Category Archives: Pope Francis

Priestly Celibacy, Jesus, Pachamama BS

crucifix drawing john of the cross

People put forward all sorts of “nice” arguments in favor of priestly celibacy, economic, logistical, practical, in favor of availability for anything and everything from missionary work to being moved from parish to parish and so on. I don’t buy any of those arguments. All of those could be overcome in one way or another. Putting priestly celibacy on the level of expedience is the fastest way to get rid of celibacy altogether, as these are all disciplinary. The debate – dialogue if you want – would be unending.

Forget all that rubbish! Let’s talk about doctrine. Let’s talk JESUS. He’s never mentioned in this except for things like – and this is truly stupid – “Jesus was celibate.” Yeah, well, He’s a special case isn’t He? So, drop that dumb argument as well.  Along the same lines, forget the bit about the Apostles not being married. They were in special circumstances as well.

On the other side, with Peter being married (remember the mother-in-law having the fever account?), that doesn’t hold either, as it seems from what we can surmise from Matthew 19:12 (I’ll get to that) and Paul’s letter to Titus, Peter surely became celibate. Not only would Peter be following up on Matthew 19:12, but he would be in line with this continuing tradition as spoken of later by Saint Paul, the the clergy are to be married but once, that is, to the Church. It would be insanity to say that “married only once” only refers to not being divorced and remarried, or to polygamy that they did not practice at that time. So, again:

Let’s speak of Jesus:

  • Jesus stood in our place, Innocent for the guilty, having the right in His own justice to have mercy on us, redeeming us from original sin and personal sin.
  • If we want, He forgives us, sanctifies us, makes us one with Himself, with the Body of Christ, Jesus the Head of the Body, we the members of the Body, as St Paul says.
  • We were created as the image of God, male and female, marriage and the family, as is eloquently pointed out in Genesis.
  • Jesus redeems that image and saves us by it by way of His own marriage with His bride the Church, as spoken about countless times explicitly throughout Old and New Testaments.
  • The marriage vows of Jesus, rendered in mercy founded on justice, are recited by the priest in the first person singular at the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Last Supper united with Calvary, at the Consecrations, those wedding vows:
    • This is my Body being given for you… in sacrifice
    • This is my Blood being poured out for you… in sacrifice
  • The priest is married to the Church by the Sacrifice he daily offers at the altar. How dare anyone say that a priest is NOT married. What an insult to both Jesus and the priest. How dark and hateful is that insult. How damnable.

Having said all that, let’s mention a few hateful assertions:

  • The stupid man says: “Priests should get married because that will cut down on abuse.” No, that superstitiously throws one sacrament at another sacrament as if that’s going to solve grave psychological issues and sin. All you are going to get is more incest.
  • The stupid man says: “Let’s ordain priests to say Mass but nothing else.” No, that just sets up people going to Holy Communion without any opportunity to confess their sins and be forgiven, which is the point of the Sacrifice of Jesus in the first place.
  • The stupid man says: “Let’s have women priests.” No, that just sets up an anti-image of God anti-redemption. Jesus redeems with a marriage, Himself with His BRIDE the Church (as we see throughout all the Scriptures). This is to redeem the image of God in us as at creation: male and female as the image of God in marriage and the family. The image of God is NOT lesbian, nor homosexual.
  • The stupid man says: “Let’s have temporary priests.” No, that’s like a self-serving divorce, the ol’ “Here for the good times, gone for the bad times.” This is about not sticking around as a father of the family. No father =  extreme high risk of bad kids. The stats are insane on that. Check them out. I’ve always seen the same in revolving door parishes where the priests are changed out even multiple times a year, where priests are not pastors, just administrators, just there for the quicky, so to speak, and then gone, leaving their parishes entrenched in clericalized power groups wanting to kill each other. Really, that’s NOT what Jesus wants.

Having said all that, what does Jesus want?

  • Jesus wants a priest after His own Heart, who is humble of heart, who has integrity and honesty, who loves the truth and virtue and goodness and kindness, shunning evil and corruption and wickedness and lies and all manner of darkness.
  • Jesus wants a man who is a tabernacle of the Holy Spirit.
  • Jesus wants a man who will sacrifice himself for his family of faith, not counting the cost, even life.
  • Jesus wants a man who will rejoice to see Him, Jesus, exercising His own ministry of High Priest in the parish, letting Jesus take the lead, no matter what.
  • Jesus wants a man who knows full well and rejoices in the fact that he recites his own wedding vows daily to his Bride the Church as he recites in the first person singular the wedding vows of Jesus to His Bride the Church at the Consecrations at Holy Mass: my body being given for you… in sacrifice, my blood being poured out for you… in sacrifice.

By the way, just to say, if priests would only be who they are supposed to be in being fathers of their parish families, knowing they are married to the Church, encouraging people to go to Confession and doing the same himself, providing for them what Christ Jesus and the Church have always wanted to be provided with Truth and Morality (the splendor of the Truth), there would never have been such an abuse crisis, or financial corruption, or seeking after “power”, or whatever other self-centered rubbish fallen human beings can come up with.

But I’ll tell you this, no liberal jerky-boy Bishop wants to speak of Jesus when it comes to priestly celibacy as that would destroy every bit of liberal agenda they have on any given topic. Destroy priestly celibacy, destroy the Church (as everything about the Sacrifice of Jesus will be ignored. We will have no understanding of marriage, or the redemption of the image of God. Nothing.

And don’t think that procrastination in dealing with already married Anglican clergy or the practice of some in the “Orthodox” churches is that which bears doctrine. It doesn’t.

  • That’s a lot of fallenness to deal with, you say? Sure. What did you expect. This goes to the absolutely heart of our faith, to the Sacred Heart of our Lord Himself.
  • This is about Jesus, so let priests know that they are married to the Church.
  • And, please, don’t be so afraid to share this and similar posts.

4 Comments

Filed under Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Priesthood, Priestly Celibacy, Priestly Celibacy Series, Spiritual life, Vocations

Pope Francis: you with him or against? But that’s actually not the question.

That cute comment coming from a lady who once lived in these WNC mountains actually sidesteps the question as to whether one is with him or against him. But that’s not actually the question either.

This isn’t a matter of being for against someone, or whether they are cute or not, as Saint Paul says (Ephesians 6:12):

  • “Our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.”

The question comes down to whether or not we prayer for the Successor of Saint Peter as both Jesus and His good mom prayed for Peter. Praying for someone doesn’t mean we agree with any word or action, just that they follow the will of God. Everything is right about that.

If we don’t pray for him, I would make brave to say that all our judgments for or against are about as relevant as to whether someone thinks the Pope is cute. Having said that, I think my one-time parishioner is cute in saying Pope Francis is cute.

Also, to be “WITH” Pope Francis shouldn’t be a matter of being sycophants, parrots of whatever he says and does, as if he were a commandant of puppets, robots, cogs of a Promethean machine.

Just because someone offers a critique of this or that writing, this or that “document,” this or that action, does not mean that one is “AGAINST” Pope Francis. That would be absurd bullying. Pope Francis says he doesn’t want “Yes men.” So let me oblige in whatever helpful way I can.

It does seem, however, that there is a culture (to abuse that term) of those who are self-appointed bullies of all those who are not mini-versions of Pope Francis, thinking that they are currying favor with him by smashing down those who they think are his enemies. How very sad. It’s very much the dialectical materialism I’ve personally witnessed in many countries right around the world.

Jesus is the one who is neglected by these princes of the Church, just as Jesus was abandoned by the Apostles as He hung on the Cross. Outside of a handful such as Sarah or Burke et al., NO ONE but NO ONE speaks a word about Jesus.

Sinner that I am, I’m with Jesus, and with God’s grace, I will not leave His side.

The question isn’t about being with or against Pope Francis. That’s stupid. The question is about whether or not we are with Jesus, and are willing to be crucified with Him so as to give witness to many, so as to bring many souls to heaven… for eternity…

2 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Dear Pope Francis: Space greater than time – Resolution for the New Year

Apparently there are those who troll the world by messing with the understanding of time. Let’s be pedantic.

  • I grew up in one house until I was a year and a half years old. I remember pretty much everything about that house until this day.
  • I celebrated my second birthday when I was – wait for it – two years old, in another house to which we moved. I remember that birthday. There’s a picture – me with my dad – that I include here.
  • It seems to me that…
    • I was zero years old the day I was born
    • I was one year old at my first birthday a year later in the first house
    • I was two years old when I was… two years old when I was in the second house.
  • But there are those who say that…
    • I was one year old the day I was born
    • I was two years old at my first birthday a year later in the first house
    • I was three years old when I celebrated my second birthday
  • I’m going to ignore another system in the very Far East which has it that one is one year old the day of birth since they start counting with time already done in the womb. I like that system. Very pro-life. But that’s not what’s behind the trolling of those trying to make people dumber for a laugh.

When I moved houses after my first birthday but before my second, I moved, it is said, when I was one year old. Yes, but, at the same time, I was half way through working on the completion of my second year after my first birthday. Although the first year was gone, kaput, long assigned to history, never to be retrieved, it was still said that I was a one-year-old even though I was more than one year old, partially two, as it were.

Soon I will turn 60. But I’m already working on the completion of my 60th year. I’m pulling 50 and pushing 60 right now. But soon I’ll be pulling 60 and pushing 70. So within a nanosecond one goes from pulling 50 to pushing 70. [!]

The picture included here was taken in 1962. That’s right, the 1900s. But that was called the twentieth century, you know, working on the completion of that 20th century. Remember 20th Century Fox way back in the day? Right now, having completed 2020 years since the birth of Christ, we’re into 2021, that is, not in the twentieth century, but in the twenty first century…

Note well, my Jewish friends: What I like about the calendar is that it is all iterated as BC (Before Christ) or AD (in anno Domini: in the year of our Lord). To speak of BCE or CE – Before the Common Era or the Common Era – speaks, ironically, to Christ and the universal (that is, in Greek:), catholic Church. Catholic means universal, or that it’s COMMON, that is, meant for all. “Go forth and make disciples of all nations,” that is, of the chosen people and the gentiles. Anyway…

My resolution for the “New Year”:

Last year my resolution was simply to walk in the presence of Christ in the present moment, not because I can do that by sheer determination, gritting my teeth and really trying hard to do that, but walking in the presence of Christ because – with high hopes – of receiving His grace to do so. That grace comes to us all to do just that in the Confessional. So, it’s all about humble thanksgiving to Christ Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One. We just need to be ever more the littlest children of the Holy Family.

This year I have the same resolution, just phrased differently. I want to be able to walk in the presence of Jesus and in His forgiveness for me with the awareness that time is not greater than space. Hahaha! We are to be a “tabernacle of the Holy Spirit” as Saint Paul commands all of us to be by way of his incredulous reprimand (Don’t you know that you are tabernacles of the Holy Spirit? See 1 Corinthians 3:16). That means that space is greater than time, that the Incarnation of the Eternal Word in the “space” of flesh draws all time to that space, so that we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit by being brought to Christ Jesus to be one with Him. Jesus Himself says: “When I am lifted up from the earth [on the Cross] I will draw all to myself” (John 12:32). And that action in that one hour on the Cross in the Eternal Word Incarnate draws all of time, past and present and future, from Adam until the last man is conceived, into that one moment in that one “space” of the Body of Christ. Space IS greater than time. The Eucharist at the One Last Supper, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is greater than time. Time is just another creation. The Body of Christ is the Divine Person of Jesus. Saint Paul says that Jesus is the Head of the Body of Christ and that we are members of the Body of Christ.

No apologies to Stephen Hawking on the one side, nor to Karl Marx on the other side. But many thanks to Saint Augustine in Book 11 of his Confessions, wherein we see that Jesus’ mercy overcomes our suffocating divisory relativity.

It is Jesus, the Eternal Word Incarnate, who is the One, the only One, He who was, who is, who is to come, the Almighty, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the One upon whom all who have pierced Him will gaze, He who will come to judge the living and dead and the world by fire, including all those who would relativize Him merely to a relative time. In Him, space which is greater than time. Amen.

3 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis, Time

Some advice to the excommunicated ultramontanist hermits of Scotland

crucifix drawing john of the cross

Jesus, who was obedient, even unto death, death on a cross.

Apparently some hermits declared some months ago that they were withdrawing their “obedience from Pope Francis” and that they were severing “communion with the Holy See.” “Them’s is fightin’ words” as we say here in the back reaches of Appalachia. Those words are technical, and scream out for an application of canonical penalties involving excommunication. And – no surprise – they were excommunicated. That’s clearly what they desired all along, making a show.

There is simply zero need to do what they have done. They are not brave. They are ignorant ultramontanists. Pope Francis has not done anything ex-Cathedra against the faith, not could he. Ambiguity might be troublesome. Ambiguity might throw one’s own soul into anguish. But that’s no reason to force these excommunications.

Yes, I know, they listed all sorts of things they don’t like about Pope Francis. Fine. Lots of people do that, but not everyone gets excommunicated. The reason they did get excommunicated is because they treat what Pope Francis himself calls a dialogue instead as ex-cathedra dogma. It’s not. And that’s disingenuous for them to treat such things in that manner. But this is what they ultra-tradition-al-ism-ists have always done. They can get as huffy as they want, but they talked themselves into getting excommunicated. No one would have batted an eye had they said that they disagree with Pope Francis, even if they said this very strongly. And I don’t think Pope Francis could have possibly cared less even if they called him a heretic, which apparently they did. That’s not the issue. They went over the line only when they said that they were withdrawing obedience and severing communion with the Holy [Apostolic] See. That’s the kicker. The kicker-outer terminology.

Here’s the deal: whenever you run across ambiguity from any ecclesiastical superior or anything downright wrong, one’s duty is to do what the Church has always taught be done, with the attitude that one simply doesn’t understand the commands of one’s temporary ecclesiastical superior. Period. And this is NOT disobedience. It is supreme obedience. One will likely suffer for it, but won’t get excommunicated for it. And to such as think they are entitled never to suffer in such manner, never to follow our Lord by taking up their cross, to them I say: Get a life! Don’t be such tender snowflakes! March on behind our dear Lord Jesus.

Also, I suggest they look up what Saint Thomas Aquinas said is always the motivation for division in the Church.

I’ve tagged this post also with “Missionaries of Mercy” because I think it is a mercy to assist those who have purposely removed themselves from communion with the Church to reenter. Their choice. But I think I’ve given them a way to save face and come back to the fold.

9 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Happy Merry Christmas *because* God came among us, is with us, Immanuel

The Christmas blessing Urbi et Orbi (to the City and the World). There’s a plenary indulgence with this, even through, by concession the modern means of social communication.

Happy Merry Christmas!

2 Comments

Filed under Christmas, Pope Francis

Co-Redemptrix unnecessary for faith? Un-architecting “relational signifiers”

jesus faces

A rather anthropologically inhumane comment arrived to the blog stating “co-redemptrix as a title […] is not necessary for the faith,” and that “‘Co’ seems to be too strong of a relational signifier.” – That’s from a doctor of philosophy in theology, as it were, so to speak, who’s trying to architect Catholic faith with big words. Oooo! Big words! So, he says:

  • The “‘Co’ [of co-redemptrix] seems to be too strong…”

I guess he’s a man of his time. Are we all supposed to be absolute individualists, with no “relational signifiers” that are, you know, too strong, nothing that would disturb our faith so much as to be, like, actually related to others, to God?

Bwahahahaha…. Sorry. This is actually sad.

Let’s see what Saint Paul says about what kind of “relational signifiers” are appropriate:

  • “He gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love. So I declare and testify in the Lord that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; darkened in understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance, because of their hardness of heart, they have become callous…” (Ephesians 4:11-19 nab)

Get that? No? Try this:

  • “He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven. And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him, provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones, to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory. It is he whom we proclaim, admonishing everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. For this I labor and struggle, in accord with the exercise of his power working within me.” (Colosians 1:13-29 nab)

Let’s see, Christ the Head, we the members, one Body of Christ, Mystici corporis Christi.

But all those “relational signifiers” – like “he” – are jussst toooo haaaard!

But wait, that one line there… “Filling up what is lacking…”

Let’s pray about this:

“And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to myself.” (John 12:32)

I mean, that’s on Calvary, during the Redemption, Jesus on the Cross, and we’re supposed to be with Him on the Cross. We, with Him, on the Cross. What’s Jesus talking about? It’s as if while He is laying down His life, the Innocent for the guilty, so that He might have the right in His own justice to have mercy on us – He is also laying down our lives, like His whole Body, Head and members. There’s a highly “relational signifier” if I ever saw one. But, here’s the methodology of it: “Blessed is he who takes no offense at me” (Luke 7:23), and “He must deny himself and take up his cross daily” (Luke 9:23 – passim…)

But let’s go back to the outrageous Saint Paul, just to make sure we understand and it’s not tooooo haaard. I mean, “relational signifiers” is certainly tooooo haaard for me.

  • God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of (Jesus) Christ. But we hold this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing power may be of God and not from us. We are afflicted in every way, but not constrained; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being given up to death for the sake of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.” (2 Corinthians 4:6-12 nab)
  • Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ’s members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not! (Or) do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For “the two,” it says, “will become one flesh.” But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:15-20 nab)

So, let’s go back to Genesis, where the Mother of the Redeemer is singled out in battle with Satan. Then there is a parallel of sorts in the battle between her Seed and Satan’s seed, that is, her Son and those who belong to Him, over against Satan and those who belong to him. Lot’s of “relational signifiers” going on there. If you want to know about who crushed the serpent on the head, see my conference and thesis.

It really is the Mother of the Redeemer’s Son.

Sometimes the “relational signifier” was in the feminine, so that the Mother of the Redeemer is presented as crushing the head of the great deceiver. This points to how our lives are laid down with that of the Redeemer, whose heel is crushed (and He dies) and we with Him. One Bread One Body. All that.

I would love to see an advance in artwork. I would like to see Mary crushing the serpent on the head with her heel (not just a gentle caress with a couple of toes), and I would like to see how the serpent’s head is being crushed even while that serpent is crushing the heel of Mary in all violence. More on that in a Flower for the Immaculate Conception…

Anyway, to those who think they can quote Cardinal Ratzinger from the Seewald interview, think again. At the time the great Cardinal was burdened with his utter rejection of original sin, and therefore his complete misunderstanding of the import of the Immaculate Conception. You can read about that in a homily reprinted in In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. Get the German. For him, at that time, it’s all about original sin not as original sin, not with propagation, but by way of imitation. This isn’t hard. Moving ahead – and this is all a long story which deserves to told at length – now Pope Benedict XVI gave his Angelus address in Lourdes on Sunday, September 14, 2008, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. Suffice it for now to say that he reversed a lifetime of thought about original sin and the immaculate conception. Follow the French. Stare at it long and hard, repeatedly. It’s inescapable. Really. This goes to the heart of a lifetime of thought for him. This is not a small thing. He just didn’t get how close it is that Christ makes us members of His Body. But since then, he does. A gentleman. A scholar. Does he himself quote Saint Paul as I have. Yes. But, at that time, a bit from the outside. But no longer.

Look. Christ is our Redeemer, alone. I know that. But try to go deeper into the intimacy in which He unites us with Himself, His Body. There’s a couple of pages in the thesis dedicated to the great Cardinal. I made it easy for you in the link above. You don’t have to go to the Pontifical Biblical Institute to peruse it, after you get your degrees there.

I can’t resist, one more from Saint Paul, as I just can’t get over this guys usage of “relational signifiers”:

  • “For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:23-32 nab)

Talk about “relational signifiers”… HAH!

When someone says that such closeness with humanity is just too much, I think of Islam, which is scandalized by the Cross, for God could NOT love the world so much as to send His only Son so that He might make us one with Himself to give us as a gift to our Heavenly Father, through, with and in Himself, again… He having stood in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, so that He might have the right in His own justice to have mercy on us:

  • For the sake of His sorrowful passion (justice)
  • Have mercy on us and on the whole world (mercy)

For Islam, God is tooooooooooo hoooooooooly for such love. But God is love. Jesus does make us one with Himself. When He lays down His life, he lays down our lives with His.

To think any other way is to prostitute oneself to the world. And by the way, the prostitute doesn’t need to be accompanied in her “job”, she needs to be gotten out of that.

And that’s, analogously, why I write such things, also for Pope Francis. I had the time to study at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. He didn’t. We help each other out.

All this is encouraging me to do up the popular version of the thesis. I know that the time has come when people say that it is imprudent to speak of the Redeemer and the Mother of the Redeemer.  (More “relational signifiers” there, btw.) /// end of rant

7 Comments

Filed under Mary, Pope Francis

Dear Pope Francis: Your scandal is making non-Catholics hate Catholics

img_20191214_175207~25291545608086102310..jpg

Dear Pope Francis,

John 3:16 is the rallying cry of non-Catholic Christians here in my parish territory in the remote mountains of Western North Carolina. They want to love Jesus. However, you, Pope Francis, are making this difficult. You are putting obstacles in front of people.

What you do in promoting Islam and and satanic idol devil worship and homosexualism and with financial who-knows-what – continuously something more horrible day by day – makes it easy for these non-Catholic Christians to hate us all. It baits them into hating. Certainly Islam hates us all the more for the idol worship. We are all weak in this world. We don’t need you provoking hatred among anyone. You make us all targets of hatred, not because the Cross is a sign of contradiction, but because no one sees the sign of contradiction when they have a right to see this because of what Jesus did for us. The things you do are, objectively, hate crimes against the Church, against Jesus, are they not? Your sycophants, “Yes men”, your ideologues, such as + Paglia, condemn true believing as ideology of rigid ideologists. No, sincere believing is of the Holy Spirit. So, is the condemnation of those who sincerely believe similar to the condemnation of the spirit within Jesus?

  • “‘Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.’ For they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.'” (Mark 3:28-30)

And it’s not only non-Catholic Christians and others such as Islamists who despise us. Catholics are defecting. So many. This is so sad. When, O when will you turn and confirm your brethren in the faith? Can you tell Jesus’ good mom why you do this?

pieta

Your Holiness, I realize that you can punish me in a thousand different ways, say by taking away my faculties as your Missionary of Mercy (which I use frequently), or by having me punished in some way by my bishop, even to have me dismissed from the clerical state, but I beg you to see that I’m not being a “Yes man” because I stand in solidarity with you in your being the Bishop of Rome. It’s the most difficult vocation to live out. You are the most attacked by Satan. I know that. I pray for you, offer Mass for you, have others pray for you. I’m trying to be a good son of the Church, and to think with the Church: sentire cum ecclesia. I know that where you are, there is the Church: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.

Why do I write such things? Because I know how much Jesus and how much the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God have done for me, personally. I am grateful to them. I want all to know my great joy, the joy of gratitude to Jesus and Mary, the joy of thanksgiving. But what you do, Pope Francis, smothers this, drowns this, frustrates this. Please, Holy Father, please confirm your brothers in the faith.

//// I really hope that those reading this blog in the Holy See will pass this on to Pope Francis. Do it.

2 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Peter’s Pence: Pope’s official… what?… charity?

I was always under the impression that Peter’s Pence was used exclusively for the poor and suffering. For instance, under Pope Saint John Paul II, one year it was used for building a hospital for cancerous kids of the Ukraine following the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.

Now we find out that 90% is used for covering costs in the Vatican. We would be happy to help pay for the costs of any necessary bureaucracy for 1.3 billion people, you know, if it was all actually Catholic and not used for an overall continuous attack on God and man in every conceivable way. But that use should be public knowledge. Support of the Vatican will be necessary for future Popes who want to do something for the good but have only ashes to work with. But that’s in the future.

For right now, all we’ve heard is that Peter’s Pence is used for the poor and suffering. Should we mention that it was also used for specious real-estate investments wherein the Vatican lost tens of millions of dollars just recently. And didn’t we just find out that the Vatican invested in a gay porn movie with that money meant for the poor and suffering?

In our parish, we gave up taking a collection for Peter’s Pence and instead take up a collection for our food basket, which actually does go to the poor and suffering. That has something do with the great principle of subsidiarity.

We do the same thing when it comes time for the collection for Catholic Relief Services, which is not Catholic, not for relief, and has nothing to do with services.

We do the same thing when it comes time for the collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which is not Catholic, not any kind of Campaign, and is not used for Human Development.

Sometimes canon lawyers say that taking up mandated collections is in Canon Law and that I really must do it. But these collections fund abortion, marxist propaganda, gay-whatever… The anti-human list is long.

Will I take these collections? Over my dead body.

11 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Pope Francis rejects seven popes on Co-Redemptrix

I’m going to offer a critique of Pope Francis’ impassioned rejection of Mary as Co-Redemptrix at Mass in Saint Peter’s Basilica for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe the other day, December 12, 2019. The video above is the entire homily.

And yes, I’m aware through second hand information – I know, “second-hand” – and from a private conversation with then Cardinal Ratzinger – I know, “private” – that the then Prefect’s opinion of the title co-redemptrix could be misleading, but not that it was wrong in itself. Analogously, that’s what Saint John Henry Newman said about Papal Infallibility, right? It’s entirely correct, but maybe that wasn’t the best time to be proclaiming that truth of the Gospels in Matthew 16, what with the sum of all heresies running rampant in both the Catholic Church and the Anglican get-togethers at that time (it’s no different today). I would counter that the best time to preach the truth is all the time: “Proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient [in season or out of season]; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Anyway, that objection of “it’s correct but the wording could be misinterpreted” is all a far cry from Pope Francis’ putting the absolute worst spin on that title for Mary – Co-Redemptrix – that he could possibly ever dream up in some nightmare, having it that not only is it misleading, but wrong, he even saying that efforts with this are “stupidities.”

Lets see what he himself says at 2’17”:

  • “Fiel a su Maestro, que es su Hijo, el único Redentor, jamás quiso para sí tomar algo de su Hijo. Jamás se presentó como co-redentora, no: discípula.”
  • “Faithful to her Master, who is her Son, alone the Redeemer, she never desired to take something of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as co-redeemer, no: disciple.”

Well, that’s all true:

  • She was faithful to her Master, who is her Son, He alone being the Redeemer.
  • She never desire to take something of her Son for herself.
  • She never presented herself as Co-Redeemer. [nor does she have to for this to be true.]
  • She was, in fact, a disciple.

The problem is that Pope Francis contrasts all this with the title Co-Redemptrix, attacking the historical interpretation of that title by, say, the “Servant of God” (first step toward canonization) Sister Lucia of Fatima, and by, say, Pope Saint John Paul II, who used that title a half-dozen times (and also a few more times for all the rest of us, by the way, inasmuch as we are to be evangelizers of the redemption). The title was also used by Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII. Anyway, let’s move on:

In the video, at 2’55”:

  • “Nunca robó para sí nada de su Hijo. Lo sirvió porque Madre. “
  • “She never robbed anything from her Son, but she served Him, because she is Mother.”

Fine. That’s all true as well:

  • She never robbed [stealing by way of arrogant violence] anything from her Son.
  • She served Him as Mother.

But that has nothing that contradicts her being Co-Redemptrix. With overwhelming irony, all that misses the point of her being the woman and mother that she is, as we will see. Let’s move along…

Then, at 6’07” (he’s mumbling a bit…):

  • “Quando vengan con historias de que de declarala esto a ser trato como un dogma o esto – non la perdamos in tonteras.”
  • “When they come with stories of having to declare this [Mary as Co-Redemptrix] to be a dogma or whatever – let’s not lose her in stupidities.”

“Stupidities.” This, of course, is not a named, but is nonetheless a direct attack on seven previous popes, as well as, it seems to me – and this is perhaps to the point – on Mark Miravale, who has made this title of Co-Redemptrix a life project. He’s done a lot of excellent work on this. What Pope Francis does is simply offensive. If he wants to pick a fight, he should name his adversaries who are alive today instead of hiding behind a bully pulpit. All stupidities about Mary? Really?

Let’s do some reasoning about this:

Pope Francis considers the title Co-Redemptrix to be falsely assigning Mary a function which she steals violently from her Son, as if being a woman and mother wasn’t enough for any woman, including Mary, to have dignity.

But this is missing the point altogether. It’s so dark, so dismal, so unable to see goodness and kindness in being a woman, a mother. Here’s the deal:

  • It is because Mary is a faithful woman, mother and disciple that she is Co-Redemptrix. Only she could be so faithful, such a mother, and such a disciple.

Let’s unpack that a bit…

  • Mary is free of original sin as we know from Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 (see my thesis on Genesis and Ignace de la Potterie’s study on Luke 1:28).
  • That means she has purity of heart and agility of soul and clarity of vision such that she sees the contrast between God’s goodness and our sin. In looking upon her Son on Calvary, she sees all the sin of all mankind wrecked upon her Son. As a woman, as a mother, as His mother, she is in solidarity with Him while He accomplishes our Redemption, He alone our Redeemer. In her immaculateness, with her clarity of vision, seeing what we need perfectly, she perfectly intercedes for us in that solidarity, heart to Heart, with her Son.
  • Here’s the point: it is entirely fitting in justice that one of us mere human beings (only she is capable what with her being free from original sin) asks for all that we need in Redemption. Her request, in all justice, and her Son’s answer as a command to His Heavenly Father (Father! Forgive them), makes of them co-workers in our Redemption. She asks. He provides. That’s what the title Co-Redemptrix for Mary is all about. Nothing more. But nothing less.
  • Being Co-Redemptrix is the flourishing of her being a woman, a mother, His Immaculate Virgin Mother, and ours. She’s not brutally, violently stealing anything from Son to make herself look good. No. How sick is that? Instead, she serves Him in unimaginable suffering as only a good mother could. How could anyone look into her eyes and insult her that her motherhood is not flourishing here under the Cross?

We are also to be co-redeemers of sorts, co-workers with the redemption, evangelizing the redemption. Is that so bad, so blasphemous? No. It isn’t.

I have much to say about this connection between the motherhood of Mary and her title of Co-Redemptrix, foundationally in my thesis, and then more precisely and especially  in the conference on Mary, Mother of the Church Militant, which I gave back in 2013:

So, we pray for Pope Francis and for each other, doing this as, um… co-redeemers… and we ask Mary to show us all her motherhood, you know, as the Co-Redemptrix:

Monstra te esse matrem! Show yourself to be a mother!

9 Comments

Filed under John Paul II, Mary, Pope Francis

Pope Francis and my “rabbit” mom

just me 04

On December 12, 2019, Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis denounced a title of our Lady, with an edge. I started to write about all that to defend that title used many times by Saint Pope John Paul II and which has a history in the Church. But the only thing I could think of was Pope Francis’ deep hatred for women and mothers. I forgive him. I do. But I’ve never heard him repent of what he said.

I know, I should be even more forgiving, especially of Pope Francis, and maybe not ask him for repentance, just a condescending permission for me to “accompany” him. After all, I’m his own Missionary of Mercy, right? I use those particular faculties all the time. I accompany people right to Jesus, not to sin. I hope I don’t lose those entirely useful faculties for NOT being a “Yes man”. Pope Francis doesn’t want “Yes men.” He said so. Therefore, NO. Pope Francis needs to repent like anyone else, with sincerity.

What came to mind for me during Pope Francis’ Guadalupe Mass homily about Mary the other day were comments he made on Monday, January 19, 2015, during the in-flight press conference from the Philippines to Rome, in which he demonstrated just how much he despises mothers and motherhood. Sorry, but that’s the way my heart and soul and mind work, that is, with reality.

Pope Francis said: “I believe that the number of three [children] per family, which you [the reporter] mentioned, is important, according to the experts, for maintaining the population. Three per couple.” Then, after citing an example of a woman having more than three children he says that this is a “form of irresponsibility.” Would that be a sin, perhaps an ecological sin that he’s accusing that woman of committing, publicly? And then he speaks of rabbits: “Some people believe that – pardon my language – in order to be good Catholics, we should be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood.”

So, any woman who has more than three children is irresponsible, perhaps sinful, and a rabbit.

That makes my mom an irresponsible rabbit. Mom had two daughters with her first husband, and then, when he was killed in plane crash, she remarried and had two boys, including me, the last. That makes me child number 4. Last time I checked, 4 is more than 3. So, my mom is an irresponsible beast, and I’m the son of an irresponsible beast, according to Pope Francis. And she was probably sinful in her irresponsibility.

I thought it was bad enough when my “Shadow” called my mom a “b*tch.” A “b*tch” is a female dog. I’m not so sure how that’s so different from a rabbit. But this is the Pope.

So, that seals it then, right? He’s the Pope.

So, my mom is surely the most god-damnedest irresponsible beast.

Is that right, Pope Francis?

How about an apology?

There are plenty who follow this blog in the Holy See. They can give this to Pope Francis, who, as it happens, follows American blogs through his minions closely. I don’t want a phone call with an apology. I want to see him publicly repent of his remarks.

Now, I’ll set about writing about how a particular woman, Mary, can be more than a birth-robot. Stay tuned.

12 Comments

Filed under Mary, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Pope Francis 50 years a priest Dec 13 ’19

pope francis young

50 years a priest. We pray for you, Pope Francis. We pray for you. Hail Mary…

4 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Fr Byers: excommunicated heretic? Daring + Paglia to do it.

Paglia

Judas is in hell. There, I said it. According to + Paglia, that makes me an automatically excommunicated heretic. For all of us merely automatically excommunicated heretics, that’s not enough. I want my automatic excommunication declared and publicized for all the world to hear. + Paglia has the ear of Pope Francis. Regardless of any Canon Law, declaring my excommunication from on high can easily be forced through. I insist! I entrench! I’m contentious! I’m obstinate. I’m persistent. Do it!

But will + Paglia slit my throat? Pffft. He’s just full of bluster and is a coward and would never do such a thing. He won’t because he knows that if he does, I’ll be able to appeal, which means I’ll be able to defend myself. I happen to have a bit more expertise in these matters, even on a jesuitical level, having degreed out at the Jesuit’s most academic of all their institutions in the world, the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and Jerusalem. I would really enjoy this. I would move to Rome and write a study on this as a response and defense, using all the libraries in Rome, particularly that of the Biblicum. The conclusion of all that will be about the abuse of office of + Paglia throwing around cowardly threats. The conclusion of all that will be about how + Paglia needs to have his heresy and therefore his automatic excommunication declared. Pfft.

But there’s more, much more.

Not that there’s necessarily any connection at all, but I find it striking that + Paglia connects his thoughts about Judas Iscariat being a saint with priests who “accompany” people – holding their hands – people who are in the very act of committing suicide (which accompaniment is scandalous to all involved, sending the wrong message].

To the priest writing this blog, such a connection by + Paglia is stunning because of an incident related to Terri Schiavo [Theresa Marie Schiavo (née Schindler)], who was put to death with the full encouragement of her bishop down in Florida. Remember that? At the time, I sent a message to that Bishop stating the case for Terri and saying that he, the bishop, was clearly a Judas for encouraging her murder. He objected, saying that, after all, he had thought about it. I’m sure Judas also thought about his own part in the murder of Jesus.

I was frantic to save Terri. Having secured cooperation, I had a moral analysis of the case I had worked up before her murder delivered to the moral theologian guy in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. That analysis was accepted and taken up. But it was too late. Dear Terri was murdered.

For myself, that means I’m on record for such things, and that record in my own file is open, of course, to all prefects, particularly to + Paglia, who would have it front and center when studying assisted suicide, as it would have been sent to his “dicastery” at the time, with comment, and filed under that topic and in my name.

I’ve put myself on the radar with + Paglia much more recently by making comments on his destruction of the Saint John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family. See, for instance:

With that remote background, take a gander of these bits of a story on LifeSiteNews worked up by Edward Pentin and reported by Diane Montagna. Read the whole thing there. [my comments]


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abp-paglia-on-judas?utm_source=OneSignal

Vatican Archbishop says those who say Judas is in hell are heretics and priests may accompany assisted suicidesby Edward Pentin – reported by Diane Montagna

ROME, December 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In a statement difficult to reconcile with Scripture and Tradition, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has claimed on behalf of the Catholic Church that anyone who says Judas Iscariot is in hell is a heretic.

In an even more disturbing statement, the Italian archbishop also asserted that a priest may legitimately remain at the beside of someone undergoing assisted suicide in order to “hold their hand” and “accompany” them. […]

Archbishop Paglia, who serves as chancellor of the new John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences in Rome (and presided over the former institute’s demolition), said  he […] doesn’t believe that “anyone should ever be abandoned.”

[Speaking out of both sides of his mouth, he said:] “We are against assisted suicide because we do not want to do the dirty work of death [only emotion, then, that we have to heroically overcome? Just. Wow.] and because we are all well aware that, for believers, life goes on,” he continued. [So: “What difference does it make?” That’s frightening. That’s the rationalization of a murderer.] “To accompany and hold the hand of those who are dying” is therefore the “great task“ of every believer [Encouraging murder, participating in murder is the great task of every believer?] he said, along with fighting the culture of assisted suicide, which represents “a great defeat for society.” [But go ahead and encourage and assist suicides? This is like Satan talking.

“We cannot turn [assisted suicide] into a wise choice,” he said. [But it’s a choice that must be respected and accompanied and encouraged and assisted according to + Paglia.]

Archbishop Paglia then clarified: “I always celebrate funerals for those who commit suicide, because suicide is always a question of unfulfilled love. We must also remember that, for the Catholic Church, if someone says that Judas is in hell, he is a heretic.” […] [Copyright 1997-2019 LifeSiteNews.com. All Rights Reserved.]


There’s much more extremely worthwhile commentary on real Catholic doctrine and tradition and the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church and the great sainted theologians in that magnificent article of LifeSiteNews. Again, go there and read the whole thing.

8 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis, Pro-Life

Papacy in tatters! Prayers for Pope?

img_20191205_133517~21834438358993561801..jpg

One might think that the pontificate of Pope Francis is in tatters. “Pontificates”, as the term is used, is not about the Papacy in se, just about what the results of that particular successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, happen to be, regardless of whether or not this is to the credit or disgrace of that individual, who, like the rest of us, soon goes the way of all flesh.

In that mind set, one might not think that the pontificate of Pope Francis is in tatters. All the division and darkness and ranker and confusion and greediness and whatever else one might want to add are thought to be purposed, and of good value. I mean, after all these years, always the same totally anti-Catholic, anti-Christ agenda is at work, always one more thing to kick the faithful in the teeth, to gouge out their hearts and trample them underfoot. Hell… But some want that…

The Papal Flag hanging on the rectory is in tatters. One of the neighbors mentioned it, a non-Catholic. He baited me, asking about it, knowing the answer, that the tattered flag is a symbol of what I think is going on. I told him it will stay until either there’s a pope who’s interested in confirming his brethren in the faith, or Pope Francis does this himself. The tattered flag is, therefore, a symbol of hope. I have not given up.

There are other symbols in front of the rectory.

  • A reminder of Jesus’ good mom and ours is still there. Don’t think she didn’t pray for weak Peter when he denied her own Son three times. Don’t think she doesn’t also pray for this successor of Peter, Pope Francis.
  • There’s also a symbol of just another member of the faithful, Saint Anthony of Padua, demonstrating faith in the fact that any of us can still be a saint any time throughout the history of the Church, that is, including us in our own time. That would mean taking the good example of dearest Mary, would it not, in praying for Peter (and his successors)?

“But Father George! You don’t understand! Pope Francis needs our prayers! Therefore, we can’t pray for him! We would besmirch ourselves and agree with whatever we think his agenda is if we prayed for him! We won’t do it! We won’t do it!”

That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. I’ve heard it. A lot.

So, does that mean you also wouldn’t pray for me? I’ve crucified the Son of the Living God with my sin. Without Jesus I am lost forever, going straight to hell, forever. And you won’t pray for me either? Who would you pray for then. Guaranteed, you wouldn’t pray even for yourself.

None of us are worthy of anything. Please, pray for me. I’ll pray for you. And let’s together pray for Pope Francis. Just as I fear the loss of my own soul, I fear for the loss of his soul. He’s very old right now, and really very tired. He’s facing all that he’s done. Perhaps we will see the moment when he repudiates all the rubbish. Do we honestly face all that we’ve done? Will we see the moment when we repudiate all the rubbish we ever done in our own lives? Do we even know what the wounds on the risen Son of the Immaculate Conception mean?

If we had the slightest clue about this, the weight of the glory of God would bring us down to our knees in humble reverence before Him, crushed by the horror of sin and simultaneously in awe of the gracious mercy of God.

On that point of mercy – as I rant along – do we mock mercy as not being conservative enough? It’s still the “in thing” to mock, say, the Divine Mercy chaplet as being damnable pious piffle, isn’t it? Let’s see how it is that mercy is founded on justice:

  • For the sake of His sorrowful passion (that’s justice)
  • have mercy on us and on the whole world (that’s mercy).

Or is there a third part to that prayer that would make it acceptable?

  • except for Pope Francis; just send him straight to hell, you know, God, because I’m the judge of the living and the dead and world by fire.

We all stand before Jesus, looking upon Him whom we have all pierced, as we read in the Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse.

So, I remain hopeful. Life goes on. Justice goes on. Mercy goes on.

Take a hint from the picture above. That bird who built her nest just above the bird feeder did that knowing that any and every kind of even malicious bird would also be at that feeder right next to her nest. And, yes, sometimes optimists get the results they hope for. It’s good to hope. I want to go to heaven. I trust in Jesus. Got hope? Do you trust in Jesus. Do you also pray for Pope Francis? Hail Mary…


P.S. A kind of analogy about persistence in prayer:

Progress is still being made with Keto. Just keep at it. Have hope. Even in the face of opposition, which can be great. I don’t know how many times I’ve had this experience, even with those I thought were friends:

  • Hey! Father George! How’s it going?
  • Great! In fact, I’m now doing the Keto diet and I love it!

And that’s the whole conversation. Some just turn their backs and walk away. Upset. So, I call out to them:

  • What’s wrong?
  • Keto is not what’s to be done. Just eat like everyone else.

And then “the back thing” again.

  • I’ll keep praying for Pope Francis however many friends I lose.
  • I’ll keep doing Keto for the sake of my priesthood on this earth however many friends I lose.

12 Comments

Filed under Diet, Pope Francis

Judaeo Catholic = Religion. Islam? No. Pope Francis can’t dialogue with Islam.

Thomas Aquinas and Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri have noted that Judaism and Catholicism are but one religion with the same (univocal) Divine Revelation. The Messiah to whom Israel and Judah looked forward is the Divine Founder of the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, Islam is a Judeao-Catholic heresy. Islam is not a religion but rather error. Error has no rights. Muslims have rights. We are to respect their persons, but not their fake religion. We can offer to dialogue with them as did Pope Benedict XVI in his famous Regensburg Address. But they will say that they cannot dialogue because our logic, our reason, our common sense, our respect for the dignity of the human person is not at all the way Allah thinks. Therefore, no dialogue on any level is permitted.

When Abraham was to sacrifice his son as recounted in Genesis, this was about an immediate resurrection from the dead, an un-slitting of the throat of the boy. If Abraham believed that all his progeny would come through Isaac alone, he had to believe that God would immediately raise Isaac from the dead. Young Isaac, a symbol of the innocent sacrifice that would take away original sin, was not at all innocent, having been subject to original sin like all of us. So, a ram, a symbol of the Lamb of God to come was sacrificed as a temporary symbol instead. Then, Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, worthy of standing in our place before our Heavenly Father, the Innocent for the guilty, arrived. Catholics are 100% with the Jews on the clear logic of this account in Genesis.

Meanwhile, Islam, the Qur’an, perverts this demonically. Muhammad has it that Abraham was to sacrifice his son not in view of any promised progeny, nor did it have to be this or that son, legit or illegit. For Islam, Abraham was to sacrifice his son merely as an offering to a bloodthirsty Allah. This is not about justice regarding sin, or any propitiatory sacrifice, nor about any symbolism regarding the Messiah to come and what that Messiah would do for us by standing in our place, taking on the punishment of death that we deserve for sin, original and whatever else. It is simply doing what all fallen peoples do in false religions, sacrificing children as bribery of, in this case, hateful “obedience” to a hateful Allah. The bowing the forehead to the ground thing of Islam is about the submission of Abraham’s son to Allah wanting that Abraham’s son get his head cut off, just to do it. Why do you think kids are the ones who are always strapped up with suicide-murder bomb vests?

Try to dialogue with that and you will be killed. Let Islam consecrate Vatican City to Islam and they will rejoice. But that’s not dialogue. Such confusion only brings about discord, you know, wherein children get killed. It’s not right:

death boy gaza

It’s gotta stop. But free speech is being attacked both by secular society and…

10 Comments

Filed under Interreligious dialogue, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Update late 2019: Conclave validity review: Francis may not be Pope

amazon synod

You have heard that it was said: the conclave is invalid because so many of the electing Cardinals manipulated the election with quid pro quo dealings, bringing upon themselves automatic excommunication and therefore invalidating their voting. Thus, Pope Francis is not Pope.

Then you have heard that it was said: the conclave was valid because none of those automatic excommunications had external effect on voting because those excommunications were not declared, you know, because the only one able to declare such excommunications on the public record, thus affecting voting, is the Pope. But that’s the point, there is no Pope. That’s what the election, the conclave, is all about. Thus, it is said, the election results were illicit but not invalid. Pope Francis is Pope.

But I put forward this question: The mind of the legislator, the previous Pope, is surely well aware of the declaration thing for automatic excommunications, and that is precisely and exactly the reason why he is obviously overriding such universal canon law for the very specific circumstances of a conclave. Duh! Pope Benedict is not a stupid man. The automatic excommunications, even if not immediately known, invalidate the vote if they are of such a number to affect the outcome. An investigation is necessary.  Pope Francis is Pope, or he is not Pope.


I’m not a canon lawyer and I’m well aware of those canon lawyers who go apoplectic when non-canon-lawyers make such commentary. But I would ask them to go easy on me since, in fact, I’m only asking a question, with sincerity, willing to be guided. But I am willing to ask the question. I think it is a valid question. Disabuse me of my ignorance.


So, after I wrote this, I spoke with a canon lawyer on the “day off”. He said that it may be that such a specified automatic excommunication may have to “determined” and somehow manifested in the Conclave itself. And now we’re wading into canon lawyer territory and hypothetical conditions inside a given conclave. So…

8 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Dear Pope Francis: Stop soliciting sin. Mocking God, leading between grace & sin is a crime. It needs to stop now.

pope francis--

I’ve commented at length on this question and it’s full context just recently here:

Pope Francis sums up his heresies

I’d like to comment just a bit more on his imperative command that “the pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality.” Let’s see that paragraph again:

  • “But they say: the Pope is a communist… Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. {I pastori devono condurre il gregge tra la grazia e il peccato, perché la morale evangelica è questa. // Los pastores deben guiar al rebaño entre la gracia y el pecado, porque ésta es la moralidad evangélica.} There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian. ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness.”

For my response in what I hope is a dialogue instead of my just getting smacked down, I would like to use the woman caught in adultery at the beginning of John chapter 8, what with Jesus evangelically forgiving her and, we cannot deny, evangelically commanding her NOT to sin again.

This has always been my practice of mercy in the Confessional as a priest and Missionary of Mercy. If someone, a penitent, is in fact repentant and has a firm purpose of amendment of life according to the Good News, there will be an absolution immediately provided. One may sincerely try to live in grace. But one may fail. But one may return to the Confessional for more needed guidance and understanding of what repentance and amendment of life practically entails. But one may also then be ready for absolution and that is then provided.

Such is entirely different from what Pope Francis proposes here with his talk of leading the flock between grace and sin, with the operative word being merely leading, always leading, but never putting such a soul face to face, heart to Heart with Jesus, always and only between grace and sin, so that the dialogue, the process is the soul having arrived, with there being nothing beyond the dialectical ideology of thesis and anti-thesis. Grace is no longer a friendship with Jesus, walking with Jesus, heart to Heart with Jesus. Grace is instead an ideological goal, and idea, a “horizon statement” to which one never arrives. “Go ahead, adulterous woman, go ahead and sin again! Go ahead, sin and then go up to receive Holy Communion! Never actually repent!” That is what Pope Francis is saying.

And now we know what that not so ambiguous footnote in Amoris laetitia certainly means: active adulterers are to be encouraged to continue their adultery and to go to Holy Communion. 

Good thing Pope Francis called Amoris laetitia a dialogue in the opening paragraphs of that screed. But here he clarifies that supposed ambiguity. It’s now certain what he means.

The presumption in all of this is that all penitents are incapable of living a moral life, a life of grace, that Jesus’ love and Jesus’ truth, that Jesus’ friendship, that Jesus Himself is powerless before sin. This presumes that we are all lost, all going to hell, and we’re just somehow trying to please everyone and be praised ourselves for just going along with sinfulness and encouraging everyone to do the same. What a dismal, dark, anti-evangelical view. To me, it seems like a blasphemy against what Saint Paul describes as the Body of Christ, the Head of the Body and the members.

The technical word for encouraging people to remain in sin, when used specifically for a Confessor who is “guiding” a penitent in this way, is solicitation. This is a crime in Canon Law, the code of law of the Church.

In other words, the priest is encouraging a penitent to continue sinning in whatever way. This turns a possible sin of weakness into a sin of real corruption, but even worse. The sinner who was guilty of a sin of weakness is now encouraged to purposely go ahead and sin. This is a direct mockery of God and a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Pope Francis is encouraging all the priests in the world and all penitents – everyone in the world – to mock God and sin against the Holy Spirit. Talk about being Promethean and Pelagian and self-referential and self-absorbed…

Never letting Jesus’ little flock get close to Jesus, always keeping that little flock in a life of sin, telling them with jaw-dropping condescension that they can never actually live a life of grace and morality and friendship of Jesus, taking away their hope altogether, creating in this way an ideology out of the person of Jesus, making Jesus a mere “horizon statement” a mere “ideal” that we can never really reach, all of this is, objectively, a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Dear Pope Francis, what you are doing is Pelagian: You are forcing people to think that they have to trust in their own strength which they do not have, and so lead them to frustration and, losing hope and giving up, lead them to a life of sin, but, oooh!, always trying harder with the strength they do not have, which none of us has. How cruel of you, Pope Francis. Instead we are to lead people to humility, to know that they, that we have no strength of our own, and that we are therefore to depend on the strength of Jesus, not in the sense that Jesus just helps us out and we continue to depend on our strength that we do not have, but rather in the sense that amidst all our weakness Jesus will draw us up into His strength, His love, His truth, so that however weak we are of ourselves, we can still live in grace, by grace, heart to Heart with Jesus, always carrying the cross but always looking to Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One. Not us! But Jesus!

Meanwhile, Jesus, putting His own life on the line, standing in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, forgives our sin, and then we, seeing His great love, with humble thanksgiving and in reverence before Him and in all good friendship, we are open to hearing His reprimand to us, ever so lovingly given: “Do not sin again!” He tells us that not just as some sterile command for a sterile morality, as Pope Francis thinks, but with grace, that is His presence, with the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity, having us be Tabernacles of the Holy Spirit, offering our bodies as living sacrifices so different from this fallen world, so different from our fallen flesh, so different from the fallen angels, we being living sacrifices of purity of heart and agility of soul, aflame with love of God and self-sacrificing love of neighbor. Jesus who is alive, who is love, who is truth, is the Jesus I know, before whom I am thankful. He has forgiven me so much. Thank you, Jesus. I promise not to sin again.

And, yes, this priest loves to go to Confession.

Go to Confession!

And that means you too, Pope Francis.

I’ll be your very own Missionary of Mercy if you like.

3 Comments

Filed under Confession, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Vatican Gardens St Michael purposely failing against Satan, mocking Jesus

Saint Michael Vatican Gardens.png

There are things you just don’t want to see and so don’t see. I thought it was good that a statue of Saint Michael the Archangel was installed in Vatican Gardens a while back. The pictures I saw at the time were fuzzy and from odd angles. I thought it was all a bit “soft,” but, at least St Michael was there, thought I. But I didn’t see what was actually going on. Because of all the idiocy going on in Vatican Gardens these days, I wanted to write a post contrasting the presence of Saint Michael with this other rubbish. But what I saw was not good. Now I know that it’s all a piece. In that presentation of Saint Michael…

  • Saint Michael misses the mark. Instead of piercing a spear into Satan, he contorts himself, going out of his way kind of pole-dance with the spear, ending up piercing – whoops – his own right foot. A bit sadomasochistic, that. Meanwhile, the left foot is… playing footsie… with the genitals of Satan…
  • Saint Michael is presented homoerotically, so that his erect penis is holding up the garment otherwise slipping off his rather sleek look-at-me body. Apparently, he’s so narcissistic that this is why he misses the mark. Or, I guess, that’s on purpose. He’s posing with his friend, Satan. Why hurt Satan when he is the vehicle to present oneself narcissistically?

Because of these two things, there is only one consistent interpretation of the rest of the presentation. The pierced hand of Jesus is reaching out from the gates of hell with the phrase “Non prevalebunt” from “The gates of hell will not prevail against her (that is, the Church)” has the wounds of Jesus as the subject of the verb. But in this context, that can only mean that the demonic Jesus and His useless redemption of us will not prevail against Satan, or against Satan’s friend, Saint Michael. Sigh.

My advice is this: Don’t mock Saint Michael like this. You will NOT get away with it. Mockery will catch up to you.

Update: A priest friend wrote in that Benedict XVI was the inspiration for the initiative for a statue of Saint Michael conquering Satan. But then he was gone as Pontiff. My priest friend was hoping that no one would get the idea from what I wrote above that Benedict was in any way to blame for this fiasco. He’s NOT to blame!

9 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Pachamama male-consort-idol

The day before the Amazon “Synod” officially started, there was a pagan worship of idols ceremony in Vatican Gardens. It was bad enough, thought I, that demonness Pachamama idols were displayed for worship, an idol to which children up to puberty are sacrificed in the Amazon. But then I saw one report on some sort of Pachamama consort, another idol that was also displayed directly next to the Pachamamas. I had no idea what he was talking about since everything I had seen about the incident only showed the Pachamamas, but no consort. Maybe I didn’t want to see it. Just too disgusting. Apparently the picture of the consort was rare because it was so very incredibly disgusting. Was it that the POV of the photographers and videographers of the event was such that  the Pachamama Idol Consort was just out of view, perhaps blocked by someone’s shoulder or head in front of the cameras? But that was on purpose. Any picture of the carved idol Consort would be just too damning.

In these months and weeks I’ve been too busy to research much of anything of the idiocies over in Rome, what with Mass and Confessions and Adoration and Hospitals and Nursing Homes and going on Communion Calls, cumulatively putting on thousands of miles in this vast territory of my parish in these months. I’m supposed to be a Missionary of Mercy in these back ridges of Appalachia, right? The days are very long and I have little time for demon worshippers in Rome.

But then, in looking up I think it was boat picture for a post on Pachamama, I saw it, the Pachamama Consort. The picture I saw wasn’t from a private individual, but from Catholic News Service.

It’s said that Pope Francis was caught off guard, that he was confused, an elderly imbecile who didn’t know what to make of all this, even that he was trying to be benevolent by remaining there for the entire and very lengthy ceremony in the Vatican Gardens. No. I don’t buy that. You can’t stare at the male-consort-idol next to Pachamama demonness idols to whom children are sacrificed for so long and not stop the idol worship ceremony, and not walk away from it… immediately…

  • And you don’t then bless the Pachamama idol. And you don’t then allow Pachamamas into a Church near the Vatican.
  • And you don’t then threaten severe prosecution of those upstanding individuals who threw the idols into the river.
  • And you don’t then have Pachamama brought in procession. And you don’t then have a worship ceremony of Pachamama in Saint Peter’s Basilica.
  • And you don’t then have Pachamama set upon the altar in Saint Peter’s for the closing Mass: the plant that is a zillion times more representative of Pachamama than any idol, the bowl having an Inca pictogram of Pachamama etched on the side.

Don’t leave the Church, just don’t follow Pope Francis in his promotion of idols.

UPDATE: By the way, this is a typical Marxist way of behaving. When I was in a parish of an openly and viciously Marxist priest in Eastern Nicaragua, taking note of things, I saw some artwork in his rectory, a painting of Jesus crucified. Jesus, our dear Savior, was also depicted with a ridiculously oversized, well, you know. Typical Marxism.

God will not be mocked.

Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead and world… by fire… Amen.

9 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Pope Francis sums up his heresies

I’m only getting to this now as I’m busy with actually being a priest. I think it’s criminal that I or any priest has to waste time answering idiotic statements of Pope Francis, who has totally lost any objective claim to personal honor with the presentation in the Vatican Gardens of the Pachamama Idol and her male-Consort Idol. I make these comments below in a terrible rush early Sunday morning before the 6:00 AM Holy Hour of Adoration with Confessions up in church. My emphasis. [My comments.]

/// The full mid-flight papal presser question of Jason Horowitz (NYT) and answer of Pope Francis that I’m using as the basis for this was posted by Edward Pentin of the NCRegister on Tuesday Sep 10th, 2019 at 3:33 PM. ///

Jason Horowitz: On the flight to Maputo you acknowledged being under attack by a segment of the American Church. Obviously, there is strong criticism from some bishops and cardinals, there are Catholic Television stations and American websites that are very critical. And there are even some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you. [Wow. I never heard of that. Is that baiting by the NYT?] Is there something that these critics do not understand about your pontificate? Is there something that you have learned from your critics? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church? And if so, is there something that you could do – a dialogue – to keep it from happening?

Pope Francis: First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry…. But there are advantages. Traveling to Maputo, one of you gave me that book in French on how the Americans want to change the Pope. I knew about that book, but I had not read it. Criticisms are not coming only from the Americans, they are coming a bit from everywhere, even from the Curia. At least those that say them have the benefit of the honesty of having said them. I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human. [I use my name. You say you don’t like “Yes men’, Pope Francis, but +Christophe Pierre is demanding proofs of submission to the anti-Christ things that you do on a continual basis.]

Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. [And there’s the fraud. Your dialogue partner is always wrong and will always have to change his mind, right?] This is the dynamic of true criticism. The criticism of the arsenic pills, instead, of which we were speaking regarding the article that I gave to Msgr Rueda, it’s like throwing the stone and then hiding your hand… This is not beneficial, it is no help. It helps small cliques, who do not want to hear the response to their criticism. Instead, fair criticism – I think thus and so – is open to a response. This is constructive. [That’s seems to be a blatant lie, Pope Francis. Why don’t you answer the Dubia?]

Regarding the case of the Pope: I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair. [Like the Dubia Cardinals? Pfft.]  To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart, it is chasing after a fixed idea, to change the Pope or to create a schism. This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me. [That’s not true. You smash people down. You don’t confirm your brothers in the faith.] Secondly, the problem of the schism: within the Church there have been many schisms.

After the First Vatican Council, for example, the last vote, the one on infallibility, a well-sized group left and founded the Old Catholic Church so as to remain “true” to the tradition of the Church. Then they developed differently and now they ordain women. But in that moment they were rigid, they rallied behind orthodoxy and thought that the council had erred. [Such playing with language, turning words into their reverse meaning. The ‘Old Catholics’ (self-referentially inconsistent) were ultra-filthy-filthy liberals, rejecting what was always the truth of papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals.] Another group left very, very quietly, but they did not want to vote. Vatican II had these things among its consequences. Perhaps the most well-known post-conciliar split is that of Lefebvre. In the Church there is always the option for schism, always. But it is an option that the Lord leaves to human freedom.

I am not afraid of schisms, I pray that there will be none, because what is at stake is people’s spiritual health. [So, Pope Francis, why don’t you ever confirm your brothers in the faith?] Let there be dialogue, let there be correction if there is an error, but the schismatic path is not Christian. [And forever dialectical destructive one sided obliteration of the faith is not dialogue, is not teaching, is not confirming one’s brothers in the faith.] Let’s think about the beginnings of the Church, how it began with many schisms, one after the other: Arians, Gnostics, Monophysites… [And now we can add dialectical materialism and idol worship.] An anecdote is coming to mind that I would like to recount: it was the people of God who saved [the Church] from the schisms. The schismatics always have one thing in common: they separate themselves from the people, from the faith of the people of God. And when there was a discussion in the council of Ephesus regarding Mary’s divine maternity, the people – this is history – were at the entrance of the cathedral while the bishops entered to take part in the council. They were there with clubs. They made the bishops see them as they shouted, “Mother of God! Mother of God!”, as if to say: if you do not do this, this is what you can expect… The people of God always correct and help. [And the whole world is crying out for Jesus, the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, and you, Pope Francis, give them the demon-goddess Pachamama and her male-Consort in Vatican Gardens. What the hell are you doing, Pope Francis? Are you possessed.]

A schism is always an elitist separation stemming from an ideology detached from doctrine. [That sums up about 100% of what you do and say, Pope Francis. You will never say, with Jesus, to the adulterous woman: “Do not sin again,” will you? And why is that? Are you so much better than Jesus? You don’t trust His grace?] It is an ideology, perhaps correct, but that engages doctrine and detaches it… [But one can believe and be united with Jesus, but that’s exactly what you don’t believe. You think that truth and belief are mutually exclusive.] And so I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them. This is one of the results of Vatican II, not because of this or that Pope. For example, the social things that I say are the same things that John Paul II said, the same things! I copy him. [No, you do not. Look at what you’ve done to entirely destroy the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family. The bigger the lie, the more believable it is, right?]

But they say: the Pope is a communist… [Yep. I say that. Objectively, that’s what you present. If it walks, talks and acts like a communist…] Ideologies enter into doctrine and when doctrine slips into ideology that’s where there’s the possibility of a schism. [It’s right at the top.] There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. [Being forgiven, walking with great peace and joy in the grace of our Lord, being introduced by Jesus to purity of heart and agility of soul and profound love of God and neighbor is not sterile. For you to insult those who are tabernacles of the Holy Spirit in such comprehensive terms may edge on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Pope Francis. You should be careful of pushing such insults of the Holy Spirit.] The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. {I pastori devono condurre il gregge tra la grazia e il peccato, perché la morale evangelica è questa. // Los pastores deben guiar al rebaño entre la gracia y el pecado, porque ésta es la moralidad evangélica.} [“Must.” There it is. So violent. Being lukewarm is the best, you say? The Lord will vomit such out of His mouth, as He said. Always sin and merely pretending one is in friendship with God. How very self-referential, self-absorbed, Promethean, Pelagian…] Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian [For Pope Francis, Jesus is Pelagian.] ideology [For Pope Francis, Jesus is an ideology.] leads you to rigidity [For Pope Francis, Jesus is ‘rigid’.], and today we have many schools[!] of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. [There is the school of Pope Francis. That will certainly end badly. Jesus will come to judge the living and dead and world by fire, including your Pachamama and her male-Consort-Idol.] When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. [They are all damned sinners! Pope Francis is soooooooooo hooooooooooly!] So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently. [How very condescending. Vomit here. Pope Francis claims the moral high ground. He’s so nice! So balanced! But actually, this is exactly when things become violent. When we read of the martyrs who refused to offer worship to idols, we read of the ever so nice and balanced and judicious authoritative figure who begs in all reasonableness that the martyr-to-be simply offer a bit of incense and then all will be nice. But the martyrs went to their death, and, just to say, that authoritative figure who is claiming the moral high ground, and reason, and niceness, is the very one who will instantly and with great violence torture those martyrs to death, burning them alive, cutting them to pieces. Historically, we are at a time when we will start to see such persecution of those who witness to the love and truth of Jesus. More and more are on the run, such as Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, such as Father Paul Kalchik.]


The purpose of writing all this isn’t to make people have doubts or become cynical. It’s to say that not all are attacking the faith. There are so very many who are still believers. Just because the Pope is personally attacking the faith… well… who cares? That’s too bad for him. But no one needs to think that that’s more important than his own individual person before Jesus. What he says and does is not ever done as something infallible. No. And so, we pray for him, that when he turns, he will confirm his brothers in the faith.

6 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

On saving idol worshippers

From a second century author…

  • “To make sure that none of us is lost, we must repent from the bottom of our hearts. Since we have been commanded to go out and rescue idolaters and to instruct them, is it not even more important to save souls who already know God? If we are all to be saved, we shall have to help one another and support the weak in their struggle to live a good life. When one of us does wrong, it is for the others to warn him and persuade him of his error.”

But those faithful to Jesus are called idol worshippers because they insist Jesus is Divine and sinless, our only Redeemer and Savior.

3 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis