Francis, The Perverts’ Hero
The second sodomy reblog
Elton John, the pathetic freak show, has just stated that Francis is “his hero”; seasoning his stupid utterances with the usual bollocks about his own perverted concept of “love”. It is clear here that the pathetic freak show is referring to Francis’ failed attempt to pervert Catholicism toward sexual perversion.
This will make headlines worldwide.
I wonder how many Pollyannas will start to open their big blue eyes after this. A man who is everything the Church considers scandalous and abominable praises a Pope for trying to bring the Church on his side. If this does not open Pollyanna’s big eyes, what ever will?
Open your big blue eyes, Pollyanna. This is a papacy fit for atheists and perverts. By continuing in your increasingly more stubborn blindness, you are endangering your soul.
M
Share this:
Francis And Williams II: A Parallel
The recent news about Bishop Finn (and less recent news about Bishop Barros of Chile) allow us to make a very short reflection about Francis:
If you are a decent Bishop, the Pope will let you cook with the slow burner until you are forced out, because it seems you have not always been perfect in the past.
If you are one of his friends, or friends of the friends, you can be an obvious protector of pedophile priests, and he will make you bishop ignoring the massive, massive popular protest.
Francis is like a drunken, inept, stupid king of the past.
One is reminded of William II, the unfortunate son of the more famous William the Conqueror:
arrogant, inept, impious, and possibly a sodomite.
M
P.s. I read here the open accusation that Bishop Barros would be a homo himself. It would explain the “friends of the friends” connection wonderfully.
Truly, Francis is one of the devil.
Share this:
Fighting As they Can: The Prayer To St. Michael The Archangel
Father Z has an interesting mail from a reader whose old priest encouraged the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel after Mass, whilst the new man dismisses the thing as “part of some ultra-conservative agenda”.
I can relate to this as I know a parish where exactly that has happened (the prayer used to be said, and now isn’t), albeit the new man does not appear to be less conservative, rather more afraid of his bishop.
There can be no denying that the prayer to St Michael is radically catholic and, as such, unacceptable to NuChurch. People who recite it must say words like “battle”, “wickedness”, “devil”, “host”, “hell”, “satan”, “ruin of souls” to mention only some parts.
A pagan priest in Francis’ style does not want you to think even for a moment of yourself as engaged in a war, rather in a “dialogue”. He does not like to speak of “wickedness”, much less the one of the devil: he prefers to address the supposed injustices and inequalities in this life. He dares to hope (and is, actually, rather persuaded of that) that hell is empty of human souls, if hell exists at all. He rejects the very concept of “ruin of souls” as referred to the sin of his sheep (adultery, fornication, sodomy), and if something like that must be admitted he prefers to mention it in connection with bankers, oil men, and managers of mining companies.
There can be no doubt that the very invitation to recite such a prayer – nay, the very teaching of it, as the prayer must be, nowadays, taught to your parishioners – is a clear indication of the priest’s desire to engage in exactly that battle the “Francispriest” wants you to forget. In my experience, there are still an awful lot of priests around – Novus Ordo priests, I mean – who have sincere fear of the Lord and interest in the salvation of the souls entrusted to them. But being smart, they recognise that their biggest – or one of their biggest – obstacles lies not in the secular world around them, but in the bishop above them. The prayer to St Michael is one of the ways of calling the souls to arms whilst remaining within the narrow confines of what the bishop considers acceptable, or would not have the nerve to officially discourage. Again, I see this happening – in my frequent Novus Ordo exploration trips – fairly often: a testament, I think, of the good will of many priests, and of the bad will of a couple of bishops.
How to help the good priest in his work? By praying not only for him and for the poor, trampled Church, but also by praying the Prayer to St. Michael with renewed zeal. I recite the prayer every day I see obvious dykes or faggots in the street, which in the modern cesspool known as London is an all but infrequent experience.
Good priests are helped by praying, as is prayer in general.
The more NuChurch does not want us to pray, the more we do.
M
Share this:
“Dissenters”, And The Slandering Of Orthodoxy
Just another “religion of mercy” reblog
Ah, words!
How powerful they are with the simple! How many of the latter there are!
Cardinal Wuerl has now made clear what the strategy of the Modernist faction (led by TMAHICH) against orthodox Catholics (factually led by the SSPX, and by Cardinal Burke in the Conciliar camp) in the months leading to October will be: comparing them to “dissenters”.
Wuerl’s aim is transparent enough: leveraging on the love for orthodoxy of your common Catholic to create an aura of rebellion around those who defend Catholic orthodoxy, whilst letting the heretics appear orthodox because the Pope sides with them.
Mind, Cardinal Wuerl makes no names concerning who the “dissenting” brother bishops are: but Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider immediately come to mind, together with the five Cardinals who authored “Remaining in the Truth of Christ”. Others have also spoken, but I think these seven are the main targets.
Will it…
View original 311 more words
Share this:
Presbyterians: Line With Holy Ghost Is Disturbed
The “Almost like Francis” Reblog
The Mexican Presbyterians have decided, after 139 years, to file for divorce from the PCUSA, the Presbyterian [so-called] Church of the USA.
It would appear that whilst the Holy Ghost spoke to the ones suggesting to them that homosexual priests – I mean here outright sodomites – are just the ticket, the same Holy Ghost spoke to the others – in good Spanish, I presume – telling them that this is a no-no.
As a consequence of this translation/communication/phone signal problems, the two organisations have resulted in an event that can be rightly defined one of the defining features of Protestantism, and a significant Protestant gift to the modern world: divorce.
I do not know whether or how the two organisations will discuss their differences, and whenever I am in front of these situations I can’t avoid being embarrassed for the boys, girls and third sex members (plus all the…
View original 149 more words
Share this:
Meet Francis, The Evil Clown
It seems to me the more The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) feels isolated, the more he tries to counterattack with assertions that can only be defined as opposed to Christianity, if not outright blasphemous at least in their end result.
Firstly, Francis has taken on this disgusting (heretic, possibly blasphemous) habit of telling us that whoever does not follow him in whatever heretical (blasphemous?) novelties he preaches displeases God, has no God, is dead inside, or something of the sort.
This time, as you might have read, it is “dialogue”. For two thousand years, Christians wanted to convert. In the age of Francis, suddenly conversion is nowhere to be found. Instead we have “dialogue”, which basically boils down to giving legitimacy to error against a very vague hope that our blabbering may persuade someone to convert out of us telling him to hold on to his Koran.
Who the heck is this old nincompoop; this ass in white; this fat, arrogant, lewd old man to tell us that not only God has changed (an heresy in itself, and a blasphemy in that it obviously denies a fundamental attribute of God’s Divine Perfection), but that he is the legitimate authority, the Chosen One to tell us exactly how God has changed, and how we must behave in order not to displease this, erm, new god Francis apparently knows so well? Give me a stake, and I’ll show you how such arrogance should be fittingly punished (after due deposition, of course; see above in the fixed “pages” for more details).
Then there is the other habit, which enrages me beyond words (even the strong ones), of always comparing Christians to Pharisees.
The evil clown obviously wants to persuade you that the Christians of today are exactly what the Pharisees of yore were: wrong. As the Pharisees were stubbornly attached to an old religion, made obsolete by Christ, Christians who believe in everything in which Christianity has always believed are now obsolete, passé, and left behind by a new god and a new religion; a religion consisting in adoring the Goddess Of Mercy and Francis, her Fat Prophet.
These two heretical, and in the end blasphemous habits both point out to a core message: forget Christianity. We are in a new time of mercy, and this new time has a new god and new rules, and those who follow the Only God and the (forcibly) immutable rules are the bad ones.
My blood boils everytime I read Francis’ pagan preaching; a preaching coming from the Pope, of all people; a satanical cocktail of lies and deception that can only be explained with God’s wrath at his faithless and stupid children; so faithless and so stupid, in fact, that they even reject the concept of God’s wrath. It pains me beyond words that whenever this heretical (or blasphemous) propaganda is spitted by that disgusting mouth, I seldom read more than polite disagreement.
Call him an idiot, a nincompoop, an evil man. That’s who he is, and you know it. Polite disagreement will not make him stop. Worldwide ridicule might.
Let us say it again: the stake is what this man has deserved. I doubt it would be enough to save a man as rotten as this, but you never know.
I am, at least, all in favour of making the attempt.
M
Share this:
USA: Is There *One* Christian Presidential Candidate?
Rick Santorum is weighing his option as a candidate to be President, and I can’t say I like the way things are going.
Asked whether he would participate to a so-called same-sex marriage (you know: that kind of circus where two perverts smash their own perversion in your face and ask you to “celebrate” it) Mr Santorum is quoted with the following words:
“I would not,” Santorum replied to radio host Hugh Hewitt. When asked why not, he said, “Because I don’t, I’ve just self, as a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”
What the Elton does that even mean?
“A violation of my faith?” Is he apologising? What is he talking about, Truth or the Highway Code?
What about “an abomination”?
And what the Elton (again) does the “support” thing mean? How can anyone “support” anyone else in the latter’s doing something that one knows is gravely evil?
This all sounds so stupid and hypocritical. The message Santorum sends (as read in the linked article) sounds so much like: “I will give you all the support I can, but alas, I can’t be at the ceremony itself”. This sounds like the boy saying “I would like playing soccer with you, but my father has said I must make homework instead; so very sad, but I must obey”.
If Mr Santorum believes in hell and heaven (which I am sure he does), he must say so openly. He must say that he does not take part to the circus ceremony because the entire matter, and not only the ceremony, is gravely evil and bound to send the main actors to hell (and possibly those who area accomplices in their sin; I have no idea to what extent they would be punished in the same way, though I am sure they would be punished harshly) with the Sodom Express.
It’s not about what Mr Santorum’s religion forces him to do, obviously with a degree of reluctant sadness as it clearly emerges from his words. It is about the very objective reality of right and wrong. If Mr Santorum thinks he can take refuge in a kind of “get out of embarrassment card” because hey, it’s his religion, but you can be assured of his “support” in everythign that does not involve participating in ceremonies, we have here another one who has sold his integrity for the sake of a dream that will never become reality anyway.
Man up, Mr Santorum. Stand up to the Truth. Don’t dance around the subject. You will never be President anyway. The best thing you can do is to contribute to the shift of the US political landscape towards sanity.
I am sick and tired of these politicians thinking they must be everything to everyone. The exceptional politician – as opposed to the usual little whore so common in Western democracies – is the one who fights for his own Christian vision of the world and tries his best to shift the voters on his position. It seems to me Mr Santorum is doing exactly the opposite.
Is there *one* candidate who is still ready to stand for Christian values? I dread to read of Ted Cruz making the same mistake Santorum is making. Perhaps he already did, but please don’t send me any link, my old heart asks for some respite at this time.
Santorum must man up and say loud an dclear how things stand. This will be more important as the US Supreme Court – as it appears certain now – will sit squarely on the side of Satan in a matter of one or two months now.
Santorum can’t seriously think the Supreme Court decision will allow him to say “hey, relax, there’s nothing I can do now”. The real battle begins now. Roe vs Wade did not end the abortion controversy, either. He will have to take a stand, and “I would support them” is nothing like taking a stand.
Actually, it is more like bending over.
M
Share this:
Environ-Mentalism: “First Things” Blog Goes All Mundabor On Pope Francis
What the .. frack?
On the “mainstream” blog “First Things” there is an excellent article from a Maureen Mullarkey about the latest blunder of The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) and, expanding from that, the clownesque, stupid, socialist, godless, self-centred boundless egotism of the man. Follow the link as long as you can. Kudos to Rorate for making us aware of the article.
In case the blog post be taken down, below are some of the pearls. Emphases mine.
Handwriting has been on the wall along the Viale Vaticano from the get-go. At the beginning of his pontificate, Francis revealed himself to be fastidiously attuned to image. He refused to give communion in public ceremonies lest he be photographed giving the sacrament to the wrong kind of sinner. So, when he agreed to pose between two well-known environmental activists and brandish an anti-fracking T-shirt, we believed what we…
View original 389 more words
Share this:
Listen To The Voice Of Reason
Barnhardt, the S&W Model 29 of Catholic blogging. Yes, it’s a huge compliment.
I have been kindly directed to an excellent blog post written from Ann Barnhardt; this post concerns on the one hand the similarities between Francis and Obama and on the other hand – and far more importantly – the similarities between the way Francis cajoles the stupid masses and the way Satan tried to tempt Our Lord.
The similarity between the two main populists of our time has been already stressed on this blog several times. The second part hasn’t, and I invite you to take the time to read this long but beautifully written post to become aware of what is going on with this unspeakable Pontificate.
As always, Barnhardt does not mince words: for example, speaking of of Obama and the Unholy Father she writes:
“They are both stupid, babbling fools, completely incoherent when not reading off a script prepared by others. Both are Marxists. Both are media darling fronts for a thuggish regime…”
Harsh? You bet. But seriously: how can truth be condemned because it is a harsh truth? “Babbling fool” is, in fact, the gentlest thing that can be said of both, all other possibilities being even worse for their eternal salvation.
It all boils down to one point: Francis has, like Obama, chosen earth over heaven. And like Obama, very probably he does not believe in the latter. The consequence of this is that secular thinking that always was, is and always will be the tool of Satan to harvest as many souls as he can.
I invite you to read the article, and to say a prayer for the brave author.
It isn’t often that one gets the truth said whole, even when it is harsh.
Mundabor
Share this:
In San Francisco, Dissenters Are Smelling The Blood
As many of you know, Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco has been involved in a controversy for some time now, because he insists on unspeakable things like demanding that teachers in Catholic schools live and teach in a Catholic way.
Things have now massively escalated as a group of soi-disant prominent Catholics dissenters have bought an entire page of the San Francisco Chronicle to ask that the Archbishop be removed, as his obvious Catholicism is out of place in the diocese and could keep other dissenters from deceiving themselves.
I think only one of two can apply here:
1. The dissenters have really – as they claim – tried to obtain the Archbishop's removal through unofficial channels; they have failed, and now bitch in public like it's Elton John Day.
2. The dissenters have been told by friendly sources in Rome: “we can't just move the man out of the blue; but make some Lio and we will take it as an excuse to remove him because hey, he fosters divisions”.
I hope the first, and fear the second. It seems to me very much in tune with this satanical Pontificate that mob-pressure in Stalin-style be used as the excuse for the purge. The obvious Catholicism of Archbishop Cordileone must be unwelcome in Francis' entourage, and runs counter to the anti-Catholic rubbish the Unholy Father goes spitting out of his godless mouth practically every day. I am, therefore, not very optimistic, albeit it can still be that Francis prefers not to create a precedent of the sort, particularly after his extremely controversial appointment in Chile.
The main point of today is, though, a different one: if we had a halfway decent Pope, the public call for his removal would not make any sense both financially and as a PR instrument. Irrespective of how this situation is going to develop, the very fact that the call was published shows how emboldened dissenters feel in the so-called “age of mercy”, where being Catholic is considered unmerciful.
Let us increase our prayers not only for the good Archbishop, but for the end of this satanical Pontificate.
M
Share this:
Francis And The Poverty Fraud
The Unholy Father tries, once again, to muddle the waters of logic and common sense with confused talk about poverty.
Now let us clear a couple of things for the simple: the very first community of Christians put, factually, their goods in common because they were inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit in order to create a leaven that would then allow the Church to grow. But this societal organisation never was the expected model of Christian society, nor did the Church ever encourage this sort of exercise outside of small organisations who freely decide to organise themselves in that way. Not even a priest is obliged to give his patrimony to the Church, much less the poor, much less the Government.
Francis knows that. He knows that, I am sure, even when he is tipsy, which I suspect happens more often than many imagine. But he does not refrain – whether because of alcohol intake, or not – from implying or suggesting that this is the way things are supposed to work now, in the Argentina and Italy and United States of the XXI Century.
This is patently stupid. So what does the man do? He first implies his embracing of the stupid, populist ideology, and then covers his fat backside with some linguistic exercise which boils down to plain, old, Jesuitical deception.
We are, then, informed that “poverty” would be “the capacity to manage my possession with generosity and for the common good”. But this is simply not what poverty is. Poverty is, by definition, a state of unwanted and painful scarcity of, in this case, material goods. Even the simple lifestyle of the man of means who donates much of the income he doesn't even know how to spend can, in case, be defined as an extreme example of generosity, but never of poverty.
So why does Francis push this strange idea of poverty? Because, my dear reader, he wants to expropriate you, as made abundantly clear by his frequent socialist talk of forced redistribution.
The entire thinking is, of course, contradictory and perhaps simply drunken. You can't condemn poverty one day and praise it the day after. But Francis isn't the type to care for coherence, or – I suspect – sobriety. To him, you must put your good at the disposal of the poor. If you don't, the state must take them from you and do it for you. On a planetary scale, the UNO must push for this to happen at interstate level.
Francis is a Socialist's dream, and a Catholic's nightmare. His forma mentis is one of utter and complete Socialism, with the excuse of a very thin varnish or pretend Catholicism.
He is a fraud packaged in lies.
M
Share this:
SSPX: Curb Your Enthusiasm
There is a lot of talk about the “recognition” of the SSPX as a Catholic organisation from the Argentinian Government, and with the obvious help of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. Personally, everything seems very straightforward to me, and nothing to get anyone excited.
Bring a Catholic, non-profit organisation obviously gives a legal status in Argentina. Whether it is about tax treatment, or the issuing of visas, or who knows how many other things, being recognised as Catholic has a bearing on your legal status as seen by the Argentinian Government.
The SSPX would obviously never say “we aren't Catholic”. Just as obviously, no archdiocese which does not want to cause a huge uproar – and big trouble with the Vatican, very possibly – would say to the Argentinian Government “they aren't Catholic”. Besides, I imagine that rules of Catholic decency and common courtesy do not allow for this kind of under-the-beltline bickering.
Result? The Archdiocese says to the Argentinian Government “why, we have internal disagreements; but of course, of course they're Catholics”.
Again, I would not want to be the Archbishop who has to explain to the Catholic Press why the SSPX are allegedly “not Catholic”. He would lose face before he loses the argument.
Therefore, the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires has done the only thing it could reasonably expected to do: confirm the reality on the ground.
Of course this is no canonical recognition, something that is nothing to do with how a Government sees you. Of course the SSPX is not now the obedient subject of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. What has simply happened is that the Archdiocese has had the common sense of recognising the reality on the ground: the SSPX is a Catholic organisation, and not less so because of unresolved issues.
There's nothing more than this, I think. It all seems very straightforward. Nothing very exciting has happened.
Unless it be this: that those outlets – not the Vatican – who described the SSPX as schismatic might have some explaining to do. But the latter weren't much fazed by facts beforehand, and will not be swayed by this further occasion for a reality check now.
The SSPX is Catholic. Dogs bark. The sun goes up on the East.
M
Share this:
Where Does It End?
A painfully beautiful blog post addresses the issue that it in our suffering hearts in these disgraceful times.
Where does it end?
Will Francis kiss a Trannie in the mouth one day? Will he give him a dildo as a birthday present because “Jesus would have wanted to let him feel included?” Will he dance in a tutu in St Peter's Square? Will he promote the beatification cause of Saul Alinsky?
I do not know where it does end. I know that it will end when the Lord decides that we have been punished enough, and when our yearning for things as they were leads us to reject the abominations of FrancisChurch.
But even in these times, and most of all in these times, we must keep in mind that it is not for us to question at which point the Church is not the Church anymore, because there is no such point. The Church is Indefectible even if Francis and Bishop Cupich makevlewd sex acts in public. She is Indefectible because the Lord says so. Therefore, nothing that can happen will lead me to question Our Lord's words, and seek for reassurance that “he is still right”. Forget “still”.
What we do, is to question at every step the antics of those (from the Pope down) who defile the Church. It might be that few of us do. It might be that very many of those who are born Catholics in this generation will be damned. But if this is so, they will be damned because they chose to believe lies, not because the Church is a lie.
Whenever you get discouraged, reflect on this: the lowest point of the Church was, very arguably, not during the Arian crisis or the Great Schism or the Protestant revolt. It was, arguably, when her first designated head, the one slated for being Her pastor in chief on earth, the one chosen by Christ as the first stone of the Divine Edifice, denied God three times.
The Church recovered then. She will recover now.
Where does it end?
We do not know. But we stand resolute in our intention to condemn bad pastors whatever happens, and stand with the Church whatever happens.
M
Share this:
The Prostituted Uterus
The always unbelievably satanical Nick Clegg (head of a fifth-wheel party largely noticed in the last five years for its vast uselessness) has proposed that a new profession be introduced in Britain: the professional surrogate for fags wanting to “have a child”.
Apparently, such monstrous “uterus for hire” agreements are already legal in the Socialist Republic of California, so if it is good for a country of legalised potheads it cannot be bad for LibDem Britain, can it now?
Clegg is not slow to point out that there are more fags wanting a new toy than women with a fully unnatural desire to have a baby in their womb for nine months and then… give it away. Life is astonishing, isn't it?
So let's put money into the equation, says Cleggy, Cameron's demure and very girlish boyfriend, and let us hire some prostitute uterus ready to be occupied for money, for nine months, for the pleasure of two fags. I am sure, absolutely sure, the same Clegg would consider the usual prostitution (the occupation of a sexual organ, for probably no longer than eight to twelve minutes, for money, and for the pleasure of one man) immoral; but hey, logic has left the man a long time ago, and I am afraid he will rediscover its cold touch only when he finds himself in hell.
It is completely pathetic how this fifth-wheel party tries to gain relevance by obsessing over the “rights” of an extremely tiny minority of perverts, hoping that the growing mass of the accomplices in the sin of sodomy may give them their vote because they… help fudge-packers to pack more fudge with such enthusiasm.
I doubt the strategy will fly. Fifth wheels are fifth wheels, and everyone looking at the car knows they don't count much.
Nick “Girlish boyfriend” Clegg might discover it very soon, too.
M
