Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

'Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.' ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

Pray for Malta's Catholic Priests...

Let us implore for God's help and protection of all Catholic priests in Malta, who believe, quite rightly, that they are custodians of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar and implore Christ, 
Our Blessed Lady and the Saints that the Bishops of Malta and Gozo 
will reverse their terrible decision and repent of their apostasy.

For there is no other word for it.

It is apostasy.

Neither is there justification to be found anywhere in the Catholic Faith for it.

The Times of Malta covers the story that one of the Bishops has said...

"I am saddened by the reaction from certain quarters and invite priests who have concerns to come forward and discuss them directly with us."

Are priests concerned? Oh yes! As well they should be, since this is not only a dereliction of the Bishops' duty to teach the Apostolic Faith, not only a diabolical invitation to commit sacrilege issued to the entire Catholic nation of Malta, but an astonishing violation of the sacred conscience of every Catholic priest in Malta. And there are many of them!

May they follow their conscience and resist this directive from the Bishops of Malta and Gozo and may Christ the Lord, His Blessed Mother and the Martyrs who died for the defence of marriage and the Most Holy Eucharist intercede for them.

The Bishops have made a statement and placed it into the public domain which makes their apostasy from the Faith official. They have done this publicly. How dare they try to restrain priests from directly and publicly opposing them, how dare seek to coerce Maltese Priests to seek their collaboration, when they have publicly dumped their priests into a conflict between following Christ and following them?

They wish for compliance and obedience simply because of their rank. May they be met with the public, stern opposition they deserve. They have endorsed sacrilege in a public manner. How dare they even hope that they will not be criticised in the manner in which they have done so: publicly?! 

Every priest in Malta who loves and desires to see respected and honoured the Most Holy Sacrament, who prays that Jesus Christ is never violated in such manner as the Bishops endorse, who do not wish death for the sinner, but that the sinner may find Life Eternal, now finds himself in the position to choose to follow the Bishop's request or defend Jesus Christ our Lord and the souls placed in their care. May they not be cowed into silence or acquiescence by these cowardly Bishops who have volunteered to place themselves on the path to eternal perdition. May they be granted the courage necessary and support from the laity and their confreres which they merit and deserve.

The Maltese Bishops may be "saddened" that priests are publicly demanding that this decision be reversed and that they revoke their document, but they seem to think nothing of the crushing of the consciences of their priests, over whom they are set in authority and who are in their care, who they are meant to themselves protect with paternal love and great prudence. That is, for those priests, not simply "saddening" but leaves them most assuredly with the bitter taste of abject betrayal by those placed over them because that is precisely what it is. Sacrilege brings spiritual death to the one who commits it. Apostasy brings spiritual death and brings down the just anger of God upon the one who commits it!

'Silence' is a best-selling book and a flop of a Hollywood film. It has no place in the Catholic Church. If the Bishops had wanted 'silence' they should have thought twice about publicly declaring themselves to be sworn agents of the Devil, declaring themselves anti-Christ. They may protest about such language, but they cannot be pro-sacrilege and for Christ. They cannot serve Christ and His adversary and say they are for Christ. They have chosen, in a public and brazen manner to set out their stall. In a public manner, may they be opposed and in a public manner, may they revoke their outrageous decision. They cannot declare war on the consciences of their priests and upon their very ministry to the Faithful and request silence after the declaration. These Bishops need to be told publicly...

How dare you discard with such merciless ease the consciences of the Priests in your care and as an afterthought, request silence on their part!?

How dare you invite the Faithful to commit sacrilege!?

Have you no fear of God at all!?

You did not consult with the clergy on this matter before you went ahead and published this vile, blasphemous document and now you want your clergy to consult with you concerning its implementation?

What world do these Bishops inhabit?

You are prepared to lose your souls.

Have you both lost your minds also!

Monday, 16 January 2017

Trouble in Paradise

'Love to be the Mother of God but right now its humanly impossible'.
Somebody needs to talk to the Bishops Conference of Malta and Gozo about what we Catholics actually believe - and that which they have repudiated - since they announced their private apostasy from the Catholic Faith in a public manner.

All who wish to attain to Salvation must know, including Bishops, that while God respects our free will we are subject to His Commandments. There are no situations in which we are released from the binding nature of the moral law upon our conscience. There may indeed be situations in which there are mitigating factors in our guilt, yes plenty of those, but guilt, in those few situations would remain for the vast majority of us. Off-hand I can think of but one exception, which is to steal a loaf of bread lest we die of hunger.

The Bishops' announcement - which is in reality an invitation to those in moral sin to commit sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion is the announcement of an anti-Gospel, the authorship of which can be traced back quickly to Pope Francis or Archbishop Victor Fernandez. Yet, even Pope Francis himself has not yet been quite so daring or shameless as the Maltese Bishops. Perhaps these bishops feel they have more freedom and less restrictions placed upon them because they don't have to be worried about being placed on trial for material heresy, since 'rigid' Cardinals are too occupied with 'the man at the top' to bother. But one day, they will have to answer to Almighty God for their course of action. God help them! Of course, like dominoes, other Bishops Conferences will doubtless fall into line with the new paradigm. We may as well start a sweep stake now on the next country to fall as Bishops Conference, in wanton acts of sheer clericalism, rob the Catholic Faith from the Faithful and claim themselves as masters and commanders of it!

Some commentators are talking of the Maltese Bishops statement as 'the end of the Catholic teaching on marriage' but it is, in fact, much more than that. It really marks the beginning of the end of the propagation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith at its hierarchical level. Time alone will tell what can be salvaged for Maltese Catholics from this wreckage but much will rely on resilient priests willing to face grand inquisitors for upholding marriage and defending the Eucharist from sacrilege. May God help them!

Nice place, shame about the Bishops.

There are many controversial passages in 'the Maltese Falcon' - for their message has gone to the very uttermost bounds of Malta and Gozo and beyond - the most pointed of which is the abstract determination of whether an impenitent can be 'at peace with God', but the real dagger in the heart of Christianity concerns that part of the document which describes situations in which it becomes 'humanly impossible' to live as 'brother and sister'. This needs to be addressed firmly because it is the turning point on which hinges the Salvation of not just those in 'difficult' or to quote high-ranking prelates "so-called irregular unions", but, if fleshed out just a little more, extended here or there, the entire human race. At the very least, every Christian on the face of the Earth.

Firstly, we must be firm in saying this so permit me to capitalise this and enlarge it...




The 'humanly possible' is for other religions, philosophies and beliefs of our age and every age. Essentially, it is for atheists. The Catholic Faith, however, our very faith - all of it - ALL OF IT - relies on assent to the Church's faith in the 'humanly impossible'. Our Faith is supernatural. Faith is a supernatural gift of God. Its major tenets are not unreasonable - they can be believed - but they are humanly impossible. This is one reason why when He was on Earth, Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us to pray. He knew, as He knows, that to follow Him is 'humanly impossible'. Without His grace, we will fall into grave sin very easily. We cannot follow Him without Him to lead us. That is why we need God for whom 'nothing is impossible' for 'nothing is impossible to God'. If the Christian life was 'humanly possible' then we would not need God's help. It would be a life much like any other in all its respects, including the moral sphere. We would believe what the world believes. God may as well, as far as this new paradigm goes, not exist at all.

This first draft is admittedly far too 'rigid'. It still talks of such things as 'sin' and 'punishment' and 'God'.

Which leads us neatly back to the Maltese Bishops who, having examined the Ten Commandments have thought better of them. Indeed, it is surprising just how many Commandments are flouted in a single document. If - to them - there are cases in which it is 'humanly impossible' to observe continence in a second union and to live as brother and sister, then we may ask very serious questions as to whether they believe it is 'humanly possible' to live chastely as Bishops. Is it 'humanly impossible' for a priest to observe chastity? May it be 'in some cases' not possible? For whom? As I say, the implications of accepting defeat to this very secular maxim are huge, not just for the laity but for the Hierarchy as well. What factors would make it 'humanly impossible' for a priest or bishop to remain faithful to those restrictive, 'rigid' vows?

Though it can be quickly and easily 'discerned' that the divorced and remarried are currently being weaponised to destroy the entirety of the Catholic Faith in the hearts and minds of the Faithful, this singular concession impacts the moral life of every human being in the Church, since every human being in the Church has what we call a 'weakness' or a 'wound' the result of which we have always called the effects of Original Sin. This concession to the divorce and remarried who make no firm resolve to live in continence can be applied to everyone who enjoys their sin but does not wish in any sense to break from it. Oh yes, we can all be in that place, but the Church has hitherto encouraged us out of that place and into God's grace, the State of Grace. The Church could, in the light of this document become a vehicle for Hell, if you still believe in that place, which one assumes these Bishops don't. More fool them.

Are there some - or is it all - people who have sex outside of marriage who because of attenuating circumstances are called to Holy Communion without repentance and a firm resolution to amend their lives? Are there some - or is it all - thieves who can be hereby called to Holy Communion without repentance and a firm resolution to amend their lives? Are there some - or is it all - perpetrators of domestic violence who are called to Holy Communion without repentance and a firm resolution? Paedophiles? Pederasts? Murderers? Copraphagics and copraphelians? Masturbators? Pornographers? Terrorists? People who defraud their labourers of their wages? Gossips? There are "situations" which make all sins more difficult to renounce. One might argue that the addictive nature of sin itself makes it 'humanly impossible' to break with it. His Holiness keeps telling people not to gossip but in truth why should gossips give up their gossipy ways? Why can't they be accompanied? Some people find it very difficult and 'humanly impossible' to stop, after all.

Of course, those who have crafted these concessions to the divorced and remarried know full well that reception to Holy Communion to these persons implies a concession to all who do not wish to break with mortal sin, telling them to relax in their sin and not take their religion so seriously as to think of saving their immortal souls, including unbelieving, faithless, traitorous Bishops themselves.

'Don't worry about your apostasy, it will all be okay! There was a bit of pressure from Rome. It's what the Holy Father wanted. You couldn't have defied Amoris Laetitia. How could you have? He's the Pope, after all! It's a 'Magisterial' document (that contains errors that contradict the perennial teachings of the Church). It was a difficult situation! With attenuating circumstances! Your faithlessness and apostasy will not be punished, not to rape the Bride of Christ would have been humanly impossible in this circumstance!'

Does that work? No. Sorry! You can try, my Lords, but no excuses will do! Catholics do not believe what you have said you believe. Here, faithful Catholics and you part some kind of company, even if Catholics worship in your Dioceses!

It is 'humanly impossible' to break with sin which is why Bishops have historically (though less so now) encouraged believers to place all their confidence in God who makes things divinely possible and can help us to love Him and observe His commandments as we grow in friendship with Him. We believe that a man or a woman who believes in Jesus Christ is a 'new creation'. Baptism confers grace in the soul. Jesus Christ does not turn away the man or the woman who come to Him asking Him to generate within them love for God and the strength to bear the Cross and follow Him. We do not believe that God asks us to do 'the impossible', even when these things appear to us 'humanly impossible' because of our human weakness. That has never been the Catholic Faith. It is not now and it never will be. For God, all things are possible. For those who cling to Him, who rely not on themselves but on the divine sustenance of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who pray to Him knowing that they are incapable of fulfilling His will without His divine help, fidelity to God, love of Him becomes the very fruit of that reception of Holy Communion.

Yes, we may be weak. Yes, we might fall, we have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, but Jesus Christ is truly present in His Sacraments to help us to achieve union with Him, not with the world, or the flesh or with the Devil. To believe this, however, requires Faith, itself a gift from God, given to us in our Baptism. It was given to the Maltese Bishops, but they have just thrown it away publicly! Where is the Faith of the Maltese Bishops? May God help them find it again! What the Maltese Bishops have done is to sketch out a new belief that is not from God, that denies the sanctifying grace poured into the hearts of believers, that denies what Catholics have always believed, always, everywhere, that with God we can overcome our sins and live lives in fidelity and obedience to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

May God come to the aid of Maltese Catholics and their Bishops. You might very well be following orders, my Lords, but you aren't following Our Lord Jesus Christ! May the Lord rebuke you and help you to repent for what you have done in your clarion call to sacrilege. You may be the first and you won't be the last Bishops Conference to do this, but you can be sure that without repentance on your parts, your own Salvation - whether you believe in it or not - is now hanging by a thread. How do I know this without knowing God's Mind? If you have denied the Lord Jesus Christ publicly before men and the Angels, how can you expect Him to recognise you as His in the presence of His Father in Heaven? Whatever temporal advantage you think you have gained in your apostasy will be wiped out and overturned in eternity if you do not repent. I suppose they think it is 'humanly impossible' to go back on what they have done, but with Christ it is possible. For all things are possible for God! May God give them grace to do it.

Let all Catholics ask the Maltese Bishops to do what they cannot bring themselves to ask of the laity, for their sake and the sake of those in their care:


Saturday, 14 January 2017

Friday, 13 January 2017

The Nub of the Problem

“And Jesus never passed Himself off like a prince (true): He was the servant of all (true), and this is what gave him authority (false).” ~ Pope Francis

There is an incalculable amount of evil that can be done by Churchmen who believe that Christ was given authority by anything other than His identity as the only begotten Son of God, of Whom we say in the Creed the following:

Born from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from light,
True God, from true God,
Begotten, not made,
Consubstantial with the Father,
Through Him all things were made.

If Jesus Christ's authority derived from His 'service to all' - if His authority came from His actions and behaviour during His ministry itself, rather than being always the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, then His actual teachings are only as useful to the Church as the teachings of someone else who imitates Him in His behaviour. This person could have entirely different teachings but still be 'just so much like Christ'.

Presumably, another man, within the Church perhaps, let's say, er, the Pope (though it need not be necessarily him), can derive a similar authority to Christ simply by doing or being known for doing Christ-like things. If Christ's authority comes from being 'a wonderful, selfless person, serving all' then presumably the Pope's authority, too, comes from being a 'a wonderful, selfless person serving all'.

This is a very interesting idea that the Pope is proposing, but it is not Catholicism. One can see in this new paradigm how some could paint Pope Francis, who we all hear is 'a wonderful person' as a new Jesus Christ, updated and modified (let's not say 'improved') for 21st century man. Indeed, this process of making the Pope into a modern day Jesus Christ has already started and seems to have a self-generating momentum.

A letter to The Tablet
'Pope Francis, we hear very much is 'humble'.
Jesus Christ was humble.
Pope Francis, 'does so much good'.
Jesus Christ did so much good.
Pope Francis, 'stands against the strict religious leaders of his day'.
Jesus Christ stood against the strict religious leaders of his day.
Pope Francis 'stands up for the poor and marginalised'.
Jesus Christ stood up for the poor and marginalised.'
You get the idea. One could go on!

Already the PR efforts to cast Pope Francis as 'just like Jesus Christ' have been well underway. People in Rome are literally being paid to promote Pope Francis in the media and it is working, in parts, among those who wish to be deceived. It is - in some parts - a very effective media campaign that Pope Francis has engaged in. But this latest comment from the Pope concerning authority and where it comes from cannot be allowed to pass.

This cannot be allowed to pass because, the Pope is not, nor is any other individual...

Born from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from light, True God, from true God, Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.

These words refer to Jesus Christ alone. No matter how 'Christ-like' a person may be in his outward appearances, no priest, no layman, no Cardinal or Pope can ever aspire to be what or Who Jesus Christ Is: God made flesh!

In addition, there is a disturbing aside to glean from this disturbing comment from the Pope concerning Christ's authority because of his Office as Pope, and this is that if Christ's authority came from being 'just so humble, close to the people and willing to be of service to all' then where does the Pope's authority come from?

Traditionally, Catholics have believed that the Pope's authority comes from Christ Who said, 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my Church'. But if Christ's own authority comes from simply being a good person, rather than being God, what then does the Pope's authority rest upon but being a good person? Were Catholics to believe that every Pope would have to gain and maintain authority, for it would not be a 'given' in order to possess it, by working very hard to be a 'wonderful person, close to the people, just like Christ'. What an awfully Pelagian position every Pope would find himself in! Having to work so hard at being good simply to gain authority which, in reality, has been given to him by Christ Himself regardless of his personal virtues or lack of them!

Every crisis of Faith in the Church is Christological in nature and for this reason the 'two truths and a lie' game so beloved of TEFL teachers as an ice-breaker for their class becomes something of a habit. Without a true, Catholic sense - a right belief - about Jesus Christ and Who He is, God made man, fully God and fully man, assuming that which He was not, but undergoing no alteration to His nature as Divine, everything else will fall apart - yes, even the Papacy!

And while it is true that Our Lord, 'never passed Himself off as a prince', Jesus Christ is, nonetheless, both Prince and King. When asked by Pilate as to His Kingship, Our Lord did not deny it when 'dialoguing' with Pilate:

'Pilate therefore went into the hall again, and called Jesus, and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered: Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or have others told it thee of me? Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee up to me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence. Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice. Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this, he went out again to the Jews, and saith to them: I find no cause in him.' (John 18, 33-40)

No, Jesus Christ never 'passed Himself off as a Prince', He had no need for earthly honours, but just as in His behaviour and actions this is not simply because of His humility and selflessness. It is because He is Lord, through Him all things, including those who speak of Him, were made.

The same man who said, reportedly, concerning the recent sackings of three men from the CDF...

“...And I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave...”

...will one day have to give answer to the Lord Jesus Christ. Let him, if he has forgotten that, remember, at the very least, that. It is that which should make every Pope, who is judged in a more severe manner than are ordinary folk, tremble. It is, in fact, this that should restrain every Pope from becoming a tyrant. But I fear we have, in this Pope, moved well beyond this restraining kind of thought. Where there is no fear of God, there is tyranny! Cardinal Burke has said it is the Last Judgement that encourages him to speak out against error and losing his title would mean very little in comparison to the fear of offending Christ. Pope Francis would do very well to learn from him! Whatever virtues God has given Pope Francis that make him 'like Jesus Christ', the naked acquisition and exercise of power and privilege is not what Christianity is about!

Monday, 2 January 2017

They left for their own country by another path...

Courtesy of One Peter Five

Nothing quite so cheery, heart-warming and festive as sacking staff over Christmastide, is there?

So much for 'dialogue', 'fraternity', 'accompaniment' and the rest of it.

Happy new year to you all.

Thursday, 22 December 2016

What Part of the Resistance are you?

Vive La Resistance!

I do rather have the suspicion the kind of resistance Pope Francis likes is the obedient, compliant, docile or sycophantic resistance that accepts every attack on Christian morals coming from his entourage as the breeze of the Holy Spirit. But then, I would say that, what being a part of the malevolent, just plain evil (albeit not curial) resistance taking refuge in tradition (don't forget gin) while watching the corporeal nemesis of Sacred Tradition do his worst upon the Mystical Body of Christ.

In his own words, the following is a break-down of the resistance within (but not only within) the Roman Curia who have, as expected, been taken 'down a peg or two' during another Christmas address, the latest insults of which form a pattern of behaviour by the Pope which, in terms of managerial style we can perhaps call 'unique'.

Francis embracing the good resistance.
Good Resistance

According to Pope Francis there is resistance that arises from good will and sincere dialogue. ('Spadaro, love your work. Try to reign in the sock puppets over Christmas. I can count those unquestionably loyal to me on two hands and a foot, but you, I just love what you do. Keep up the good work, I need resistance like yours. I depend on it. It keeps me level-headed.')

Hidden Resistance
Pope Francis uses the word "nascoste" to describe this type of resistance, which has the meaning of covert, underhand and stealthy. He says this resistance arises from petrified or frightened hearts that speak empty words in the spirit of the "Gattopardismo" (A reference to a character in an Italian novel and film) who verbally says he is ready to change, but wants everything to remain as before. (The Vatican translates "Gattopardismo" as 'spiritual window dressing'). "Gatopardismo or lampedusiano" is an Italian political term that has its origin in the novel El gatopardo, by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa (1896-1957). It refers to a political approach of "changing something so that nothing changes". ('To the unconvinced, I say, be convinced. Fear not, be ye rigid not, nor faint or fail ye frightened hearts. Do not be afraid. It is I. Trust me, for I have overcome the Church. What I'm saying is, don't you be like the next part of the resistance')

Malevolent Resistance [resistenze malevole]
Pope Francis told the Roman Curia that malevolent resistance came from distorted minds which occurs when the devil inspires "cattive" intentions, bad or wicked intentions [che germogliano in menti distorte e si presentano quando il demonio ispira intenzioni cattive]. He said that such malevolent resistance often appears "under the guise of lambs". This last type of resistance hides behind words of self-justification, and accusations, taking refuge in traditions, in appearances, in formalities, in what is known, or wanting to make everything personal without distinguishing between the act, the actor and the action. ('You know who you are, you evil, traitorous, dubia supporting bastards. Of all people I thought it would be hard to break, I knew you traddies would be a job and a half. But I thought I knew you, and still you betrayed me. Pinto was right about you. Scum. That's what you are. Scum.')

One just wonders: What part of the resistance might be the world's largest global Catholic media organ available in several different languages, in several different languages, with online, radio and TV channels, EWTN? Will it soon be only The Tablet and America Magazine giving the Holy Father the unequivocal 'thumbs up'? I think it might be. In a day or two, I will, with the great mass of humanity be taking refuge in the tradition known as 'celebrating the birth of our glorious Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ'. That'll be one tradition, His Holiness himself will be upholding, right?

Have a happy Christmas you beautiful, rigid, self-absorbed promethan neo-pelagian resisters of reform for Christ! 

That Christmas Curia speech in full...
Amid scathing insult,
'Tis in mirth we exult in the happiest time!
It's the wonderful time!
It's the most wonderful time!
It's the most wonderful time of the year!

Vive, la resistance!

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

I Can't Help Thinking...

I know that thinking isn't encouraged by the Pope and his entourage, it is positively discouraged, but I can't help thinking that it's all about the shoes. Yes, it's all about the shoes.

Would it not have been far more fiendishly clever and cunning for Pope Francis and his inner circle to have followed a different pattern of behaviour, a different trajectory to that which has been chosen?

For instance, if the Kasper proposal that was to quickly become the Bergoglio proposal had been introduced by stealth instead of in a brazen manner that would inevitably create a noisy opposition, might things have been a little different in the Church today? If Pope Francis and his inner circle hadn't spent four years cultivating his image as 'a Pope like no other' might not Francis be taken more seriously? Might not people take more seriously someone who appeared to all external testing to be a traditional Pope, but who underneath it, wanted to radically reform the Church in such a way as he has made so very plain?

From the moment that Francis was said to have turned down the mozzetta and sniffed at the red papal shoes, from the moment that Francis asked the St Peter's Square crowd to call down God's blessing on him, introducing himself with a simple 'Good evening', from the moment Pope Francis went out of his way to make himself look and to behave in a manner that was so strikingly different to his immediate predecessor and all those who came before him, a clear trajectory was taken that forms part of an image cultivated to make Francis the Pope as different to the traditional understanding of 'the Pope' as possible.

If Francis had instead blessed the crowd in Latin, worn the red shoes and the mozzetta, retained around him Benedict XVI's appointments, been friendly and courteous with them, gathered so-called 'conservatives' around him, fostering an image of traditionalism, instead of pushing Benedictines out and isolating them, if he had retained Cardinal Burke and sought out his friendship and advice, if he had not bullied the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate into submission, alienated traditional Catholics across the world, insulted Catholic priests left, right and centre, promoted traditional liturgy, continued the Benedictine encouragement of Ad Orientem worship and the reform of the reform, then things would be so different now. Think of how many people would have been fooled and how many people would be 'on side', at least up to now. Oh how much more clever that would have been. To convince the Church you were a conservative but underneath it all to suddenly turn around and unveil your real agenda. Oh how much more sinister and devilishly wicked that would have been!

But he didn't do that. He did the complete opposite and I cannot help thinking - just from a 'strategic point of view' that this was a huge mistake for him personally. The fact is that Francis has been Francis the whirlwind. Francis the unique. Francis the incredible. Francis the 'one off'. Francis the innovator. Francis the lawbreaker. Francis the lawless. Francis the rupture with the past. Francis the socially liberal. Francis the political animal. Francis the Pope who discusses copraphagia in public. Francis the 'so very un-Pope-like that it's hard to believe he's even a Pope.'

Francis has been in such a huge and blatant rush to be so completely and utterly 'different to a normal Pope' and 'not quite like any other Pope we have seen' that it is rather silly of him and his circle - and rather silly of Austen Ivereigh - to expect the Church simply to accept what he says in Amoris Laetitia and to expect someone who has cast himself quite uniquely as a 'revolutionary', someone unique in the history of the Church from the very beginning of his pontificate up to the present to be taken at face value based solely on the authority that he wields 'because he's the Pope'. The credibility of the Pope comes from fulfilling the Office of Peter and stepping into the 'shoes of the fisherman'. It doesn't come from his personality. His authority relies not on being himself but on being 'the Pope', not the first of many, but the latest in a line, not the key-cutter but the keeper of the keys, not on being 'completely different' but in being 'the same as' or at least 'similar to'. If your remaking of the papacy involves not a small amount of destruction, don't be surprised if people can't recognise what 'the all-new pope in the all-new papacy' is and whether he should be taken terribly seriously.

Now where did I put my keys?

There's something very silly about smashing up your Office so badly only to be surprised the phone or your printer doesn't work anymore, that you can't even find your keys, or even locate a footnote to a document you signed, let alone your credibility as a Pope. Of course, the incorruptibles such as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider would still have eventually cottoned on that they had been deceived, after such a convincing act that fostered the image that Francis was 'a traditional conservative' with a 'pastoral heart' but the deception would have been far more successful and far more wickedly clever and they would find it harder to convince the believing masses that it was possible that his document contained serious errors that needed to be addressed.

Small consolation for many.
Unfortunately for Francis, his strategy has been far too brazen and far too up-front. If anything, he has been too open in his agenda of 'reform' and has shown his hand too early. If many clergy, many Bishops, a number of Cardinals and swathes of the laity cannot take Amoris Laetitia terribly seriously and believe its contents 'on faith', then that really is not their fault, but rather the fault of the 'strategist' himself. Perhaps because he is a predominately political creature, his strategy seems to be akin to a politician who spends four years wrecking stuff with his silly ideas, alienates his civil servants, avoids challenging questions put to him by his party, heaps unto himself terrible political advisors, makes rash and stupid errors of judgement, manipulates the voting results at party conferences on future policy, offends the populace with his interviews and speeches, institutes policies that are disastrous, takes the country into civil war and then turns around after four years asking the electorate to trust him because he's apparently the man to guide the country to a greater, brighter, more prosperous future.

Remind you of anyone?

If a man wants to be taken seriously 'as a Pope', take the role of being a Pope seriously, seriously enough for people not to have asked, even just a year into a pontificate, whether the Pope is, indeed, Catholic, leaving vast areas of the Church only with the small fragment of consolation that at least bears still use woodland areas as lavatories and that some things, at least, do not change. The next Pope should aim to make himself appear deeply respectful and courteous and behave like a gentleman. He should say the things Popes say and do, rather than the eccentric things Latin American Jesuits might say or do. He'd be wise to make it apparent that he is a 'normal' Pope, a 'conservative', since Popes are by the nature of the Office they inhabit 'conservative', rather than radically re-making the papacy in his own image, stamping his personal opinions all over the Church and trampling under foot his supposed 'enemies' while denouncing his opponents and generally making himself look rather silly. In his conduct, he should be considered wise, rather than, as some have suggested, unhinged.

Yes. the next Pope, be he a blessing upon the Church and Her faithful children or a further and deeper chastisement upon them would be wise to wear the red shoes. I don't think Catholics, including many Cardinals will trust a Pope wearing black shoes for a long, long time.

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Intellectual Life in the Post-Amoris Laetitia Church

Prophetically speaking of Amoris Laetitia?

While as a blogger who wishes to update the 'Pope Francis Book of Insults' page I find myself before an insurmountable mountain that just keeps becoming greater in mass, His Holiness is still producing the goods that must at some point be recorded for posterity. Today were denounced the ugly evils of clericalism and the horror of intellectualism in religion. I am certain that the word 'clericalism' means something else to Pope Francis than it does to those resisting the personal whim of the Supreme Pontiff in defiance of many gestures and petitions of good will and in seeming contradiction to the teachings of his predecessors.

Catholics - but not only Catholics - should be more than a little hesitant when anyone in great authority asks them to or demands them to suspend the use of their intellectual faculties, to put to one side logic, or to place reason in a box marked 'Do not open until after this pontificate' or even the ability to doubt, simply by virtue of the high authority or rank of the man telling them to do so. Does His Holiness forget when he smacks down 'intellectuals' and those infected with 'clericalism' while imposing his personal will on the Church that he occupies the highest Office in the Universal Church?

But back to the 'intellectuals of religion' insult. It has been the mark of many a totalitarian regime - most markedly in the 20th century - to suppress intellectual life (or dissenting opinions within it) 'for the sake of the ideal at stake'. Communism was renowned for it in the Soviet Union and in those satellite states like Poland that came under the yolk of the Red Empire. It goes without saying that Nazism did the same. Life for dissident intellectuals in China is, I would posit, not that great. Intellectual life was very threatening to the dictators and regimes of the 20th century if the views of the intelligentsia did not coincide with the doctrines of the day. Presumably, Fidel Castro wasn't terribly keen on intellectual life in Cuba that veered away from his interpretation of his new narrative of Cuba.

Writers, journalists, artists, academics who were 'dissenting' voices have historically not fared well under such totalitarian regimes. For this reason it is alarming that Pope Francis should dedicate a homily on the Feast of St Lucy to denouncing the 'intellectuals of religion' who are, basically, 'enemies of Christ', 'traitors' and, generally, scumbags. Was this homily directed at the intellectuals who wrote to him recently to make plain their concerns that the Emperor seems to have forgotten to get dressed? Or was it directed to anyone who is out there pondering over about the message of this pontificate embodied in Amoris Laetitia, using that wonderful God-given skull-encased organ we call the brain?

While I greet letters written by very intelligent persons to the Pope with heartfelt gratitude and while it should be acknowledged that it doesn't seem to pay to be 'an intellectual' in today's confusing Bergoglian garden moral maze - all hand-crafted by himself of course - we should not permit Pope Francis to cast the dubia of the Four Cardinals - and general dissent to his 'programme of reform' - as a primarily an 'intellectual issue', as if you had to be exceedingly intelligent to understand what is at stake here. Through the now customary daily opportunity to exercise the propaganda arm of his inner circle and verbally attack his opponents known as 'the homily', Pope Francis made it sound rather like being 'intellectual' and 'religious' was not a good thing at all or even mutually exclusive.

The train has indeed left the platform...
Indeed, one is reminded again of Pope Francis's response when asked publicly about the infamous footnote in his exhortation Amoris Laetitia, something resembling, 'I don't remember the footnote'. This was quickly followed by a suggestion that Cardinal Schoenborn should be consulted as to 'the right interpretation', as if in order to understand the ambiguity - or the secret doctrine at work in his Exhortation - you would need to consult not him (because he's a simple, humble man of the people, untrained in theological matters), but instead a 'clever' person, an 'intellectual', a 'leading theologian' who could interpret 'the right answer' for us.

It is just one illustration of the simple truth that 'intellectuals of religion' are indeed useful to the Pope, promoted and honoured, so long as the 'intellectuals of religion' are on the same page as Pope Francis to the exclusion of those who are on the same page as, for example, Popes St John Paul II and Benedict XVI. These 'intellectuals' do not it seems include Cardinals Brandmuller, Cardinal Sarah or Cardinal Burke, but would include such figures as Cardinal Kasper (somehow a leading light in the Church now!), Cardinal Schoenborn and one or two others. Just like in Communist regimes, 'intellectuals' of a sort are welcome, just so long as they are towing the line for the 'Ministry of Religion'. Keep on applauding the great leader, we don't want anyone to get hurt here, do we?

Austen Ivereigh, desperate to drum up support for Amoris Laetitia enjoyed casting those who resist 'the new doctrine' to be left standing on the platform while the train leaves. One just can't help but wonder whether Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pope Francis's illustrious and venerable predecessors, the Court of Heaven including the Martyrs such as St John the Baptist, St Thomas More and St John Fisher who died for such beliefs as the indissolubility of marriage are on Francis's Midnight Express or are still on the platform with the Faithful Four Cardinals and the many clergy and lay faithful who remain unconvinced.

Rome had, funnily enough, spoken long before 2016

Austen says, 'Rome has spoken' in Pope Francis but of course, we know that Rome had already spoken on this matter in 1981 while Pope St John Paul II was heroically battling Communism while simultaneously defending the indissolubility of marriage and the immutability of the Church's perennial teaching. Long before 1981, Christ Himself had spoken and so, too, St Paul. It doesn't require 'an intellectual of religion' to point out that Amoris Laetitia cannot be in continuity with Familiaris Consortio if 'the right interpretation' is in stark contradiction to Familiaris Consortio. It does require a good deal of sophistry with not a small pinch of deception, both of self and of others. One does not have to be 'an intellectual of religion' to figure out the simple truth that if Amoris Laetita's message is that sexual (mis)conduct, basically, doesn't matter anymore, that this is in contradiction to the 2,000 year message of the Church.

Ultimately, what Pope Francis is asking Catholics to do is to place their total trust, total fidelity and total faith in his person - that is, his private person - on this issue of whether the divorced and remarried and others whose lifestyles and situations are at grave variance with the Church's teaching may receive Holy Communion, thereby declaring themselves to be in Communion both with him and the Lord Jesus Christ. While claiming to be one who listens to the simple poor and humble folk - a historically oft-repeated claim made by many an atheistic Communist such as Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin to name but two - and while claiming to be himself too simple and unqualified in theological matters to get mixed up with those unhelpful doctrinal problems, Pope Francis and his inner circle are now using every means of popular communication possible to ask Catholics to trust in Pope Francis's person alone, to the exclusion of divine revelation, Scripture, Tradition, the Church's perennial discipline and teachings and to the exclusion of Christ and His Saints and Martyrs.

What Francis is doing is saying: 'Don't trust Faith or even consult with Reason, don't trust the testimonies of the Fathers of the Church or the teachings of the Popes. Just trust me, believe in me, put your faith in me - because I'm the Pope.' Worse, he is saying, 'Don't take Christ seriously at all, just take me very seriously indeed'. This is ultimately a divorce from a Catholic understanding of the Office of the Papacy which guards, defends, teaches and hands down the Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted to each and every Successor of St Peter.

And before Austen says, 'Ah, but we (for they are legion) were thought of as dissidents while Benedict XVI was reigning' let me just say that Benedict XVI tended not to punish his enemies or insult them. Nor did he ever have the arrogance to ask the People of God to place their trust in him to the detriment of their Faith and trust in Jesus Christ. He continually pointed to Christ. It was intellectually sound, not simply because he was intelligent and could discuss Rahner or St Augustine but because what he said actually made sense. Do you remember those sweet days when a gentleman was on the Throne of St Peter, not bandying around insults but simply catechising his brethren and gently but firmly teaching the Catholic Faith handed down to him? You know, just doing what a Pope, traditionally-speaking, does?

Remember his courtesy and his warmth and his ability to greet and treat people with the kind of respect that each man deserves as a child of God? Did he ever lord his power over the clergy? Harangue them? Threaten them? Bully them? Did he ever greet seminarians one year saying, 'I don't know what we should do about the looming vocations crisis' and in the next breath call them 'little monsters' or bewail their defects? Did he upbraid clergy or seminarians for their clothing choices? Did he ridicule the faith of others around him?  Do you ever remember him having a bad word to say about anyone? Was there a single point in Benedict XVI's pontificate when you thought you would have to go against your sacred conscience in accepting something that he was proposing? Did he ever make you think a time was approaching when you would have to choose between the teaching of Benedict XVI and the teaching of Jesus Christ? The answer to all these questions is no.

Unfortunately for Austen and for those who he defends, the truth is very simple, if always unwelcomed by many. The Catholic Faith is true and simple. Christ's teaching on divorce and remarriage is true and simple. It is both true and simple to accept that if Pope Francis tells people by various methods to trust him, instead of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church suddenly has a very unconvincing man-made religion to propose to mankind instead of the Truth of Jesus Christ. It doesn't take a genius or an intellectual to see that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

It does not take an 'intellectual of religion' to realise that a Pope whose cult of personality extends so far into the Church as to ask Her ministers and faithful to subtly, and in a quite Orwellian manner, dispense with the teachings of the Church's divine founder needs to be firmly resisted in this ambition and, if necessary, opposed publicly. To do so has nothing to do with hating Francis, the man, or even Francis, the Pope. It means priests, bishops, cardinals, religious and the laity standing up for Jesus Christ and opposing the ancient foe who wishes for the destruction of Christian morals and the Christian faith. As far as many who are objecting to Amoris Laetitia are concerned, Francis the man and Francis the Pope can, quite frankly, get out of the way, for it is the Devil who we wish to be trampled under Our Lady's heel. We hope and pray that in the process, Francis is left unharmed.

For his own sake, and the sake of others, may Pope Francis answer the Cardinal's questions before he is brought to answer Our Blessed Lord's. 

May the triumph of her Immaculate Heart come quickly. 

Come, Lord Jesus!

Sunday, 11 December 2016

The Vatican's Most Wanted

An artist's impression of the wanted criminal, notorious for rigidity...

Vatican Police departments are asking for help for information on a wanted man, an artist's impression of whom is pictured above. Notorious for such unpardonable offenses as frequent rigidity and unspeakable worldliness, as evidenced in the photograph of this villain, a dangerous man known simply as 'Gotagetta Nubiretta' is wanted by Vatican police and intelligence services. He is known still to be at large. It is advised that if he is seen, he is not approached. His very rigidity is known to be dangerous.

His name comes from his reputation as a known frequenter of Rome-based clerical outfitters that supply traditional attire and accessories. It is likely that he celebrates both the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the so-called Extraordinary Form, which we know to be the Mass of the Rigid. He is therefore likely to carry a Breviary and could use it at any time. It has yet to be confirmed whether it is in Latin and, therefore, potentially deadly. He is therefore to be considered armed. He has committed a variety of offenses which are so unmentionable in their rigidity that it is best that these terrible deeds are left unreported, so shocking would normal people find them. At times, he is known to ask terrifying questions that are most threatening, persistently asking for answers to unspeakable queries, of an abstract nature that require binary responses. If he doesn't receive these binary responses he becomes even more terrifying and menacing.

'Quick-Draw Benedictus': Now languishing, if made comfortable, in a Vatican 'cell'

Authorities would like to trace this man so that he may join his associate and the man said to be the ringleader of the wild west gang of the rigid, the now incapacitated, 'Quick-Draw Benedictus'. Among the crimes of 'Quick-Draw' are a range of clothing-related offenses. Justice was served upon him since he used his noble priestly status to adorn himself in traditional clerical attire that both shocked and offended decent people in locale - as well as those working in the heights of the Vatican and beyond. His very being positively oozed rigidity and worldliness. In his presence, many in Rome complained of feeling 'disturbed' and 'uncomfortable' even by the clothing and vestments he wore. The Vatican's Network of Clothing Spies for the Good of the People (VNCSGP) were alerted and the public can be reassured that he no longer poses a threat to the people, his power to infringe upon the rights of good people to live in peace and prosperity neutralised, and this enemy of the good no longer at large. He refused to smell of the sheep. Now, thanks to the hard work of the authorities and the help of its associates in various departments of the Vatican, he justly smells like a prisoner.

Despite the poor picture quality of our artist's impressions, be assured that 'Quick Draw' is languishing now in a Roman cell, though made comfortable in a penitential regime infused with our glorious new understanding of the doctrine of mercy, under strict guard in the 'Ryvita Wing' of the prison, where the aged rigid are fed on the foodstuff that their rigidity deserves. They refused to be flexible in their station in the Church, so their diet is equally inflexible. They wore rigid hats, so such shall their food taste of such. It is hoped that by such meet punishments such undesirables can be redeemed and gently rehabilitated to choose the path of freedom and joy enjoyed by secular clergy and our merciful brigade of happy episcopal conferences the world over, who generally speaking pose no potential threat to the common good of peaceful folk. The public can all be heartened that justice has been already, and with your help, will soon been served upon other individuals as a necessary warning to others. We all want to live in peace. But in order for peace and peaceful co-existence to flourish in the Church and the world, those who do not desire peace and mercy, but choose instead rigidity and worldliness, must for the good of the people be apprehended for brotherhood to bloom.

It is believed that in future, joining them may be other cardinals, bishops and priests - and perhaps persistent and criminally-minded, bothersome laity - in all regions, known for their rigidity, worldliness and their attraction to either wearing or appreciating traditional clerical accessories, rigid liturgy and the ridiculous womanly attire known to be worn by such inflexible functionaries. They are also soon to be added to a most wanted list. If you know of any such persons who could be worldly in their interest in traditional clerical outfits, who are seen in birettas, saturnos, clerical capes or coats or other ornamental clothing or items that are not strictly necessary to the priesthood and that mark such individuals out as outlandish and unnecessarily rigid functionaries, please do not remain fearful in silence. These are sure signs of mental disturbance, a sure lack of flexibility, worldliness, closure to new ideas brought by the Spirit, a lack of mercy and tenderness and tendencies towards the attitudes of functionaries and, in short, a wholly criminal mindset bent on solemn nonsense and resisting our glorious future of mercy, peace, dialogue and fraternity.

Don't take risks with our glorious brotherhood.

If you see it, say it. 

If your eyes have caught it, or if you even thought it, report it.

Call us today on our regional hotline if you can help us to bring any as yet to be apprehended priests or any other rigid functionaries, worldly and unyielding so-called 'Catholic priests' or 'Catholic bishops' to the unyielding justice that must be theirs. A financial reward may be forthcoming for those who give substantial information as to their whereabouts.

Our regional hotlines are open.

Our hotline is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Keep our parishes and our communities safe. Remain alert. Do not approach them. They are known to be dangerous. Their very ideas are toxic to our freedoms and the ideals we uphold. Simply dial our hotline number. 

Our switchboard is ready to receive your call...NOW.

Cardinal Aguilar on Amoris Laetitia: Read it Slowly

Mahound's Paradise covers the story brought to his attention by Jane Royal...

'A few distinguished gentlemen are suffering because they do not understand what Francis meant in Amoris Laetitia and want the Pope to explain it. Their "concerns" are imaginary, because the Pope said what needed to be said with sufficient clarity.

Just read it slowly if you want to understand. Some say (Amoris Laetitia) expresses personal opinions; others that it doesn't change anything; and others that it changes much. One must be more sincere and a open-minded.

The Pope expressed much about the nature of Christian marriage as a covenant of irrevocable love. And he did so as it had never been done previously in the magisterium of the Church. Taking a very realistic perspective, he says that in today's society there may be people trapped in situations of sin, from which they repent and from which, at a given time, they cannot extricate themselves; and it teaches that these people, if they are truly repentant, can receive absolution from their sins and can therefore receive communion avoiding any scandal. If those who doubt our aside their cards and go to confession, they will understand better.

Find people who are suffering and sincerely seek God. God loves, God calls, God waits with his peace. How can we dispossess them?'


If the Cardinals "concerns" are your "concerns" they are not real, genuine "concerns". That's why "concerns" are in quotation marks.

If you have "concerns" you should read it slowly. Then your "concerns" will disappear.

The Pope is great and his teachings on marriage are great. So your "concerns" are null and void.

If you have "concerns" you don't have sympathy for people in difficult situations who repent but who cannot yet break free from their difficult situations.

If you have "concerns" you are not a real Christian.

Thanks for clearing that up, Cardinal Aguilar.

Now can you ask the Pope to speak for himself and answer the concerns of the Cardinals which are also the concerns of the People of God.

Saturday, 10 December 2016

'Dear Pope Francis'

Binary answers are not included.
The image (left) is a charming little book that some readers may recall was published of answers to letters from children around the world.

It just goes to show that Pope Francis is only too happy to answer letters on various themes and questions - nothing binary mind - when answers are sought.

Presumably, his answers to the dubia are on the back-burner for the time being, until the illustrations have been well and truly completed.

While we await 'Dear Pope Francis: The Pope Answers the Four Cardinals Doubts on Amoris Laetitia', by Pope Francis, any help readers could give me in updating my online little book of Pope Francis insults would be most appreciated. It has been a long time since I have updated the book and a small team of readers who had a bit of time on their hands to search Radio Vaticana and various publications to update his exhaustive list of insults would be very helpful. This is a work for the Church, a document also for Church historians - a veritable 'go to' site for those - perhaps a College of Cardinals - who will wish to 'review' and 'discern' the content of the Francis papacy in years to come.

If you can help, contact me at the email address in the right-hand sidebar.

Look very carefully and it becomes very obvious precisely why the Jesuits were suppressed.

Today, like yesterday, is, I believe, 'international buy your parish priest a saturno' day. Don't wait until Christmas. Every parish priest deserves one. Preferably one with the vital quality of rigidity. A floppy saturno simply will not do.


Related Posts with Thumbnails