomposed horse of the “misunderstood Pope”. Not only the letter to the Argentinian bishops is enough to expose the utter rubbish propagated by this article: far more to the point, the refusal of the pope to answer the Dubia (something an orthodox, if not good at words, Pope could and would have done in less time than Usain Bolt needs to run 100 meters) and the disheartening evidence of conflicting practices now spreading all over the Catholic world are more than enough to show what the intentions of this evil Pope are: sabotage Catholicism as much as he can whilst avoiding a frontal, all-out assault to the Church he so evidently hates; something for which he clearly – and by God’s grace – has no spine.
As the hired pens of this disgraceful Pontiff keep embarrassing themselves, thus utterly destroying the reputation of so-called moderate Catholic outlets (I wouldn’t call today’s ETWN conservative by any standard of conservatism), those who have a brain to think and a soul to save keep realising that this Pope is a menace to the faith, and a very personal threat to their own salvation.
Beware of the Pollyannas. At this point, theirs is way more than naivete.
It is disingenuousness in the most serious of matters like the defense of Catholic truth.
This long article from the UK-based, proto-communist Guardian is extremely instructive (inasmuch as people who don’t understand anything of Catholicism can be instructive) for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
The author obviously does not understand anything of Catholicism: the insisted accent on the difference between how the world is and how the world should be according to the Church, as if this were a problem for the Church, is obvious demonstration; the one about it being necessary that Catholics give communion to adulterers to avoid the risk of extinction is so stupid that it must be a bad pun) and has no theological depth at all (it is not true that divorced and “remarried” people already receive communion all over the world; but this is utterly irrelevant: the question is whether anyone who does so, which is very easy to do, commits a very grave sacrilege.
However, even people who have done nothing more than a shallow research of the facts, and can’t write an article without giving us countless examples of ignorance and incompetence understand this: Francis is a heretic by every Catholic standard of the last two thousand years.
In his confused way (fake news abound all over the article, see the already mentioned example) the author sees it as evident that what Francis does is the contrary of what Popes for two thousand years before him have done. That this is supposed to be good does insult the intelligence of the writer (even an atheist should be able to understand that this is not acceptable for Catholicism, and therefore Francis is is simply an unacceptable Pope), but it does not change the facts.
This article, like many other secular interventions in favour of the Evil Clown, indicts Pope Francis even as it supports him. If a magazine called Satanism Today praised Francis in high tones, what would that demonstrate about him?
Look and stun, Catholic world.
A Pope is praised by the Guardian for his battle against Catholicism.
I know, I know… it is a doctrinal requirement that a priest be male, not unmarried; and in fact, married priests (people who have married before ordination) have been common in the Eastern tradition and are, on occasion, found today (say: Mickey Mouse Anglican “priest” who converts to Catholicism and is ordained a real one).
But this is not the point.
The point is that celibacy is so intimately linked to the way Catholics understand the priesthood, that to do away with it would very seriously undermine the way the Catholic Church sees herself all over the West.
There are very valid reasons why a priest should not be married. In general (and your uncle, who is a former Mickey Mouse priest now become a real one, is most certainly the exception) it is safe to say that a celibate priest is free to serve God only, but a married priest has to think of his wife and children. From transfers to martyrdom, and thinking of the cares of daily life alone, a priest is not as free to be exclusively dedicated to his flock, if he has a family under his roof. His son’s flu will be in the way of his flock’s illnesses. His wife will be a constant element in his life decisions; he will not be so free to even choose persecution at the hands of his own bishop, if wife and children are in the picture.
The now widely reported rumours about Francis authorising a sort of generalised married priesthood (perhaps only in certain Countries first, like Brazil and Germany; using the incremental demolition methods so often used in the Age of Madness) would be, whilst not heretical in the way Amoris Laetitia is heretical, a terrible blow to the Church, making her even more similar, from a pure factual point of view, to the Protestant sects we have seen dying all over Europe for many decades now. Francis’ hate for everything that is Catholic does not stop at a frontal attack to the Sacraments. Everything must be sabotaged, deformed, and made unCatholic in a pathetic attempt to rescue a Barque which, if it were not for Her promised Indefectibility, would at this point appear condemned to sink.
Let me say this once again: if we had had real Cardinals and Bishops instead of kitten in the last two years, we would not be at this point now. If Amoris Laetitia had plunged the Church into an extremely hard confrontation between Catholics and heretics, Francis would now think thrice before throwing more petrol on the flames. It is only the utter silence (with the isolated meowing here and there) of our clergy that allows him to go on with his devastation work with the currently enjoyed – bar divine intervention – certainty of impunity.
Make no mistake: this rumoured “married priesthood” would be a bone cancer for the Church. A cancer even worse than an isolated, at some point unavoidably terminated Francis papacy. A cancer sure to spread in years to come, leaving a trail of self-destruction the like of which we have, up to now, barely imagined.
As I sit writing this, I have troubles even to think of a Western diocese in which the majority of priests are married as “Catholic”. It goes against what I always thought of the priesthood since a little child. It is a fundamental facial plastic surgery to the Church as we know it in the West.
We need to pray every day for the death of this Pope and the demise of the toxic legacy of this Pontificate. It won’t get better, and the more our kitten limit themselves to meow, the more these enemies of the Church will feel emboldened.
The “World meeting of Families”, which will be held (if Francis is alive; please pray today that this be not the case) in Dublin in August of next year, is going to be quite the homo-fest.
The intent is very clear and it is being aggressively pushed already now, many months before the main event: to smuggle every kind of perverted fake relationship as “family” in some way or other, with the usual excuse of the “accompanying” (to hell) and such like rubbish.
This will be the greatest homo-push ever perpetrated even by the satanical Francis’ pontificate. Prepare yourself now to read so-called “c”atholic news outlet of the “Aleteia” variety to celebrate the “evolution” in the doctrinal understanding of evil filth, which is just as logical as if the same outlets would celebrate Francis’ new understanding of logic or mathematics.
The homophilic hell-fest must be countered with an extremely aggressive stance from us, those who think that two and two will always be four. I encourage every blogger and every commenter on whatever site or blog to sharpen the tone and call this pope and his minion what they are: atheist, perverted, heretical, Christ-hating scum that must be ridiculed and insulted in every way by the militant laity until other events – outside of our control – get us rid of this unspeakable filth.
Bloggers, commenters, readers, think of this: one day you will die; how will the saying that in front of the greatest onslaught on truth in two thousand years of history you did not want to appear impolite make you look?
What the heart feels the mouth must cry. If the mouth remains oh so polite, is the heart really wounded?
Start the offensive now. Go on blogging, commenting, and praying. Talk about this mess with colleagues and friends. Do not eschew the confrontation, embrace it.
Be a Crusader, raise your voice if needs be, lose friends if needs be!
You will have enough friends in paradise.
One can only be grateful that the Lord, whilst punishing us with this nincompoop, gives us the possibility to understand what an ass he is.
In his umpteenth interview, anticipating the umpteenth book not written by him, Francis allows us to have a glimpse of the life of an idiot when he becomes Pope.
An interview is not a lecture.
Boy, I though a Pope was given the job to do exactly that.
He values “spontaneity” and avoids “rigid formulas”.
Translation: “I don’t know jack of Catholicism and every time I open my mouth I put my foot in it. Therefore, I prefer to call it spontaneity. Not that I care about learning anything of it anyway”
Interviews have “pastoral value”.
Good Lord, if they have to have any value one should take care that they are precisely and correctly formulated, eh, no? This idiot seems to think that if you want to be “pastoral” you have the right to be confused, and confusing. The stupidity of this man is so mind-boggling that it’s a mystery how anyone can still believe he is not an utter idiot, besides being evil.
He never prepares for interviews.
What a lazy, lazy ass. He is the Pope, and he can’t be bothered to be prepared when he wants to speak to his sheep. Let me say it again: what a lazy, lazy ass.
Being misinterpreted is a “pastoral risk” he is “willing to take”.
What arrogance. Can you imagine a Mathematics teacher saying that he prefers to be spontaneous and his pupils getting his wrong is a risk he is willing to take? How more important is Catholicism than Mathematics?
“I have the nerve, but I am also very shy,”
You have the arrogance, but you are also very stupid.
The Miracle of the Sun is 100 years today. What happened at Cova da Iria on 13 October 1917 is one of the greatest gifts a merciful God and His Mother ever gave to a skeptic humanity, prone not to believe unless they have seen. On that day, tens of thousands have seen. We reflect on the events 100 years later and recognise, once again, that we keep being unfaithful, and undeserving of the gifts given to us.
One hundred years later, the consecration of Russia has not happened. In addition, a lurid process of obfuscation of Our Lady’s warnings has taken place, steered by the same Vatican.
And then there is the vision of hell, happened during the series of apparitions:
These are the words with which Sister Lucia described the vision:
“She opened Her hands once more, as She had done the two previous months. The rays [of light] appeared to penetrate the earth, and we saw, as it were, a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls [of the damned]. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke. Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fright (it must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons were distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. That vision only lasted for a moment, thanks to our good Heavenly Mother, Who at the first apparition had promised to take us to Heaven. Without that, I think that we would have died of terror and fear.”
One hundred years after the series of events in Fatima, culminating on the miracle at Cova da Iria, the extremely brutal warning on hell afforded by this terrifying vision has obviously escaped the current Pope; who, just days ago, allowed without recantation an interview to be published in which he, to use the arrogant words of the atheist journalist author, abolished hell.
One hundred years later, the Church is living a crisis – nay, a satanic infiltration – that seems to threaten her very existence, and the reigning Pope tries to transform the Church in the exact contrary of what Fatima stands for. One hundred years later, it is fair to say that the reigning Pope is more likely to consecrate Russia to Stalin than to the Blessed Virgin.
As the last of the Fatima apparitions occurred, on 13 October 1917, an atheist, devastating ideology was only weeks away from taking power in Russia and start a reign of terror with global ambitions that went on for many decades. One hundred years later only some faint echoes of that terror remain, as Communist regimes have been almost extinct. What tragic irony that one of their few remaining, closeted admirers – as always, not in formal words, but in the espousing of the ideology, of the social hatred, and of the utter Godlessness – should be, of all people, the Pope.
This day should be a sobering remainder of the extent of our unfaithfulness and of the pit of irreligious thinking in which our entire Christian Civilisation has fallen in these 100 years, as millions of “c”atholics with tattoos, approving of their fornicating children, indifferent to sexual perversion, barely uncomfortable with abortion and utterly approving of contraception are busy clapping in church as they read sacred texts and give communion to each other with sanctimoonious “peace ‘n love” faces.
Francis has not come out of a vacuum. He is the product of decades of stupidity. Cova da Iria, 100 years later, reminds us of how big the stupidity has now become.
The umpteenth interview of the Evil Clown with Eugenio Scalfari is another scandal not only for the obviously heretical statements allegedly made by Francis (statements which the Evil Clown will not, as happened in the past, deny or recant, thus assuming full responsibility for them) but also for the unbelievably arrogant, and ignorant, language used by Scalfari himself.
It is stupid beyond belief to say that Francis has “abolished” hell, or purgatory, or whatever God has created. Francis cannot change one iota of truth. Christ, the King, will make sure he becomes aware of that. Scalfari, who does not believe in God, is mocking Christian belief in the breath as he propagates Francis’ heresies, and the two seem quite fine with the whole exercise.
Apart from the often mentioned heretical statement of Francis about the non existence of souls in hell (which, let me be clear about this, show that he does not believe in Christ), it is also offensive, in a particularly disgusting way, that this man keeps giving interview to a squalid (if intelligent; way more so than our Ass in Chief) individual who uses them to mock the faith of Christians.
The conclusion of this is obvious: Francis hates Christianity and, not being able to mock it in such direct way as he could, is all too happy to give interviews to people who will express their mockery far better than he ever could.
These two will, unless they repent, have a lot to talk in hell.