SSPX Building Up Vs Pulling Down…

From blogger, Gabriel Syme…

Bishop Huonder of the Diocese of Chur (Switzerland) has announced he will spent his retirement with the SSPX. He is 76 and has wished to retire for a while, Pope Francis having already rejected his resignation in 2017. I don’t know a lot about him, beyond the fact he seems quite solid and has previously been “in the wars” with the LGBT and secular movements.
Presumably he will still be able to carry out the functions of a Prelate and so this could be a real boon for the SSPX. Rorate reports that Pope Francis is “well informed” about the Bishop’s choice and personally approves of it.  

Editor writes…

Clearly, those who have spread the falsehood that the SSPX is in schism, are plain wrong – have been all along, of course, but it must be crystal clear, even to the slowest of “liberal” minds, that Pope Francis (of ALL popes!) is hardly likely to approve one of his bishops spending his retirement with a “schismatic” Society of traditional priests and bishops. There’s a limit to embracing “equality”, “diversity” and “tolerance”.  It seems as good a time as ever, then, to reflect on the closing chapter of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics, written just twenty years after the dramatic changes in the Church, in the years following the Second Vatican Council.  

Archbishop Lefebvre writes: Building Up Versus Pulling Down (from Open Letter to Confused Catholics)

Twenty years have gone by and one would have thought that the reactions raised by the Council reforms would have calmed down, that the Catholic people would have buried the religion in which they had been brought up, that the younger ones, not having known it, would have accepted the new one. That, at least, was the wager made by the Modernists. They were not unduly disturbed by the uproar, sure of themselves as they were in the early days. They were less so later on. The frequent and necessary concessions made to the spirit of the world did not produce the expected results. Nobody any longer wanted to be a priest of the new religion and the faithful turned away from their religious practice. The Church which tried to become a Church of the poor became a poor Church, obliged to resort to advertising to collect Peter’s Pence, and to sell off its properties.

During this time those faithful to Tradition drew together in all the Christian lands, and particularly in France, Switzerland, the United States and Latin America.
The fabricator of the new Mass, Mgr. Annibale Bugnini was himself obliged to recognize this world-wide resistance in his posthumous book,21 a resistance which is growing and organizing itself unceasingly and drawing support. No, the “traditionalist” movement is not “slowing-down” as the progressivist journalists write from time to time to reassure themselves. Where else are there as many people at Mass as at St. Nicholas-du-Chardonnet, and also as many Masses, as many Benedicitons of the Blessed Sacrament or as many beautiful ceremonies? The Society of Saint Pius X throughout the world owns seventy houses,22 each with at least one priest, churches like the one in Brussels and the one we have quite recently bought in London, or the one placed at our disposal in Marseilles; also schools, and four seminaries.

Carmelite convents are opening and already forming new communities. Religious communities of men and of women created fifteen or more years ago, who strictly apply the rule of the Orders from which they stem, are overflowing with vocations, and are continuously having to enlarge their premises and construct more buildings. The generosity of the Catholic faithful never ceases to amaze me, particularly in France.

The monasteries are centers of attraction, crowds of people go there often from far away; young people bewildered by the illusory seductions of pleasures and escape in every form, find in them their Road to Damascus. Here is a list of places where they have
kept the true Catholic faith and for that reason draw people: Le Barroux, Flavigny-sur Ozerain, La Haye-aux-Bonshommes, the Benedictines of Alés, the Sisters of Fanjeaux, of Brignolles, of Pontcallec, and communities like that of Father Lecareux…

Travelling a great deal, I see everywhere at work the hand of Christ blessing His Church. In Mexico the ordinary people drove from the churches the reforming clergy who, won over by the so-called liberation theology, wanted to throw out the statues of the saints. “It’s not the statues who are going, it’s you.” Political circumstances have prevented us from opening a priory in Mexico; so faithful priests travel out from a center at El Paso near the frontier in the United States. The descendants of the Cristeros welcome them warmly and offer them their churches. I have administered 2500 confirmations there at the request of the people.

In the United States, young married couples with their numerous children flock to the Society’s priests. In 1982 in that country I ordained the first three priests trained entirely in our seminaries. Groups of traditionalists are on the increase whereas the parishes are declining. Ireland, which has remained refractory towards the novelties, has been subject to the reforms since 1980, altars having been cast into rivers or re-used as building material. Simultaneously, traditionalist groups have formed in Dublin and Belfast. In Brazil, in the diocese of Campos of which I have already spoken, the people have rallied around the priests evicted from their parishes by the new bishop, with processions of 5,000 and 10,000 people taking to the streets.

It is therefore the right road we are following; the proof is there, we recognize the tree by its fruits. What the clergy and the laity have achieved in spite of persecution by the liberal clergy (for, as Louis Veuillot says, “There is nobody more sectarian than a liberal.”) is almost miraculous. Do not let yourself be taken in, dear reader, by the term “traditionalist” which they would have people understand in a bad sense. In a way, it is a pleonasm because I cannot see who can be a Catholic without being a traditionalist. I think I have amply demonstrated in this book that the Church is a tradition. We are a tradition. They also speak of “integrism.” If by that we mean respect for the integrality of dogma, of the catechism, of Christian morality, of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then yes, we are integrists. And I do not see how one can be a Catholic without being an integrist in that sense of the word.

It has also been said that after me, my work will disappear because there will be no bishop to replace me. I am certain of the contrary; I have no worries on that account. I may die tomorrow, but the good Lord answers all problems. Enough bishops will be found in the world to ordain our seminarians: this I know.

Even if at the moment he is keeping quiet, one or another of these bishops will receive from the Holy Ghost the courage needed to arise in his turn. If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.

This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this: At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”   [Emphasis added]

21 La Riforma Liturgica: Edizioni Liturgiche Rome.
22 At present, in the year 2000, there are 135 priories, 6 seminaries, 75 schools, 3 universities, 3 nursing homes, 4 retreat houses, 4 bishops and 401 priests–ed.

 

Comment: 

I don’t think there can be any doubt in the minds of those who have lived through the years since Vatican II that the SSPX has, indeed, built up (and continues to build up) the Church at this time of crisis.  Thus, it is heartening to read this news of the Swiss diocesan bishop who has chosen to spend his retirement years  in the Society.   Will other bishops follow the example of  Bishop Huonder?

It seems very clear that the Pope is trying to regularise the SSPX in a variety of ways – is there a  local bishop in your neck of the woods who may assist this process?  Why don’t the local bishops invite the Society priests to (“Mass-less”) diocesan events, for example?  Would the Society priests accept? Is there, in your opinion, scope for a sort of informal regularisation within dioceses to help normalise the SSPX situation?  

Pope Francis Suppresses Ecclesia Dei… 

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Suppressed by Pope Francis
January 19, 2019 By fsspx.news

On January 17, 2019, Pope Francis suppressed the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which had been created in 1988 by his predecessor Pope John Paul II.

The Apostolic Letter in the form of the Pope’s motu proprio was published at noon on January 19 by the Holy See Press Office and inserted in L’Osservatore Romano. From now on, the Commission’s responsibilities will be placed entirely in the hands of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which will designate a special section to take over its activities. This transfer, explains the Sovereign Pontiff, comes in response to a need expressed during a meeting of this dicastery on November 15, 2017, approved by him on November 24, and validated in a plenary session in January 2018.

The pope recalls how, over thirty years ago, the day after the episcopal consecrations in 1988, John Paul II wished to facilitate the “full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre”. The goal was to help them “remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their own spiritual and liturgical traditions”. This preservation of the spiritual and liturgical traditions was ensured in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

This historical reminder of Pope Francis has the merit of showing how this Pontifical Commission was originally founded on the condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre and his work. In its thirty years of existence, it mostly limited itself to liturgical questions, with the intention of responding to the “sensitivity” of conservative priests and faithful, and of countering the Society of St. Pius X’s growth throughout the world…

But after the supposed excommunications of the bishops of Tradition were lifted in 2009, Benedict XVI believed that the ongoing doctrinal issues were a good reason to attach the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The goal was to begin doctrinal discussions with the Society of St. Pius X.

The Primacy of the Doctrine of the Faith

Today, Pope Francis writes that the religious communities that belong to the Pontifical Commission have acquired stability both in their numbers and their activities; they ensure the celebration of the Mass in its “extraordinary form”. But, he points out, “the questions dealt with by the same Pontifical Commission were of a primarily doctrinal nature.” These objections and questions are clearly irrelevant to these communities. It is indeed with the Society of St. Pius X that they continue to be an issue.

This is what the cardinals pointed out on November 15, 2017, when they “formulated the request that dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X be conducted directly by the aforementioned Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith], as the questions being dealt with are of a doctrinal nature.”

One conclusion is evident: as the so-called Ecclesia Dei communities have preserved “their spiritual and liturgical traditions”, they clearly do not count in this discussion. If they remain attached to a section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is incidental. They can have the Mass, the “spiritual and liturgical traditions”, but not the whole doctrine that goes along with them.

That has always been the Society of St. Pius X’s great reproach against Dom Gérard [founder of the Benedictine monastery at Le Barroux who worked with Archbishop Lefebvre until 1988] and all those who thought they should break the unity of Tradition in order to negotiate a purely practical agreement. The crisis of the Church cannot be reduced to a spiritual or liturgical question alone. It is deeper, for it touches the very heart of the Faith and the doctrine of Revelation, Christ the King’s right to reign here below over men and over societies.

Comment: 

Is this, as some commentators fear, anticipating this suppression, the beginning of the end for Summorum Pontificum?  Is the Pope about to attempt to suppress the ancient Mass?  

Pope genuflects to the world but won’t kneel before the Blessed Sacrament?

Christian Order, Editorial, November 2018 – Nihilists Old & New

As Christians worldwide are put to the legal sword for obeying the Ten Commandments, or censored and banished from cyberspace for daring to express and defend their beliefs and views, the remains of Christian civilisation are being finished off before our eyes at an astonishing rate — without a shot being fired.

To what purpose? Ultimately, godless transnational elites seek to establish an Orwellian fiefdom atop the ruins of social and moral breakdown. The greater the fear and chaos, the easier to consolidate control (e.g., the police state triggered by 9/11 via the Patriot Act). Since relentless propaganda is essential to this oligarchic end, weaponisation of mainstream media has been extended to the internet. Through control of both Big Tech itself — Amazon, Google/YouTube, Paypal, Twitter, Facebook et. al. — and increasingly the major web hosting companies who connect us to them, they have consolidated their unaccountable control of daily discourse and world events. The promotion of open borders is just one arm of the multi-pronged attack on Christian life and culture enabled by this monopoly on social communications.

Guiding the process, as ever, is the sinister hand of U.S. intelligence agencies. As a former Congressional Intelligence Committee staffer, Diane Roark, confirmed in 2014: “There is no content that is off limits.” When it comes to the personal data of everyone on earth, she said,

Their motto is “Collect it all,” as shown in the Snowden documents. And what they told me before I left was, “We’re going to own the web.” And they do. The Snowden documents have revealed they do.

Undaunted by FBI raids on her home, Roark bravely came forward to reveal National Security Agency secrets that threaten us all, while stressing to Americans in particular that “given that it’s domestic surveillance, the primary user is the FBI, not NSA.” The Stasi itself could only dream of such embedded tyranny.

If the relentless gains of this multi-layered totalitarian juggernaut and its nihilistic PC creed seemed unstoppable before the election of Francis, since that fateful day even our paternal protection has been stripped away. A pontiff who genuflects to the world but will not kneel before the Blessed Sacrament is not a father of Catholic souls but a figurehead for worldlings. Clearly, whatever the hidden history of his rise to power — how and by whom he has really come about — Jorge Bergoglio is one of them.

That much, at least, is beyond dispute. The growing storm over his long history of protecting sexual predators, brought to a head by Archbishop Viganò, changes nothing. Despite huffy headlines, the press have not suddenly turned on their Pope. Why would they when he promotes their anti-Catholic agenda? Not least by his refusal to plainly and simply acknowledge and denounce the homosexual nature of clerical sex abuse; a non-response tailored to the ongoing homosexualisation of life and culture: the nihilist lynchpin of globalism. “Homosexualisation of the media, the homosexual mafia … controls virtually everything that you read, everything that you see, everything that you hear,” American radio host Michael Savage noted a dozen years ago.

Humanly speaking, therefore, we are up against the wall. Yet it was ever thus. As G. K. Chesterton reminds us in the following extracts from his stirring ballad, our dark predicament, though uniquely horrific in its stealthy way, is the perennial and blessed lot of Christians. Introducing his work, he explained that:

The cult of [King] Alfred was a popular cult, from the darkness of the ninth century to the deepening twilight of the twentieth. […] Alfred has come down to us in the best way (that is, by national legends) solely for the same reason as Arthur and Roland and the other giants of that darkness, because he fought for the Christian civilisation against the heathen nihilism.

Like locusts of the Apocalypse [Rev. 9:1-5], a plague of virile nihilists descended on our Catholic ancestors to devour them and eradicate their Triune God. They failed. Today, new barbarians — effete nihilists soaked in sodomitic vice — are in the ascendancy and waging war by other means; conspiring corporately to the same apocalyptic end. Once more the Church Militant is under siege. And once again — armed with the Holy Rosary; united with the ranks of the Church Triumphant and Church Suffering — we will overcome; the Faith will endure. Always.  Source  (all emphases in original.)

Comment:

I sometimes receive emails with photos of Pope Francis standing instead of kneeling during Mass. Seeing the matter raised again in the above (excellent) Christian Order editorial, I donned my Miss Marple hat and launched an investigation.

The first video clip below suggests that the pontiff has a real problem, possibly due to arthritis, requiring help to get down and then up again, while the second clip shows him kneeling with relative ease at a confessional.  However, he can lean forward to get himself down and be supported at the confessional as he rises again – so is it fair to suggest that he is refusing to kneel before the Blessed Sacrament – implying malice?   Any arthritis sufferer who struggles to bend the knee will tell you that it is extremely difficult to kneel without assistance, so I’m not so sure. I’m inclined to think that, in this matter, albeit in very few others, Pope Francis should be given the benefit of the doubt. What do you think?

However, it’s not that simple.  Surely, it can’t be beyond the bounds of the imagination and resources of the Vatican to construct a kneeler to be placed at the altar, so that the Pope can kneel with relative ease, as he is filmed so doing at the confessional?  Or am I being “rigid”?

Share your thoughts on the issue of the Pope’s apparent problem with kneeling at Mass, and the other important matters raised in the above Christian Order editorial… 

Pope Francis Advocates Atheism Over Hypocrisy… But Not “Repentance”?

Pope Francis said “better not to go to church: better to live as an atheist (if you are a hypocrite)…

VATICAN CITY, January 2, 2019 – Pope Francis addressed a crowd of faithful with some jarring remarks during his first Wednesday Audience of 2019. Speaking in the Paul VI Audience Hall, this morning, the pope focused on two recurring themes of his pontificate: hypocritical Christians and the “revolutionary” nature of the Gospel.
“How many times do we see the scandal of those people who go to church and stay there all day or go every day and then live hating others or talking badly about people? This is a scandal – it is better not to go to church: better to live as an atheist,” the pope admonished.   Click here to read more 

Comment:

How many popes in history have advocated living as an atheist rather than being a hypocritical Christian?  You know what I mean.  Aren’t we all hypocrites at some time or another, in some way or another? Why can’t he exhort us all to repentance and point out that we are showing a very bad example to atheists, who might otherwise be attracted to Christ’s Church?  Oops! No need, I forgot, they’re going to Heaven anyway even if they don’t believe in God!  In which case, so are all of us Christian hypocrites whom he exhorts to become atheists.  In which case, in turn, why bother with the Church at all?  

It goes without saying (although I’m about to say it) that we, each of us, should be making every effort to overcome our lack of charity, to stop being hypocrites – and bloggers are invited, sincerely, to offer some practical tips on how to overcome this awful sin of lack of charity (I, for one, will welcome any suggestions with open arms). 

However, giving up the Catholic sacraments-based spiritual battle to conquer our inner selfishness in order to  join the ranks of those who refuse to even acknowledge the existence of God, the first of the four Truths necessary for salvation, is not the answer to our sinfulness and weakness, our hypocrisy…  Is it? 

 

Church Crisis/Duties of State: how do we make the best use of our time?

Editor writes…

Since the announcement that this blog will close permanently at the beginning of next summer, there has been some interesting discussion (on the

“All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us” (Lord of the Rings)

Christmas thread) about the use of blogging as a means of apostolic action, a challenge, to those responsible for the crisis in the Church and a means of support for the faithful suffering as a result of the scandals. There is also the issue of carrying out our personal duties of state, and of pursuing our own spiritual well-being. How to make best use of the little time available to us, is, really, the issue at the heart of this debate.  Enter St Alphonsus Liguori!

St Aphonsus Liguori teaches… 

SERMON XXIV. THIRD SUNDAY AFTER EASTER. – ON THE VALUE OF TIME “A little while, and now you shall not see me.” JOHN xvi. 16.

THERE is nothing shorter than time, but there is nothing more valuable. There is nothing shorter than time; because the past is no more, the future is uncertain, and the present is but a moment. This is what Jesus Christ meant when he said: “A little while, and now you shall not see me. ” We may say the same of our life, which, according to St. James is but a vapour, which is soon scattered for ever. ”For what is your life? It is a vapour which appeareth for a little while.” (James iv. 14.) But the time of this life is as precious as it is short; for, in every moment, if we spend it well, we can acquire treasures of merits for heaven; but, if we employ time badly, we may in each moment commit sin, and merit hell. I mean this day to show you how precious is every moment of the time which God gives us, not to lose it, and much less to commit sin, but to perform good works and to save our souls.


1. “Thus saith the Lord: In an acceptable time I have heard thee, and in the day of salvation I have helped thee.” (Isa. xlix. 8.) St. Paul explains this passage, and says, that the acceptable time is the time in which God has determined to confer his favours upon us. He then adds: ”Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. vi. 2.) The Apostle exhorts us not to spend unprofitably the present time, which he calls the day of salvation; because, perhaps, after this day of salvation, there shall be no salvation for us. “The time,” says the same Apostle, “is short; it remaineth that they that weep be as though they wept not; that they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as if they used it not.” (1 Cor. vii. 29, 30, 31.) 

Since, then, the time which we have to remain on this earth is short, the Apostle tells those who weep, that they ought not to weep, because their sorrows shall soon pass away; and those who rejoice, not to fix their affections on their enjoyments, because they shall soon have an end. Hence he concludes, that we should use this world, not to enjoy its transitory goods, but to merit eternal life. 

2. ”Son,” says the Holy Ghost, ”observe the time.” (Eccl. iv. 2 3.) Son, learn to preserve time, which is the most precious and the greatest gift that God can bestow upon you. St. Bernardino of Sienna teaches that time is of as much value as God; because in every moment of time well spent the possession of God is merited. He adds that in every instant of this life a man may obtain the pardon of his sins, the grace of God, and the glory of Paradise. “Modico tempore potest homo lucrari gratiam et gloriam.” Hence St. Bonaventure says that “no loss is of greater moment than the loss of time.” (Ser. xxxvii. in Sept.) 

3. But, in another place, St. Bernardino says that, though there is nothing more precious than time, there is nothing less valuable in the estimation of men. ”Nil pretiosius tempore, nil vilius reputatur.” (Ser. ii. ad Schol.) You will see some persons spending four or five hours in play. If you ask them why they lose so much time, they answer: To amuse ourselves. Others remain half the day standing in the street, or looking out from a window. If you ask them what they are doing, they shall say in reply, that they are passing the time. And why says the same saint, do you lose this time? Why should you lose even a single hour, which the mercy of God gives you to weep for your sins, and to acquire the divine grace? “Donec hora pertranseat, quam tibi ad agendam pœnitentiam, ad acquirendam gratiam, miseratio conditoris indulserit.”

4. O time, despised by men during life, how much shall you be desired at the hour of death, and particularly in the other world! Time is a blessing which we enjoy only in this life; it is not enjoyed in the next; it is not found in heaven nor in hell. In hell, the damned exclaim with tears: “Oh! that an hour were given to us.” They would pay any price for an hour or for a minute, in which they might repair their eternal ruin. But this hour or minute they never shall have. In heaven there is no weeping; but, were the saints capable of sorrow, all their wailing should arise from the thought of having lost in this life the time in which they could have acquired greater glory, and from the conviction that this time shall never more be given to them. A deceased Benedictine nun appeared in glory to a certain person, and said that she was in heaven, and in the enjoyment of perfect happiness; but that, if she could desire anything, it would be to return to life, and to suffer affliction, in order to merit an increase of glory. And she added that, to acquire the glory which corresponded to a single Ave Maria, she would be content to suffer till the day of judgment the long and painful sickness which brought on her death. Hence, St. Francis Borgia was careful to employ every moment time for God. When others spoke of useless things; he conversed with God by holy affections; and so recollected was he that, when asked his opinion on the subject of conversation, he knew not what answer to make. Being corrected for this, he said: I am content to be considered stupid, rather than lose my time in vanities. 

5. Some of you will say: What evil am I doing ? Is it not, I ask, an evil to spend your time in plays, in conversations, and useless occupations, which are unprofitable to the soul? Does God give you this time to lose it? “Let not,” says the Holy Ghost, ”the part of a good gift overpass thee.” (Eccl. xiv. 14.) The work men of whom St. Matthew speaks did no evil; they only lost time by remaining idle in the streets. But they were rebuked by the father of the family, saying “Why stand you here all the day idle ?” (Matt. xx. 6.) On the day of judgment Jesus Christ shall demand an account, not only of every month and day that has been lost, but even of every idle word. ”Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it on the day of judgment.” (Matt. xii. 36.) He shall likewise demand an account of every moment of the time which you shall lose. According to St. Bernard, all time which is not spent for God is lost timeClick here to read St Alphonsus’ entire sermon On The Value of Time (scroll to p.98)

Comments invited…  

Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Is The Consecration Of Russia Now Urgent?

 

Comment: 

It’s perhaps time to remind ourselves of the fact that Our Lady requested the Consecration of Russia by the Pope and Bishops, as a pre-condition of world peace. 

Is the near panic we are witnessing in the world of politics today, perhaps a sign that this request for the Consecration of Russia, so long ignored by successive popes, is now urgent?   

Is Pope Francis right to think he will “go down in history” as a Schismatic? Gulp!

Extracts below, from Christian Order February 2018 editorial: Francis is So Bad, He’s Good  

 

If we speak explicitly, …what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly.” (Pope Francis)

“Let what you say be simply `Yes’ or `No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”       (Jesus Christ)

As underlined last month, the filthy fingerprints of the Father of Lies are now all over the Vatican (aka Sodomy Central). Hiding in plain sight, his ‘signature’ is not only apparent in orgiastic eruptions, however. It is also clear and ever present in the leitmotif of this papacy — deception.

This devilish modus operandi is expressed in the slithering papal strategy above, confided by Francis to his Special Secretary for the 2014/15 Sinods, Archbishop Bruno Forte. In October 2014, it was Forte who penned the infamous text calling for the Church to “value” homosexuality. And it was Forte who subsequently revealed that his boss had told him:

“If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, you don’t know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Far from “evil”, as Our Lord Himself designated such deceit, Forte found this papal ploy so clever (“typical of a Jesuit,” he sniggered) and so appealing, that he had no qualms whatsoever recounting it during a May 2016 conference on the equally deceitful Amoris Laetitia.

Wherever we look, it’s that sort of papacy. There was even a deceptive symmetry about the Pope’s Christmas message and subsequent stroll across St. Peter’s Square to view the Vatican Nativity. After vespers in St. Peter’s, having just bewailed a “wasted and wounded” year of “lies and injustices” (perpetrated by everyone except himself, of course) our pontifical hypocrite then visited and complimented a subversive depiction of Bethlehem; a ‘wound, lie and injustice’ that passed without papal comment, despite (or because?) it involved a blasphemous nudge and wink to the sodomitic culture he has cultivated.

Pink provocations

Under the pretext of clothing the naked, the life-size nativity featured a naked man lying on the straw right opposite the manger. He was being offered a cloth by a pilgrim, but as one of countless outraged onlookers truly observed, he was “too much a poster boy for the local gym to be a man in need of corporeal mercy.” Indignant Catholics were not alone in voicing their disgust. Even ultra-liberal Facebook drew the line. It rejected an advert centred on the scene with the following explanation: “Your ad can’t include images that are sexually suggestive or provocative”!

Unlike Francis, who blithely praised the Nativity as “inspired by the works of mercy,” its creator, Antonio Cantone, at least displayed signs of a conscience, albeit a guilty one. “It is not a campy nativity,” he pouted, before conceding that it did contain “provocations.” You might say! As Ann Barnhardt discovered:

It turns out that the whole Vatican Nativity scene was made in the Sanctuary of Montevergine, a Benedictine monastery outside of Naples. The Sanctuary of Montevergine has long been notoriously and blasphemously claimed as a mascot and meeting place for sodomites and transvestites.

[In 1256], a false story was started by sodomites that two sodomite men, after being caught, convicted and condemned to death by exposure for their sickening capital crimes by being tied to a tree, were miraculously saved by the Virgin of Montevergine, whereupon the two sodomites… wait for it… promptly celebrated by sodomizing each other because their “love” had been ratified by the Queen of Heaven, or something.

Blasphemy of the sickest and most demonic sort. This blasphemy spread, and now the Sanctuary of Montevergine is used by Italian sodomites as a mascot for gay pride marches and drag queen conventions. The biggest gay pride march at the Shrine of Montevergine, happens, even more blasphemously, on February 2, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin.

So the Vatican Nativity scene was made at the Shrine of the so-called “Gay Madonna”, and there is an image of the Icon of the Madonna of Montevergine in the Vatican Nativity scene itself – a CLEAR SIGNAL to the sex perverts that the scene is a bow to them.
So, to all the people who remarked that the figure of the Blessed Virgin in the Vatican Nativity scene looks really, really masculine, almost like a man in drag, I think you have
been vindicated.

Just as Freemasons on every continent, but especially in Italy, imprint their occult symbols on monuments, buildings and structures of every kind, so the inclusion in the Vatican Nativity of male erotica, a masculine Madonna and, in one corner, a replica of the Icon of Montevirgine — known in Italy as “The Gay Madonna” and “The Madonna of the Drag Queens” — were Pink Mafia ‘calling cards which cried out: We’re everywhere! Subverting! Deceiving! Defiling all that is holy, wholesome, innocent and pure!

Such ‘pink provocations’ are now legion and flagrant.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has even befouled his coat of arms with the ‘gay’ rainbow (yet another beautiful symbol the sodomites co-opted to corrupt). He has no fear of papal rebuke since he was chosen by Francis to head the Pontifical Council for Life despite his public support of the homosexual political movement; support he further signposted by commissioning a homosexual artist to adorn his former cathedral in Terni with a massive “homo-erotic” mural featuring an “erotic” depiction of Christ.

Painted by Argentinian sodomite Ricardo Cinalli, the pornographic mural depicts an almost nude Christ figure lifting two nets filled with contorting human figures, including a nude depiction of Paglia himself. Cinalli confirmed that Paglia had approved every stage of the work. He added that Paglia had drawn the line only at depicting the figures in the act of copulating, but agreed “that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.”

Creepy Curia

Thus, forever fixated on political deceptions and lies, our worldly pontiff happily ignores the deceit, mendacity and associated perversions tearing the Church apart. He ignores them because he facilitates and personifies those very traits — as the Forte revelation, the Paglia appointment and a Curia stacked with his creepy placemen make crystal clear.
Aflame with radical Modernism, Vatican Congregations, Pontifical Councils and Institutes, and other curial bodies are all billowing forth the smoke of Satan. Cleansed of orthodox heads and advisers they are now run by sinister figures like Francesco Coccopalmerio (Legislative Texts), Pio Vito Pinto (Roman Rota) and the aforementioned Vincenzo Paglia (Council for Life/Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences), to name just a few. Yet if there is ‘something of the night’ about all these men, and so many other Bergoglian appointees beyond Rome, it goes double for the man who appointed them. 

Schismatic agenda

Modernism alone does not account for Francis. Quite apart from doctrinal issues, he exudes a pungent combo of mental illness, complicity and blackmail. How else to account for the unhinged rants, the perverts he coddles, and, above all, the noxious path to formal schism he is not only set upon but talks of treading? Der Spiegel of 23 December 2016 reported him having said, “It is not impossible that I will go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” A boast that flags his instability, it is not, however, an idle one. Daily reports confirm what we all sense: that his cherished place in history (infamy more like) is nigh.  [Emphasis added -Ed.]

Among several schismatic snippets filed at the time of writing, Bishop Bode, Vice President of the German Bishops’ Conference, wants to bless active homo pairs because he feels that “it is difficult to say from the outside whether someone is in the state of mortal sin.” [LifeSiteNews, 10/1/18] Yet in order to comprehend sodomy as mortally sinful behaviour, and so conform himself to the plain-speaking counsel of Christ, it is not so difficult for His Lordship simply to Google the hard science on destructive sodomitic fruits. Like his pontifical role-model, however, the Bishop “won’t speak plainly.” Instead, he babbles. “We have to reflect upon the question as to how to assess in a differentiated manner a relationship between two homosexual persons,” he proclaims. “Is there not so much positive and good and right so that we have to be more just?”

As Jesus taught, this sort of evasive, convoluted verbiage — ideological blather that will not countenance a “yes” or “no” — “comes from evil.” And schism is its evil end. To read the rest of this devastating editorial, click here…

Comments invited… 

And to subscribe to Christian Order (recommended) click here