Blog Archives

Bishop Schneider Replies To The “Remnant”

The link is here.  I have read the comment with an appeal to spread the letter in the Catholic blogosphere (something I wanted to do anyway) and I happily follow the suggestion.

The text below in its entirety. Emphases and comments mine.


May 26, 2016

Dear Mr. Matt:
Thank you for your greetings. I wrote an answer to The Remnant‘s Open Letter, which I send to you in the attachment and you can publish. God bless abundantly you and your apostolate for the Catholic faith. With cordial greetings in Jesus and Mary,

+ Athanasius Schneider

Dear Mr. Christopher A. Ferrara:
On May 9, 2016 you published on “The Remnant” website an open letter to me regarding the question of the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia”.

As a bishop, I am grateful and at the same time encouraged to receive from a Catholic layman such a clear and beautiful manifestation of the “sensus fidei” regarding the Divine truth on marriage and the moral law. [as the clergy descends in a pit of heresy and complicity with it, some brave laymen still have the gut to talk]. 

I am agreeing with your observations as to those expressions in AL (“Amoris laetitia”), and especially in its VIII’s chapter, which are highly ambiguous and misleading. In using our reason and in respecting the proper sense of the words, one can hardly interpret some expressions in AL according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church.

In AL, there are of course expressions which are obviously in conformity with the Tradition [this is no news, and cannot be used to cover up the heresy]. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at stake are the natural and logical consequences of the ambiguous expressions of AL [this is, indeed, news; because this is heresy and blasphemy coming from a Pope]. Indeed, they contain a real spiritual danger, which will cause doctrinal confusion, a fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines concerning marriage and moral law, and also the adoption and consolidation of the praxis of admitting divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, a praxis which will trivialize and profane, as to say, at one blow three sacraments: the sacrament of Marriage, of Penance, and of the Most Holy Eucharist.

In these our dark times, in which Our Beloved Lord seems to sleep in the boat of His Holy Church [as even the Pope spreads heresy unchallenged], all Catholics, beginning from the bishops up to the simplest faithful, who still take seriously their baptismal vows, should with one voice (“una voce”) make a profession of fidelity, enunciating concretely and clearly all those Catholic truths, which are in some expressions of AL undermined or ambiguously disfigured.[AL is so bad, that it is the duty of absolutely everyone to speak out against it] It would be a kind of a “Credo” of the people of God. AL is clearly a pastoral document (i.e., by its nature of temporal character) and has no claims to be definitive. We have to avoid to “make infallible” every word and gesture of a current Pope. This is contrary to the teaching of Jesus and of the whole Tradition of the Church. Such a totalitarian understanding and application of Papal infallibility is not Catholic, is ultimately worldly, like in a dictatorship; it is against the spirit of the Gospel and of the Fathers of the Church [it is Fuehrerprinzip].

Beside the above mentioned possible common profession of fidelity, there should be made to my opinion, by competent scholars of dogmatic and moral theology also a solid analysis of all ambiguous and objectively erroneous expressions in AL [there is so much more that is wrong in AL besides the attacks to the sacraments. Therefore, we should dissect the entire work very carefully]. Such a scientific analysis should be made without anger and partiality (“sine ira et studio”) and out of filial deference to the Vicar of Christ .

[We live in very disgraceful times, and I have no hope whatever that the situation will improve during our lifetime. However….]I am convinced that in later times the Popes will be grateful that there had been concerning voices of some bishops, theologians and laypeople in times of a great confusion. Let us live for the sake of the truth and of the eternity, “pro veritate et aeternitate”!

+ Athanasius Schneider,                

Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana ■



Laudato Si: The Execution

Extremely instructive, and very amusing, article of Chris Jackson about Laudato Si on “The Remnant”.

It’s the hanging, drowning and quartering of Laudato Si, and a fully deserved one.

I am sorry for the poor man that he had to endure the boredom and adrenaline (such documents inspire both already at reading the brief excerpts) of going through the entire pile of dung. But his pain was not in vain, as this is a survey sufficient to make clear to every sane reader what kind of embarrassment this not very intelligen tman has put himself in with his encyclicals; a work which, no doubt, he thought would be seen as a new milestone in Church teaching and is now buried in ridicule two days after official release.


I will not mention any particular segment of this brilliant work as I think it should be read in its entirety. 

I must, also, repeat the encouragement of Mr Jackson. There is no need to read this crap. Did you ever read Das Kapital in order to refute Communism? 

This vain old man truly has pinkled out of the WC, and the stinking pool of piss is now there for the world to see. As for Francis himself, I doubt he has even noticed. 

This encyclical will be soon forgotten, and the furious reaction of those whom the entire world recognises as the orthodox Catholics has destroyed his potential for damage. I doubt one single person on the planet will change his mind concerning global warming because of this extremely long, and extremely embarrassing, papal enviro-fart. 

It is unlikely that any of your friends or relatives or acquaintances will ask you what you think about the encyclical. in the improbable case, I suggest that you hasten to apologise to him, as a Catholic, for the inexcusable behaviour of the pope, and make very clear that you and all sound thinking Catholics are deeply embarrassed at the sad spectacle the man is giving.   




John XXII, The Heretical Pope

Francis ante litteram: Pope John XXII, heretical bully almost until the end.

Francis ante litteram: Pope John XXII, heretical bully almost until the end.


In the first of two blog posts dedicated to a series of beautiful articles taken from the “Remnant”, I will copy the link to four articles dedicated to the grave crisis in which Pope John XXII plunged the Church in the first part of the XIV Century.

The second blog post will be dedicated to a very actual issue: how a Pope can be deposed. 

In both cases, I will add my short personal consideration. 

The articles will, also, be put in a special “page” (this is how WordPress calls the fixed pages you see at the top) on my blog, in the hope that it will attract, in time, the attention of readers surfing the waves of the Internet in the search for some guidance in the present confusion.  

I invite, here, to say the prayers you would think adequate for the author of the articles, Mr Chris Jackson (see below), and for those who run this beautiful site, a bastion of Catholic sanity in a world of fake “c”atholics, Pollyannas, prostitutes, and utter potheads. 


The series of article you see linked below (make a tea; put on some music; make the time; you will not regret it) teaches, in my eyes, some very important lessons: 

1) Under the pretence of meekness, John was a first-class bully of the most dangerous sort. I am reminded of someone here. 

2) John called to an open discussion between orthodoxy and heresy. The discussion should, obviously, never have taken place in the first place. The parallel with today’s situation is striking. 

3) Pope John feigned a half-hearted “neutrality”, but in the praxis he clearly pushed his own agenda. Francis does exactly the same. 

4) Good Catholics who love truth expressed himself against him with such violence, that one of them was even arrested. If your heart cares, your mouth will show it. I can’t tell you what sympathy I have for those who are inflamed in their anger, because they see the Church they love attacked; or how much I despise the “nice guys” who would not be able to say anything “unkind” to the Antichrist if they had him in front of them.

Nicety is the new religion. Give me the old one. 

5) Pope John XXII’s propositions were not in the least less heretical because the immediacy of the beatific vision once a soul has entered paradise had not (yet) been proclaimed dogmatically. This had not happened simply because no Pope had been such a bonehead as to put the teaching into question. To say that every Catholic truth that is not dogmatically defined can be questioned without incurring in the sanction of heresy is the sheer madness, and would simply spell the end of Catholicism. Heretical is what goes against the deposit of the faith. The issue at hand might or might not have been defined dogmatically (this will, generally, be dependent on whether controversies arose about it), but if it has been always believed by the church, to go against it is to commit heresy; which is why John XXII is considered – until his final repentance – a heretical Pope.   “The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval”. This, of course, irrespective of whether the heresy is formal or material. 

6) I wish I could share the enthusiasm of the author of the article for the wonderful repentance of John XXII. Whilst I do not doubt his final repentance was sincere – the imminence of death must focus the mind uncannily – I am too much of a cynical not to believe that the man backpedaled because the situation on the ground made the stake appear his most probable final destination if he had insisted, after due warning, in his heretical position. We must reflect that it is very widely believed that a Pope can be formally deposed as a heretic (there will be another post on this, also based on a beautiful “Remnant” article) and, at that point, loses all the protection accorded to him not only as Pope and bishop, but as priest, too. The stake would, at that point, have been a very probable final destination for our dear John, Humble Theologian, considering the gravity of pertinaciously spreading heresy from one’s position as Pope. Alas, Francis does not have the benefit of gentle reminders of the gravity of being a heretic, like John had. Which, if you ask me, is a great pity. 

Enjoy the articles. Again, I strongly suggest that you take time to really read all of them, a task you can easily divide in different times if you so wish. The four links that follow, and the one that will be published in the following one, are among the most important ever published on these pages. 

A very special “thank you” goes to reader Chris Jackson, who posted these precious sources on my comment box. He might well be the same Chris Jackson who authored the articles. In which case, my gratitude is the more increased, and I consider it a great honour to have such an erudite writer among the readers of my little, but sincere effort.  

Part One 

Part Two 

Part Three 

Part Four





“The Remnant” Video: The Comment

This is one in the fray...

This is one in the fray…

I have already published a post about this wonderful video.

I invite everyone who has not done it to view it first.

There are several points in this video, of which one is the main one and others are added considerations. First the added considerations.

1. Bill Donohue was very wrong (actually: factually very wrong) in downplaying as “leak” something that was officially announced and the official “preparatory” document of the 2014 synod.  This downplays the gravity of the entire matter, and lulls Catholics into thinking reality is what our wishes make of it. I have dealt with the matter here

2. Pat Buchanan (a Catholic, I think) had a wonderful column about the fact that this Pope is leaning so far out of the window, that a vacant sea is not inconceivable anymore. I enjoyed the column a lot (web search engines may help you to find it) but did not find the time to write about it.

3. Astonishingly, there seem to be Catholic broadcasters (here is, clearly, meant Michael Voris) who feel ashamed even of reporting opposition to the Pope. Burke’s criticism of the Pope’s stance is, if not personal, very strong, and deservedly so. 

4. There have been “wayward” Popes in history. Heck, there have been heretical Popes in history! The names should be circulated more: Honorius, Liberius and John XXII are three safe candidates; Formosus ( I add) is a probable fourth one. I wish I could find again the sources about other Popes, but these four here seem to be the biggest. Before Francis, that is. We must spread the word and say this out loud, because in the modern clericalist atmosphere filled with ignorance and feel-goodism, most would fear their religion will crumble if they ever admit the Pope is wrong, or a heretic. 

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late...)

Cardinal Piacenza also spoke (though very late…)

5. There have been paragraphs in the definitive Relatio Synodi, which are very bad. Are we desensitising ourselves to them, particularly to sexual perversion? 

Personally, I think not. I found many paragraphs bad, but merely “V II-bad”, not “Francis-bad”. The new paragraph about perverts merely says that homosexuals (homosexuals, not sodomites; we are talking here of the perversion, not the sodomy or even the active militancy!) must not be discriminated against. This is not only the same tone of the JP II catechism (actually, it is indicative that the paragraph has apparently been rejected by the bishops; it tells you what many of them would do with JP II’s catechism if they had a choice), but can only be approved of if it is read with the mind of the actual sound catholic, rather than of the rabid liberal.

Not even I (and you know what kind of “welcoming” chap I am) would refuse to sell to an homosexual the means to stay alive ( I do not say a “wedding cake”, which is an obvious statement; but bread, milk, tomato, mozzarella, and the like…); nor would I, if I were an employer at, say, the Land Registry, refuse employment to a poor chap because I suspect he  has a perversion. Homosexuals must eat too, and provided they do not give scandal and behave in the proper way I think they have the right not to be starved. I do not think this is anything new, and it is not known to me that homosexuals in the Papal States were refused bread, or wine, or a tenancy, if they did not give scandal. This would have been considered, even then, unjust discrimination.

… and even the Pontiff Emeritus had to intervene…


The reasons why the bishops have refused to approve it was, I think, to give an additional slap to Francis, saying to him “you wanted to ram heresy down our throat, now you get slapped in the face even for things we could otherwise approve without problems”;  and also – an issue I, in my innocence, had not examined – to avoid that even these words may be mis-construed as something different: then the very same words may be made to mean, in the Age of Mercy, something completely different than in the old Age of Catholicism.



All this, though, is accessory. The main issue is another, that is: 

1. that the Pope read and approved the text of the relatio post disceptationem on the Saturday before the publication; 

2. that, therefore, all the heresies therein contained can be traced back to him;  

3. that the Pope has acted like an Oriental Satrap in disrespecting his bishops at every step: putting in charge a cabal of ultra-liberal, silencing the bishops so that the world does not see orthodoxy at work, publishing a text the bishops had not approved, (imposing the Six Little Pigs to draft the final version, I add);  imposing the publication of the preliminary report (which is on the internet anyway), and finally imposing the publication of the final text (the Relatio Synodi) including those paragraphs explicitly not approved by the required majority. 

4. that Burke, Chaput, Mueller & Co. are saying, with thinly veiled words, that the Pope was behind all this, and the Pope was the one who wanted to weak the discipline of the Church in matters of sexual morality. That Cardinal Pell meant, when he said that the Synod was being manipulated, exactly that the Pope was manipulating it, and this behaviour had to stop. 

Summa Summarum, the Pope did all exactly as he wished without listening to the bishops every time he could (preliminary relatio, appointment of the “little pigs”, decision to keep paragraphs that had been excised), and promptly looking for cover every time he could not (the second relatio in most paragraphs, and the posturing as the “wise mediator between truth and heresy” in the final speech). 

There is a fifth issue, on which I must offer a most optimistic outlook than the two excellent men in the video.

Yes, there will now be “discussions” about sodomy, & Co. But I can’t see how this discussion can be silenced if the Pope not only does not silence it (which Burke invited him to do, unheeded; I think we will hear more about this), but rams it down the throat of the Church.

And if discussion (scandalous! obscene!) must be had, then better from a position of clear defeat for the Modernist position, and clear approval of the Catholic position; a Catholic position which the bishops will take care to have well explained to their own sheep, lest they themselves, the bishops, get grilled next year at the Synod 2015, and then stoned in public by the homosexual minions of Francis. A man who, as we have already seen in the case of the FFI, “does” persecution and revenge with reckless abandon. 

Yes, the dissenters will dissent. But this they would have done anyway. It is much better that they open their mouth as dissenters, and are seen to be so. All the others (which means by the way: the overwhelming majority in Africa and Asia) will discuss, get very angry at the Modernists, and go to the 2015 synod better prepared, and with well-sharpened swords.

And what will Francis do? Leave African or Asian bishops out? All hell would break loose. What then? Impose silence and censorship again? Don’t make me laugh. He caved in once to avoid a public and unprecedented humiliation, he would do it thirty more times.

This here is a Jesuit. His motto could be “In defeat, cowardice. In victory, revenge!”. 

Do you want to know what I think? Francis had his moment, and he lost bad. He made a surprise bid for Russia, and was stopped at the outskirts of Moscow. The surprise attack has failed, and he now has in front of him an army so overwhelming – if they only want to fight –  that there is no way he can reverse the destiny of the battle, unless it is for the incompetence and cowardice of his opponent.

If you ask me (warning! Born optimist!) this battle is not for Francis to win. It is only for the the Bishops (and Catholicism) to lose.  But Francis is now a lame duck. The world has seen it already, and it is coming to terms with it. The Newsweek article I have already linked to is an example of a new reality slowly starting to “sink in”.        

A year of battle is before us. 

But the events of last week showed that ours is, by far, the better army.

If we (and the Bishops and Cardinals) do not lose faith and go on pounding – and several of them have done it already, and new ones are coming in, like the very late Cardinal Piacenza – Francis and his little troop of heretics will be exposed as a bunch of heretic morons.

At that point Francis will leave the battle, and let others have the blame.

Required Viewing: “The Remnant” Strikes Back

My dear readers,

if you ask me, and if you have any trust in your humble correspondent, the video below (hat tip to reader scarygoat61) is required viewing. 

So much so, that I will post this without further comment, and will make my considerations (for anyone who will want to do it; but you don’t have to, as the video is good enough) in another post, that will assume this video has been seen. 

There are moments when I think that we can behold victory not (hopefully) only on the day we die, but in our lifetime. This is one of these moments. The war will be hard, but if I look at the first major battle I start to think it is Axis against Allies here. Which, patriotic as your truly is, could only have only one outcome since 7 December 1941.

Enjoy the video.  

Mundabor’s Blog Converts To “Inclusiveness”: A Lampedusa Moment.



And so, my dear readers, the day some of you feared has come.

Starting from today, Mundabor’s blog decides to accept the call for “inclusiveness” and to “embrace the other”.

Enough with being “closed into oneself”. No more “fear of the other”. Let us make “more space for love”. Mundabor finally goes “out of himself”. He accepts the call of our Most Holy Father, Francis The Humble But Careful Reformer Of The Church, and decides to follow the new spirit which the, erm, “Spirit” is now very clearly (it’s windy outside, big time) blowing his way.

I feel, as I write this, already so good, but so good, that I almost writing a letter to the Bishops and Cardinals now closeted in their Synod to tell them about my “conversion” to “the other”. I truly wish to cry to the world my newly-found allegiance to the Pope’s wonderful, generous elan of encountering and embracing “the other”. Because “the other” is different from us, eh? no?) and we meet him accepting his otherness, his diversity, his poverty.

Therefore, the following changes in the blog are announced. Trumpets, please….

1) “The Remnant” newspaper has been added to the blog list on the right hand side column. I know, strictly speaking it is not a blog. But hey, I am “inclusive” now. Therefore, I will not leave such a wonderful publication out of my blog list.

Kardinal Kretin “Kirchensteuer” Kasper will be, no doubt, very proud of me. I am so serene and profound, I am almost crying for joy.

2) In a true, loving “embrace” of “the other”, this blog goes “out of itself” and becomes, Lampedusa-Style, authentically international; it “reaches out” to “the end of the world”, in a move of modernisation that brings it very near to the same Country that gave us our Oh So Wonderfully Humble Pope, Francis Of The Black Shoes, The Hammer Of Orthodoxy. 

Three new blogs, in three different languages, are added on a separate blog family, “Blog in Other Languages”. They are:

1. Kreuz-Net.Info

This is the spiritual successor of the unforgettable “Kreuz Net”, the blog run by orthodox Catholic priests forced to close by a concerted effort of the German and Austrian Gaystapo; an effort instigated by the perverted hatred of the most notorious German Ueberfaggot, Volker Beck, (obviously) of the Green Party. The author of this successor blog has a name and surname, and is an Austrian publisher. He does not fear the Gaystapo machine and, not being anonymous, can stay in court if attacked. I seem to remember he invited the prosecutor to try with him what they did with the priests who ran the original blog. Bishop Williamson is a frequent guest writer, as his “Eleison” articles are posted there. Not everyone’s taste, but a very useful addition in my eyes. The quality of the blog remains very high, the content is not in the least sissified. Austria and Germany are the main focus. 

2. Le Salon Beige

Universally acclaimed daily blog in French. Whenever people write or comment about French blogs, this here pops out in front. A breath of sanity in a Country that was able to elect Hollande as President.

3. Wanderer Revisited

Here, Mundabor’s effort of “openness” truly reaches a new high. Yours truly does not speak Spanish, but he can muddle through the lines and get the general gist. From what I can see, this truly is a first-class, sterling effort. The quality of the comments is also generally very high. It makes one want to learn Spanish just to enjoy this blog. As more than some of my blog readers can probably read Spanish, I though I would add this. In addition, this blog is from Argentina. Oh, what a wonderful tribute to the Country that gave us our Humbly Ford Focus Chauffered Pope!


So, there we are.

The lesson of Francis, The Pope Who Is So Good He Could Win The Nobel Peace Prize, has been learnt. 

Do not protest. Do not cry “Betrayal!” Do not resist the irresistible tide of the times.The lio is now strong in this blog.

Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

Today, Mundabor’s blog has embraced Our Humble Pope, He Who Does Not Count His Prayers, Scourge Of The FFI, Persecutor Of Orthodox Bishops, The One Who Will Not Judge, Our Dear Lider Maximo,

Bishop Francis.


The Remnant On The Gathering Storm


This is how the October synod looks like.

This is to alert you to a series of articles that are going to appear on the “Remnant” this week.

The first and the second part have been published already, other will follow. Note the second part has also been attached to the first, so it can be the first link will give you access to the whole series.

I have not read all of it (i have merely had the time to read part of the first), but what I have read is of stellar quality and worthy of being not only read, but kept in mind for future reference. What follows Below is just one example:

The origin of the pious prescription “no public criticism of the Pope” is mysterious, as it is certainly not to be found in the official teaching of the Church or the common opinion of theologians. Nor is there any sign of a theology of abject silence in the face of papal wrongs throughout the long history of public opposition—often fierce—to wayward Popes, beginning with Paul’s public rebuke of Peter for his scandalous refusal to eat with Gentiles: “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11).” To the facile objection that saints may criticize erring Popes, one might offer the facile reply that we ought to imitate the example of the saints. Nowhere, however, does the Church impose any “saints only” limitation on objecting publicly to what a Pope has said or done in public.

There were no known saints involved, for example, in the public opposition to John XXII (r. 1316-1334) when he insisted in a series of Sunday sermons that the blessed departed do not see God until after the General Judgment­—thus, among other dire consequences, nullifying the traditional teaching on the efficacy of prayers for the souls in Purgatory. Theologians at the University Paris concurred that, while the matter had never been defined as dogma, the Pope was in error, and they petitioned him to recant his opinion. The Pope ultimately did so, noting that he had never imposed his view upon the Church and that everyone had been free to disagree with him. John XXII’s more energetic opponents, including Cardinal Orsini and King Louis of Bavaria, called upon the cardinals to convoke a council to condemn him as a heretic. None of the papal critics in this affair stands condemned by the judgment of the Church.

You can do much worse than educate yourselves on this series of articles.

The only thing we can do in such times is to defend Catholicism as it always was, protecting the faithful as we can from Papolatry and ignorance.


%d bloggers like this: