So, you are an old, lewd boor who does not believe in Transubstantiation at all. What do you do?
1. You call the Eucharist a “humble meal”, a Protestant expression denoting the lack of Transubstantiation.
2. You refuse to kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament, because you don't kneel in front of a piece of bread.
3. You want to give communion to adulterers, because a bit of bread and wine does not do harm to anyone.
Francis is an arrogant boor, but at least in this he shows clearly a coherent thinking.
Methinks, workers in hell are digging an extra pit just for him.
I had missed this, but it was posted yesterday by two readers on my comment box.
Let us stay calm (if we can; I have been trying since yesterday) and let us see what is happening here.
The faggot priest (real, or honorary) gives to the Pope a set of wooden chalice and paten. The use of wooden chalice and paten in the Mass is explicitly forbidden. It is, it can be safely said, a clear sign that the Mass in question may well be invalid, and that the celebrant does not believe in the Transubstantiation. In this case, the wooden chalice and paten are an obvious sign of defiance of Church teaching, as everything the faggot priest (real, or honorary) says and stands for.
The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift.
The faggot priest (real, or honorary) also give Francis a copy of his most recent book. There can be no doubt whatever the book is scandalous in its every part, and promotes sodomy exactly as his author does. Sodomy cries to heaven for vengeance.
The Bishop of Rome, disgracefully reigning, accepts the gift, too.
Not happy with thus giving an obvious, public endorsement of sodomy, Francis concelebrates Mass with the faggot priest (real, or honorary). This, he does with the man who is about to give him a wooden chalice and paten.
My adrenaline has been on alarm levels since yesterday, so I will avoid to expand much on this. I have already cancelled several lines of this post. And I don’t think any of them was untrue in any way.
The facts are in front of you. There is nowhere to hide. This is so openly the work of the Devil that I am embarrassed for your mother if you are so thick that you don’t get it.
One would hope that all those who had refused to see anything bad in this disgraceful man appointing his sodomite buddy to head of the Vatican Bank (where he still sits) would open their big blue eyes and start looking at reality as it is: a Pope who is an accomplice of, and encourages sodomy for the sake of his own approval. But they very probably won’t, because if they had had some sense they would have understood then, rather than needing this open, shocking, shameless endorsement of sodomy now.
This Pope, who thinks angels inferior to men, truly causes them to cry to heaven for vengeance. His approval of sodomy is so explicit that it cannot be made more clear. I ask you what is a Pope to do to let even the last idiot understand that he – if he is not homosexual himself – is most certainly an accomplice of sodomites. I can’t imagine any endorsement more open than this one, short of “mercifully” appearing in some “gay porn” movie.
Which, let me state this very clearly, I do not consider beyond him, at all.
Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. A sin. That cries. To heaven. For vengeance.
If Francis had some sense in that stupid, or evil, head of his, he would avoid even thinking of giving such scandal. He would know that his being such an overt accomplice of the sin of the sodomites would attract on him the most terrible punishment, perhaps only short of those reserved to sodomites themselves (and perhaps not, because he is the Pope). If he had, he would. But he hasn’t, so he doesn’t.
I think the reality is a very sobering one: this man does not believe in God. He is, consequently, not afraid of punishment. He berates angels, because he considers them fantasy creations. He does not believe in Transubstantiation, and therefore accepts a wooden chalice and paten as a gift without wincing; actually, with his acceptance he encourages further liturgical abuses, and sends a very open signal of his lack of belief in Transubstantiation.
He is not afraid of any punishment, whether earthly of heavenly. He believes in only one thing: Jorge Bergoglio. The promotion of this agenda, of the “Humble Pope” brand is, to him, the only thing that counts, and to which everything else – from the Transubstantiation to the Blessed Virgin, from Our Lord to the most elementary teachings – must give way.
All this is then conveniently masked as “mercy”, thus clearly indicating God is, with his approval of Christianity of the past 2000 years, unmerciful.
What a disgrace of a Pope.
The bride of Christ is being raped every day, by the same man who should protect Her. The perverts of all sorts and their friends applaud, and rejoice. The tepid masses do not understand, but prefer to look the other way. The professional idiots say if the Pope rapes the Church, then it means for some reason it is right that the Church be raped. There must be things we do not know, you know… Christianity has always been so inscrutable, after all…
I know that the angels in heaven look at all this. I call on them to cry to heaven for God’s righteous vengeance on this man, relentlessly working against God in the most evident, most shameless way, and only bent on the edification of his own cult.
This is a papacy fit for the perverts, the atheists, the satanists, the heathen, and the stupid.
They are all having a party, whilst Francis rapes the Church every day.
It would appear that soon the Vatican is going to give us more details as to how the UK Ordinariate is supposed to work and be organised. I can imagine that savage speculations are going to mount in the next days (or weeks) as to who will lead it, how it will be funded, what provision might be offered to those Anglican clergy thinking of conversion but also mindful of a family to feed, etc.
Personally, I hope that the following will happen:
1) The British hierarchy is going to be kept out of the entire affair. If the Holy Father lets them in from the door, orthodoxy will soon go out of the window. I hope that the Ordinariate will be not only factually autonomous from the Bishops (bar a technical cooperation where unavoidable; it is not that they have to ignore each other’s existence), but that they will also be seen as such.
2) I so much wish (though I am sure that I will be disappointed) that the Ordinariate could be led by a person of undoubted, uncompromising orthodoxy. One able to explain to everyone (to the press; to the Anglicans thinking about conversion; to the other British Catholics who might see in a staunchly orthodox Ordinariate a good alternative to a Novus Ordo Mass) that the Ordinariates are not the Anglican version of the Catholic Church, but the Only Church organised in a slightly different way.
From what I have read up to now, none of the so-called Anglican bishops who have announced their intention to convert is up to the task. From what I could see to date, it is fair to be afraid that they would stress how “Anglican” the new outfit is, not how Catholic; how little things would change for the Anglican converts, not how much; what a continuity there would be between the heretical shop they leave and the authentical one they enter, not what a radical change this represents. My impression up to now (as seen on this very blog) is rather that they would accuse of being “uncharitable” or even “unchristian” everyone pointing out to the obvious shortcomings (nay: cowardice; nay: utter bad faith) of such an approach.
I see a clear danger that what could be created here is a body largely constituted of people who think that their cultural specificity authorises them to be at variance with the Church; a body seeing itself as composed of Catholics who have the right to be different in their Catholicism (just to make some example: in thinking that it is fully OK to be an Anglican; or in thinking themselves Catholics because they believe in the existence of Transubstantiation in an Anglican Mass) rather than in the way their Catholicism is organised.
A bit of healthy cynicism will make us aware that conversion to Catholicism can be wished because one desires the Truth or because one has a sacrilegious desire to continue to believe in the same old lies, but without bishopettes around.
The person appointed to lead the UK Ordinariate will have to make this very clear; he will have to be a champion of orthodoxy for the entire British Catholicism. If this is not the case, the risk for the Ordinariate to fail spectacularly and to be remembered as a source of strife rather than reconciliation will be very real.
The LA Times feels the need to tell us that, on average, atheists know more of religion than the faithful. What is not clear is why this should be surprising.
Firstly, it is apparent that an atheist has had to inform himself about why he doesn’t believe (thank God, we still live in times where you can’t go around for long saying “I’m atheist” without someone reacting, a vague form of Christianity is still mainstream) whilst a believer is never checked about how deep is his knowledge. Or can you tell me when it was last time that someone has said “I am a Christian” and someone else has challenged this belief. I mean, I do it at times with some people (particularly with the “but people”; “I am a Christian, but…”), but you are not likely to meet me very often. Also note that other religions do not fare much better.
This is rather normal: few people – when left to themselves – spend time in deepening what they already believe. I can’t give you a scientific demonstration that the earth rotates around the sun; I believe it and that’s all I need to know, end of story. On the other hand, if I were of the opinion that the sun rotates around the earth I’d have all the Ptolemaic knowledge at my immediate disposal.
Secondly, this is not a survey about the militant Christians, or the informed Christians. This is a survey about the generic Christians, those with a lick of Christian varnish, often several decades old and sometimes never applied at all; those who think that Jesus was a chap who came on earth to bring peace, or to tell us that we “shouldn’t judge”, or who believe that Jesus wouldn’t have had any disagreement whatsoever with Gandhi or with the Dalai Lama. Therefore, the conclusion of the LA Times that it would be better to ask an atheist than a Christian if you want to “know more about God” is not really intelligent. If you want to know about God, you ask someone who knows the Truth, because the truth is nothing to do with statistics.
Thirdly and as far as we Catholics are concerned, this ignorance is nothing else than the product of fifty years of terrifying catechesis. Considering this, it is in my eyes encouraging that 60% of the surveyed Catholics still get the transubstantiation right. I can imagine many Catholic priests and bishops saddened at the fact that there are still so many. This is the situation on the ground and this problem has been denounced for decades now by conservative Catholics. This is also what is permanently shouted from Catholic blogs all over the planet, so nothing new here.
What therefore the LA times achieves is to show how right conservative Catholics are. This newspaper article should be pinned at the door of every parish disgraced by a trendy priest who has fed his sheep with convenient bollocks all these years, letting many of them go away and keeping the others in abysmal ignorance of even the basics.
A last point I’d like to highlight is the issue of the “education”. The LA Times seems to consider an acquired truth (and I would like to read more data about that anyway) that better educated people tend to be more atheists than less educated people. Even if this were true, though, it would certainly not show that religion is a fantasy for the less educated, but purely that the wrong type of education lets people become haughty and endangers their souls.
I would vastly prefer to be an uneducated peasant living and dying with a simple but solid faith than a faithless sophisticated urban professional living a life of privilege and dying without Christ, because The former has the knowledge that really counts whilst the latter has a fake knowledge that blinds him and leads him to perdition. As Father Corapi would say the peasant knows much more than the educated professional, because he knows the Truth.
This is one reason more to insist that one’s offspring is educated in the proper way.