Tag Archives: Pachamama

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

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

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

Challenge to Nuncio + Christophe Pierre

Recently the Apostolic Nuncio to these USA, during the general assembly of the bishops, demanded concrete signs of submission to the “magisterium” of Pope Francis. I took that as a bullying threat because, well, there is no such thing.

Here’s the deal: No Pope has his own magisterium. His teaching is to be the teaching of Jesus, and of Jesus’ Church throughout the ages. For instance, if a Pius IX or a Pius XII pronounces something ex-Cathedra, say, about the Immaculate Conception or about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that’s nothing different from what the Church has always believed. I would never reduce such teaching merely to the idiosyncratic wierdnesses of some particular individual Bishop of Rome. No. This is Catholic teaching of the ages.

Pope Francis has never pronounced anything in an ex-Cathedra manner. Moreover, the thing most pushed for compliance, for submission, is Amoris laetitia. But Pope Francis called that a dialogue in it’s opening paragraphs. It’s means nothing on the level of teaching or “magisterium.”

If such pressure is given – and the pressure is a green light to not give believing priests assignments, and eventually to dismiss them from the clerical state – it can only refer to insisting on submission to the most unorthodox interpretations.

Thus, I guess it’s being demanded to put Pachamama idols on our altars with the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus. I guess we’re supposed to put Pachamama consort idols of a fully sexually erect man up on the altar as in the Vatican Gardens pagan worship ceremony at which Pope Francis blessed the idol. I guess we’re supposed to say that Jesus sinned against His mother. I guess we’re supposed to say that women with more than two children are rabbits (my mom had four children). I guess…

Should I go on?

My challenge to you +Christophe Pierre, is to come up with a list of things to which we bishops and priests must adhere so as to be counted among the supporters of Pope Francis.

You would think this would be about Jesus.

But no. This is all self-referential. Prometheam. Pelagian. Self-absorbed.

I will not submit to idiocy. I am a Catholic priest. I am priest of Jesus Christ. A priest forever in the line of Melchizedek. I will not submit to Satanic idiocy.

P.S. One might speak of the magisterium of JPII and, for instance, that saints efforts with the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family. But all that is only hailed because it is reflective of that which is Catholic. It is Catholic. It is the magisterium of the Church. Nothing that Pope Francis has been vomiting out has anything to do with such doctrine, such morality, such integrity, such honesty, such honor.

If there’s no honor, there’s no obedience from me.

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen. And Amen.

5 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Shooting Burning Pachamama

Today was the infamous “Day Off.” I was at the hermitage. I looked over the LifeSiteNews translation and review of the Amazon Synod notes. I prayed a bit. Then, as one might do on a day off, I indulged in some recreation.

What with all the explosions and drownings and burnings and such, I thought I might add my own version to the meme.

Above is my two to the body, 1 to the head drill. I think this one was out 21 feet. I made this to fit on legal size paper. Not too bad, though I was pretty slow as the practice is getting a little more sparse with the cheap ammo at Walmart taking a hike. That doesn’t help anyone, actually.

Anyway, burning the demon Pachamama was next on the list to do:

The traffic you hear is in town, in Brevard, passing by a friend’s house where the burning took place.

This is in no way done so as to insult anyone in the Amazon. It is to make a commentary on idol worship.

5 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis

Pachamama Pimped (I’m not buying her demonic services from anyone)

amazon synod

Condescension about the tribesmen of the Amazon region? It’s said that they can’t live chastely, because, you know, they are equated as persons with ejaculation, of whatever kind and style, the “sacrament” of, it seems, so many in filthy, filthy Rome. In other words, they have no free will, no capacity for natural moral law. But the manipulators of the Amazon Synod (or the prestidigitators as Cardinal Siri called analogous manipulators), are they not talking about themselves?

The locals of the Amazon shouldn’t be offended by my comments, but rather with the Europeans and those in Rome who are playing them for themselves. I’m indignant on behalf of the locals in the Amazon Region. Those who hate God and neighbor in REPAM and the Brazilian bishops conference who forbid the evangelization of these peoples should be rejected by the locals of the Amazon Region.


So, with all the Pachamama news going on – and it always gets worse, much worse – I did something I don’t recommend anyone do. I Google-Image searched for Pachamama. That was a mistake. Pachamama is simply the slut of the Andes’ demons, so that what is in her womb is, in this superstition scenario, a demon.

The more I learn about Pachamama, the more I am horrified the the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God has been compared to and even equated with this demon goddess.

Amoris laetitia had a section dedicated to pastoral care for prostitutes, which no one paid attention to or made excuses for because they couldn’t wrap their “pious” minds around it. It was just too horrible to think that it could possibly be true. Whilst I lived in Rome for so very many years I would meet South American priests from Pachamama territory who would say precisely and with no ambiguity what the prevailing pastoral practice is; even admitting that they would “visit” the prostitutes themselves. Yep. Here’s a post I wrote about this with it’s own update:


Update: There is some pretty heavy interest in high places right now over some of the more controversial posts I’ve put up about the past couple of Synods. If I had to write an apologia about this, I would just say that my opinions are on behalf of those who suffer much in this world, who are marginalized and kept suffering it seems to me on purpose. That unnecessary suffering really just needs to stop, and stop now.

peep show

Original Post: It seems that paragraph 49 refers to prostitution to avoid poverty. Communion for active prostitutes has been part of pastoral praxis by some for decades and a continuous side debate for some of the liberation theology / arm-chair moral theology crowd. So:

49. Here I would also like to mention the situation of families living in dire poverty and great limitations. The problems faced by poor households are often all the more trying.36 For example, if a single mother has to raise a child by herself and needs to leave the child alone at home while she goes to work, the child can grow up exposed to all kind of risks and obstacles to personal growth. In such difficult situations of need, the Church must be particularly concerned to offer understanding, comfort and acceptance, rather than imposing straightaway a set of rules that only lead people to feel judged and abandoned by the very Mother called to show them God’s mercy. Rather than offering the healing power of grace and the light of the Gospel message, some would “indoctrinate” that message, turning it into “dead stones to be hurled at others”.37

36 Cf. Relatio Finalis 2015, 15.
37 Concluding Address of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (24 October 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 26-27 October 2015, p. 13.

I mean, what does that mean in light of footnote 351 other than to provide, say, Communion for active prostitutes? The solution, it seems to me, isn’t to argue for decades about Prostitutes going to Communion, but rather to open safe houses which can immediately set about finding jobs and shelter and education.

Who throws dead stones of doctrine at anyone? Is the reference to priests like me?

Does this throwing stones reference (coming not long after paragraph 27 in which the adulterous woman of the Gospel of John is mentioned) mean that Jesus was a fool damned by our Heavenly Father for telling the adulterous woman to “sin no more,” Himself stoning this woman into marginalization from the faith by His damnable indoctrinated doctrine-stone of “sin no more”? That’s not what the document says about Jesus, instead reporting in paragraph 27 that, “alone with Jesus, she meets not condemnation but the admonition to lead a more worthy life (cf. Jn 8:1-11).” In other words, the Gospel lies that Jesus told her to “sin no more,” which would inescapably imply that she knew she had in fact sinned (both objectively and subjectively), and that the condemnation is only avoided by taking in the forgiveness with repentance and a firm purpose of amendment. All that, for the document, is simply a heap of indoctrinated stones to throw. So, instead, the document insists that Jesus said that she is to live a more worthy life, inescapably implying that her life was already worthy, but just needed to be, you know, more worthy.

And that leads us back to paragraph 49, where the worthiness of adultery by prostitution, while not as worthy as a life which doesn’t include prostitution, is nevertheless so worthy that it is to be rewarded by such casuistry with, say, Holy Communion.

Look: Just open a safe house. I’ve worked in such places, offered confessions and Holy Mass in such places, given Holy Communion to prostitutes galore in such places. I’ve even ended up in a wheelchair and crutches because of such places. Really, I’ve been there, done that. Just get them the help they need. Don’t just say have a nice day with Holy Communion at a street Mass in the red-light district and not provide for them. Do provide for them both physically and spiritually.

Just call me the dumpster priest. But don’t try to make me take up a program that will keep prostitutes in prostitution. To hell with that.

And, by the way, you know all those people steeped in Tradition, that is, those Legion of Mary people? You have to know that I’m one of them, and you have to know that they started out by evangelizing at brothels.

Or is this really about thinking that prostitutes can’t repent? A prostitute once told me that a clergy guy (Episcopalian I think) would walk into her room for quick sex, first taking his clergy collar off, then unzipping himself, as if the collar in the back pocket would make what he was doing out front somehow moral. When she asked him about his visits to herself later (after she was converted from prostitution), he said that he didn’t think that people like her could possibly ever convert. Is that the message that we have here?

I would like to ask someone, but it seems that speaking with parrhesia isn’t to be met with answers of parrhesia. But if I’m wrong on that, I sure would appreciate an answer.

And, oh, by the way, this paragraph 49 cannot refer to something like thievery either for the mom or the boy, can it? We have better theology of private property than that.

I mean, I just can’t believe that this paragraph was written or published. Prostitutes are always in grave danger of disease, damage, dismemberment, and death by physical force or despair along. Get them out of the situation immediately. Don’t argue about their subjective guilt. If you want a lack of mercy and hurling stones, THAT kind of sophistry that keeps them in their prostitution is example number one.


Addendum about the recommendations of the Amazon Synod:

We’ve been hearing there’s a thing about ordaining uneducated men to the priesthood just for Mass, but not granting them faculties for Confessions. That’s consistent with the idea that these people cannot sin because, you know, they are pristine pre-original sin Garden of Eden people. Pfft.

I gotta wonder if the proposed deaconettes (sacramentally impossible) will do dances with pachamamas as part of an Amazonian Rite of Mass, and if that will turn into the shrine prostitutes we read about in the Old Testament. Remember, there’s no sin! (That’s sarcasm for the secularites reading this.)

 

5 Comments

Filed under Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Pachamama explodes

Leave a comment

Filed under Pope Francis

Priest burns Pachamama

5 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis