“But Father George! Father George! You’re an ol’ meanie! You’re wrong, Father George! You gotta retract and apologize to the writers of Dignitas infinita! They made a distinction between ontological evil, which is NEVER LOST, and moral evil, which they admit can be really really bad Father George! So they’re right and you’re wrong! We’re all going to be saints in heaven! Get with the program, Father George ! ! ! ! ! ! “
No matter how many exclamation points are used, it’s actually that distinction between moral evil and ontological evil that is wrong, heretical, and is the attempted destruction of the Catholic Church, the divinity of Christ, the fact of sin, the fact of any forgiveness of sin, etc.
The consequences of sin are also and deeply ontological. The consequences of grace are also and deeply ontological. Sanctifying grace transforms the very being of the individual, turning to glory in heaven. There’s nothing more ontological than that, being transformed to see God in the Face. But sin, mortal sin, wrecks destructions upon the very being of the individual, the mere shell of which, in all hatred and rebellion, goes to hell for eternity, never to see God in the Face.
The ontological fact of redemption, of salvation, is that we are ontologically fit to be and are tabernacles of the Most Holy Trinity (the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity as the saints call it), tabernacles of the fiery Holy Spirit, as Saint Paul says. God radiates from our very being, all ontological.
Martin Luther rejected the beauty of our Redemption and said that we remain forever a pile of bull s*** in eternity in heaven; it’s just that, he said, Christ covers that pile of s*** like a blanket of snow, the glistening of which is what the eyes of God the Father are dazzled by, God the Father being deceitfully tricked by God the Son. Though God the Father is so gullible, we are nevertheless nothing more ontologically than s*** forever. This insult to our redemption by the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception (also a terrible insult to her) is what is embraced wholly by Dignitas infinita. What an irony: each person has infinite dignity by being, ontologically, a pile of s*** in eternity.
I reject all that s***.
I accept the forgiveness of my sin wrought not by a mere external decree, but by the flooding into my soul of the life of the Most Holy Trinity. No more room for sin and guilt in this re-creation in the Body of Christ. This is the difference between heaven vs hell, grace vs s***, truth vs Dignitas infinita.
Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.
P.S. If I notice this kind of thing, it’s not because I’m especially smart, but because I’ve seen it all before as a seminarian. This was all the rage after Vatican II amongst the heretics. The writers of Dignitas infinita are altogether unoriginal, stuck in the late 1960s and early 1970s. With the publication of this kind of Lutheran s***, their time has now come to an end.
Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!
P.S. Again, these guys tried to blame all this on JPII. That’s a lie. That’s for another post.
So, while trying to get some sleep last night I listened to the document Dignitas infinita on my Android phone, using the always annoying text-to-speech app [settings / accessibility / select-to-speak]. What I noted is that there are constant contradictions throughout this weirdly self-cancelling document.
It’s obvious that there are a number of “voices”, mumblings in meetings, contributions by committee members which had to be included but only grudgingly, and which are not well integrated, to the point that you can name the source of this or that paragraph as coming from Cardinal “Tom”, or Father “Dick”, or Sister “Harriette”, none of them always agreeing with each other. After all, it’s a dicastery of dialoguers (appointed people), not a congregating specifically of member Cardinals, right?
I offered the painful agony of the experience of listening to this document for the souls in purgatory. I couldn’t endure physically reading it. The document is so annoying. Everything in the context of the document is wrong, including every “the” and “and”, while the contradictions pile up.*
The perverted wishful thinking in Dignitas infinita is universal salvation: everyone, without any exception, retains infinite dignity in eternity in heaven regardless of any moral defect whatsoever, even actively hating God and neighbor in eternity in heaven, forever trying to murder everyone and lie to everyone in eternity in heaven.
“But Father George! Father George! That doesn’t make sense and I gotta make it make sense or I’ll just up and die!”
Look: Error is such because you can’t make sense of it. Don’t try. If you succeed, you will be in error. Accept the fact that some people even want to share their error with you. There’s Judas, right? We’re not entitled to have no Judas among us. Are we then betrayed. Yes. Rejoice that you can stand with Jesus. If you willingly, knowingly want to be in error by rationalizing it, you risk going to hell. Don’t do that. You’ll need to go to Sacramental Confession because you will, objectively speaking, have lost your dignity altogether.
The corollary for this theoretical error is, of course, practical error, blessing sin, because, well, error and all that. God doesn’t bless sin. No priest can force God to bless sin. If a priest were to attempt to bless sin, to force God to bless sin, he will risk going straight to hell, you know, speaking objectively. He will need to go to Sacramental Confession because he will have actually lost his dignity altogether.
The summary corollary for all this error is that there is no sin, no salvation, no Savior, no religion, but only a fraternity of dark and violent arrogance cutting everyone off from God and from each other, and then calling that eternal dignity in heaven, you know, because, well, error and all that. Such people have a desperate need to repent and go to Sacramental Confession. Our Lord says that those who deny Him will be denied by Him before our Heavenly Father, they having lost their dignity at that point forever. There’s nothing infinite or heavenly about lost dignity. It’s hell.
By the way: don’t despair; don’t leave the Church; don’t abandon Jesus; don’t let the knuckleheads get you down so that you attempt to use them as an excuse for thus hating God and neighbor. Tough it out, and… and… meanwhile, rejoice, because you are being given an opportunity to be crucified with Jesus. He knows well what this is all about. Been there. Done that. Be the little child trusting in Jesus within the mantle of Immaculate Mary.
If you bother to read the document (I don’t recommend it but the link is up top), you’ll notice that it races from half-baked morality, reminiscences of natural law, all the way to the mere ethics (customs of fallen-human-nature imposed by elitists), the customs of, by definition, going along to get along with no foundation of that being a creature with free will before His Creator and all the obligations that such free will before God entails. There is, in all of this mere political correctness, no moral imperative of “Love one another AS I have loved you” with a crucified love, with God’s love, but merely a casuistic, condescending and pandering scolding for that which relatively makes these people feel uncomfortable for whatever unrepeatable nanosecond, a scolding that all can even laudably ignore because -Hey! – we all have infinite dignity forever in heaven no matter what! Again, if you think that doesn’t make sense, know that it doesn’t. Don’t try to make sense of it. All of this is pure evil.
Examples? While the rights of, say, the disabled are touted, the executioners of the disabled in the Third Reich T-4 program to eliminate all the disabled in gas-chambers and ovens are canonized with the infinite dignity thingy that continues in eternity in heaven even while they forever actively hate God and neighbor, continuing with their murdering and lying in heaven. “Infinite dignity” is a license to murder, to hate, to lie. Does that sound like dignity? Again, don’t try to make sense of it.
It comes down to power, the power to shake one’s fist at God and neighbor, the power to go to hell. That’s not power, but such people think it is. Feel the adrenaline while executing the innocent! Hey! Heaven and hatred at the same time! Yay! /// off sarcasm
“Oh! That’s really evil” the document exclaims, but then repeats that no one ever loses their dignity, not in any circumstance, not amidst the accomplishment of any evil. Again, this doesn’t make sense. Don’t try to make it make sense or you will end up in hell, because, you know… Feel the adrenaline, the power of shaking your fist at God and neighbor. But then, the nanosecond you die…
Summary: the whole document comes across as someone trying to get out of being condemned to hell forever with no dignity whatsoever, thus desperately coming up with excuses from within themselves as reasons why they shouldn’t be condemned, you know, like Narcissus seeing his reflection in the water, finding the totality of the reason for his existence in the reflection of himself. I dunno. It’s a question people can ask themselves…
Recommendation: If that’s what you’re doing, get your hide off to Sacramental Confession. Go to Jesus and have your sins forgiven. Do it now while you have the chance. And don’t sin again!
My own penance given to me in Sacramental Confession the other day: Five reps of the Lord’s Prayer. Thank you, Jesus.
Monitum: Footnote (1) of Dignitas infinita blames JPII for this heretical phrase. It’s a lie. That’s for another post. What they did in blaming JPII for this is very terrible.
– * – A few days ago I cited a couple of paragraphs about human trafficking which were entirely correct. I did that as ammunition, however cynical, however ironic, against the traffickers. Je suis un enfant terrible. See: Dignitas infinita and human trafficking.
Human trafficking must also be counted among the grave violations of human dignity. While it is not a new phenomenon, it has taken on tragic dimensions before our eyes, which is why Pope Francis has denounced it in particularly emphatic terms: “I reaffirm here that the ‘trade in people’ is a vile activity, a disgrace to our societies that claim to be civilized! Exploiters and clients at all levels should make a serious examination of conscience both in the first person and before God! Today the Church is renewing her urgent appeal that the dignity and centrality of every individual always be safeguarded, with respect for fundamental rights, as her social teaching emphasizes. She asks that these rights really be extended for millions of men and women on every continent, wherever they are not recognized. In a world in which a lot is said about rights, how often is human dignity actually trampled upon! In a world in which so much is said about rights, it seems that the only thing that has any rights is money.”
For these reasons, the Church and humanity must not cease fighting against such phenomena as “the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labor, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism, and international organized crime. Such is the magnitude of these situations, and their toll in innocent lives, that we must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism that would assuage our consciences. We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these scourges.” Confronted with these varied and brutal denials of human dignity, we need to be increasingly aware that “human trafficking is a crime against humanity.” It essentially denies human dignity in at least two ways: “Trafficking profoundly disfigures the humanity of the victim, offending his or her freedom and dignity. Yet, at the same time, it dehumanizes those who carry it out.”
The Supreme Pontiff, Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the Secretary for the Doctrinal Section of the Dicastery, on 25 March 2024, approved this Declaration, which was decided at the Ordinary Session of this Dicastery on 28 February 2024, and he ordered its publication.
Given in Rome, at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 2 April 2024, the nineteenth anniversary of the death of Pope St. John Paul II.
Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández Prefect
Msgr. Armando Matteo
Secretary for the Doctrinal Section
Ex Audientia Die 25.03.2024 FRANCISCUS
I wholeheartedly support these two paragraphs of Dignitas infinita, and hold them out as an accusation to those who are doing these crimes in the name of all that is Catholic and in the name of charities. It’s like reading a description of the activity of NGOs, if you get my drift.
A question by email came in the other day about the possibility of non-liturgical blessings. The impromptu answer, as fast as I could tap on the phone “keyboard”, had two points:
“Once ordained, a priest can never again bless anything except by way of his ordination, which ontologically changes the soul of the priest. A priest cannot un-ordain himself even momentarily. He cannot give an un-priestly blessing even if he wanted to.”
“Moreover, priestly blessings are a sacramental, drawing on the merits of Christ and the saints, which is inescapably a liturgical action regardless of words used, regardless of solemn or simple, rigorously rubrical or ad hoc.”
Further random but incisive comments:
Such a blasphemous blessing of same-sex sex by Cardinal Tucho Fernandez and Pope Francis as seen in Fiducia supplicans and follow-up means that Rome has abandoned the faith, that Rome is the seat of the anti-Christ, and that the final battle in the Church as prophesied at Fatima, viz., over the family, is lost.
Moreover, please understand, when the image of God as delineated by Genesis, male-female-marriage-family, is cast aside, it is done away with precisely because it is the image of God. This is a direct insult to God. This is a direct insult to the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, whose Last Supper united with Calvary by way of Jesus’ wedding vows with His Immaculate Bride, the Church, This is my Body given for you in Sacrifice, my Blood poured out for you in Sacrifice.
This is a denial of Jesus as the Divine Son of the Living God Incarnate of the Immaculate Virgin. And this is the definition of the anti-Christ.
This is a denial of our Redemption, God’s marriage with His Bride the Church re-establishing the image of God within us by sanctifying grace.
For the anti-Christs, their denial of Jesus is precisely why same-sex sex is “blessed.” But God will not bless that which is sinful. God will not be mocked by these mockers.
This is why female priests are desired by some, for, at such a “Mass”, this would be a lesbian symbol, a woman marrying her bride. What an insult to the Church, to God, to everyone.
Even more random thoughts:
I bet we do suffer the publication of further Eucharistic Prayers with special consecrations pandering to other religions or none, to other pronouns or none, to forgiveness of unrepentant sin, whatever, you know, just to make sure that the Daily Sacrifice has come to an end.
In the “note” of Francis and his Tucho, Gestis verbisque, most rigid execution of the rubrics of the Novus ordo is commanded under pain of exemplary penalty, likely excommunication.
The problem with this command is that, generally speaking, right around the world, if a priest actually follows the rubrics on lesser things, he is instantly condemned by his relative (Cardinal) (Arch)bishop, who rips him out of his parish and does not give him any other assignment, then takes away his salary, then takes away his insurance, then appeals to Rome to forcibly dismiss him from the clerical state (laicize) because, that (Cardinal) (Arch)bishop says, such a priest is “unassignable” because of not being up-to-date, not being-with-it, not with the spirit of the council and, because he is still alive in this world, is a “liability.” Rome immediately obeys, sending a letter to the priest without any previous warning nor request for input.
What’s going on?
It’s all about the spirit of the council! the spirit of the council! the spirit of the council!
What’s the proof for that?
There are so many anecdotes that we now have data. It’s all quite lockstep:
If a priest were to say the Novus ordo using the typical edition of the Roman Missal for the Novus ordo, that is, using the Latin language instead of the multitude of vernacular languages, which Vatican Council II insisted be done and which no (Cardinal) (Arch)bishop on his own can change without acting ultra vires, beyond his authority, and therefore illegitimately, well well, that priest will forthwith be reprimanded and threatened and perhaps even be ripped out of ministry.
If a priest were to say the Novus ordo logistically ad orientem, facing the Sacrifice – which is still actually the norm in the General Institution (“Instruction”) and presumed by the rubrics throughout Holy Mass, that is facing the Sacrifice with those assisting instead of subjecting them to his own face, well well, surely his (Cardinal) (Arch)bishop will act ultra vires, beyond his authority, and therefore illegitimately forbid that priest to continue in this fashion, threatening or perhaps even ripping him out of ministry.
And this list could go on ad nauseam regarding laity preaching preaching, laity acting like deacons, or even laity even concelebrating (so many stories), etc., etc., etc.
By the way, that picture up top? That’s the Novus ordo, surely in Latin, at Saint Agnes in Saint Paul, Minnesota. I guess they get a “cultural pass”, just like Africa gets a “cultural pass” for Fiducia supplicans. But all of that, I’m guessing, will be short lived at this stage.
In fine velocior. In the end, it all goes more quickly.
You have heard that it was said by Pope Francis in an interview that he hopes hell is empty. Well, that’s not true. Immediately after that he said that he hopes that all those who are essentially schismatic in their protests of Fiducia supllicans with its encouragement to blessing the sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance will simply die… in their sin of schismatic protest… which seems rather cruel to me. Is that what you mean, Pope Francis?
From LifeSiteNews. “In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Francis addressed the criticism of the controversial Vatican declaration on “blessings” for couples in irregular situations, saying that “those who vehemently protest [Fiducia Supplicans] belong to small ideological groups.”
The Lord’s Little Flock vehemently protests your filthy, demonic scandal as laid out in Fiducia supplicans, Pope Francis. By Jesus’ good grace, we adhere to the living faith provided to us by the Holy Spirit. We belong to Jesus, to His Church, to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not to your small, filthy, demonic ideological group of sycophants who deny Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Authentic Magisterium of the Church. The Lord’s Little Flock is not a small ideological group, but rather the faithful remnant which Jesus Himself shepherds.
“The Gospel is to sanctify everyone,” he added. “Of course, there must be goodwill. And it is necessary to give precise instructions on the Christian life (I emphasize that it is not the union that is blessed, but the persons). But we are all sinners: Why should we make a list of sinners who can enter the Church and a list of sinners who cannot be in the Church? This is not the Gospel.”
Sure it is! The faithful remnant has such a list because Jesus has such a list. Those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, not in this age, nor in the age to come. The Holy Spirit was sent among us for the forgiveness of sin, but those who reject that forgiveness cannot receive it, because they don’t want it. Get it? And if such a same-sex sex-couple presents as a same-sex sex-couple, it is inescapable that they are asking for a blessing for their sin regardless of their protestations. They are to separate and go individually to Confession. And then their back, and in God’s good graces, and may receive Holy Communion worthily.
“Francis admitted he sometimes feels alone, “but I still always strive ahead, day after day,” and stressed that he does not fear schisms.”
That’s because he thinks he himself is not the schismatic guy. Pfft.
“The pope seemed to infer that the critics of Fiducia Supplicans are “of a schismatic nature.”
I would say “inescapably infer”, but, again, those who remain in the joy of the faith are not the schismatics.
“In the Church, there have always been small groups that manifest reflections of a schismatic nature,” he said.”
That we reject your schismatic reflections, Pope Francis, doesn’t mean that such a rejection is of a schismatic nature.
“One must let them carry on and pass away … and look ahead” [referring to those who protest Pope Francis’ filthy teachings].
Wait… What? Pope Francis actually hopes that those who protest his scandal which leads untold millions to lose the faith and go to hell will continue in their being cut off from the Church (in his view) and die (and be condemned to hell for eternity?). He is so very at ease with looking away and abandoning those he thinks are lost. Good shepherd in his own eyes?
/// Finally: Pope Francis has the ideology that God’s grace is useless, is not powerful enough to have someone chose and do what is right even in the midst of darkness and temptation and feeling cut off from God, even in the midst of weakness of mind, weakness of will, with emotions all over the place, even in the midst of sickness and death. But God’s grace is strong enough to have us laugh at such things while the Lord Jesus forgives us and draws us to Himself, to heaven.
And if we were to think that Pope Francis is a schismatic or a heretic or an apostate, that wouldn’t mean that there is a mechanism by which to judge that to be so, or if there was, that therefore such information would be actionable. Do we say that there’s nothing that can be done about it, that “one must let [him] carry on and pass away… and look ahead”? No. We can pray.
Well, let’s give Pope Francis something to complain about:
The Pope loves saying that the blessing of same-sex sex-couples does not change the doctrine about the Sacrament of Matrimony… and therefore… the blessing of same-sex sex-couples is morally good.
Pope Francis is hoping that you won’t see the illogicity of his syllogism. He can decide any ugly conclusion for himself as to whether or not he is malicious. Our Lord will be the judge, however.
Let’s see an extraneous example:
The blessing of the activities of Wuhan leakers of lab-created novel coronavirus is morally good because it doesn’t change the doctrine about contagion.
Wait… What?
But what’s the reference to a “union” mean?
When the Pope says that it’s not the union that is blessed, he’s referring to a state-sponsored civil-contract ratified on behalf of same-sex sex-couples, commonly called a civil union in English speaking countries, or unione civile in Italy. So, the piece of paper from the State is not blessed and, therefore, for the Pope, the same-sex activities of the same-sex sex-couple are all morally good and are therefore to be blessed.
Wait… What?
But let’s take the best take on what Pope Francis means:
Let’s say that what the pope meant to say is that the decision to have a relationship as made by same-sex sex-couples, as a kind of intentional contract, even if not wrought by the State, and so therefore technically not a civil union in the eyes of the State, is not to be blessed, regardless of how ad hoc or otherwise that relationship happens to be. Surely, what the Pope means is that the individuals of same-sex sex-couples, who are determined to continue their same-sex activities as a same-sex sex-couple are indeed to be blessed, either individually or together, because with that, there’s not any distinction with any kind of difference and that makes sense.
This is absolutely the blessing of sin, which cannot be done.
Nobody’s talking about blessing sin, right?
Sin, of course, does not present itself as an object, like a millstone, outside of an individual, tied to his neck, but rather speaks to the purposed and willing corruption of the individual, to the effect that the blessing of an individual who is determined to sin is to bless the sin.
Sin cannot be blessed, even if a priest should try. There is no grace as from any other sacramental of the Church (sacramentals drawing on the merits of Christ and the saints), because God will not be mocked and will not proffer grace to malicious individuals who are mocking Him.
And we could go on, ad nauseam. Fiducia supplicans is a heretical document. It’s rubbish. For a priest to follow it would be, objectively, to commit a mortal sin, many mortal sins… blasphemy, sacrilege, scandal. It seems to me that, in justice, the priest is going to be complicit in all subsequent sin, and will also suffer the punishment for this, in hell, in eternity.
In the recent storm raging across these USA we also got a gust of wind. Besides destruction at the rectory, these storage units just up the road a couple miles were picked up all at once, still all attached to each other, and then unceremoniously dumped upside-down some 20 feet away, leaving all that which was stored in various units mixed with everything else, and, at the same time, swamped by the rain. But the treasure is still there, still exists.
This is an analogy, of course, with what the Church is suffering in these times, when bad is good, good is bad, right is wrong, and wrong is right. But the Lord’s Little Flock still survives (John 10:27-28)…
“[The Good Shepherd’s] sheep follow Him because they know His voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will flee from him because they do not recognize his voice” (John 10:4-5).
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.”
Exemplars of the Roman clergy have made up the “college of clergy”, the “canons” of the Basilica of Saint Peter for almost 1000 years, although now it is quite an international undertaking. It is said that:
“A revision of the chapter statutes is currently underway, aimed at modernizing its profile, adapting it to the renewed spiritual and devotional needs of our times.” (that page here)
No doubt. Once quite the prestigious group, they are now being used as officially appointed ministers who will officially provide scheduled “impromptu” blessings for same-sex couples, blessings that are priestly, therefore, sacramental blessings (drawing necessarily on the merits of Christ Jesus and the saints) and which are, therefore, liturgical blessings, all this within the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome, you know, in front of an altar (because, inescapably, there are altars everywhere in the basilica).
As for any impromptu blessing of any kind, the canons, who are sticklers for proper liturgy (that’s, like, their job), will wear a cassock with a surplice with a stole, perhaps also coming armed with Holy Water and altar-boys with candles and processional cross to make it all official-esque, though, you know, not official at all (wink wink).
You can bet that they will have a nice, red-leather, hard-cover ceremonial book with a pasted-in paragraph to read a script – all so very ritualistically – that is as woke as possible with diversity and inclusion and equity, and with a very pronounced avoidance of all possibly offending pronouns, and with phylactery-style ribbons. Poses for photographs will be made in front of, say, one of the Holy Water fonts:
Meanwhile, all African bishops in ministry in Africa and Madagascar forbid all priests to bless same-sex couples. I have to wonder whether a bishop from Africa on pilgrimage or ad limina apostolorum will be forbidden entrance into Saint Peter’s Basilica to visit the tomb of Saint Peter because they will refuse to do same-sex blessings inside the basilica.
But of immediate concern perhaps this very day is that the the Canons will surely, much sooner than later, be asked to provide a blessing for same-sexers. The difference for, say, priests in Africa, is that their bishops support them saying No. But at the Vatican the Canons are obliged to comply, or else. Will they all comply or will they resign, with pension and apartment removed, thrown unto the street?
But, actually, support vs coercion is a substantial difference in a much different way than one might think. No one ever forces anyone to do anything evil. You instead become a martyr. And the one who, say a canon who refuses a same-sex blessing and is forthwith tossed into the street, has a huge advantage over the priests in Africa, for the canons now have an immediate opportunity to become martyrs in whatever way for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ desires. If spiritual envy were allowed, this would be a great opportunity.
The archpriest of the basilica said that the canons of the basilica “will move straight along the furrow that has been cut.”
“Straight along the furrow,” eh? How very cynically perverted a statement that is.
What a scandal to the whole world.
I can hear it now: “The pope allows blessings of same-sex couples in Saint Peter’s Basilica. What’s your problem? Are you more Catholic than the Pope?”
By the way and just to say: No matter how “sacramental” and “liturgical” and fantastically fabulously flamboyantly flittingly folksy, Almighty God will not be mocked, and will not supply the grace of blessing otherwise expected. No. God does not bless sin. And it is objectively a mortal sin to bless sin.
If this isn’t sin, there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no need for forgiveness, no need for redemption, no need for salvation, no need for a Savior, no need for any Church, no need for religion, no need to… live…
This is all so very demonic, so very diabolical, so very Satanic.
But Jesus will shorten the time for the sake of the elect, or else not even one would be saved.
There are “boundary violations” by the guy who ultimately oversees Protecting God’s Children, you know, as he scandalizes the Lord’s Little Flock by giving them over to Satan. Any priest or bishop defending Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez in their promotion of their Satanic filthy sex mysticism that is scandalizing individuals in the Church and the world – by the billions – is likewise a blasphemous heretic pervert, invert, whatever… Each of them risk going each to his own place sooner or later (see Acts 1:25).
And why is it that so many are not saying anything at all to warn people of their false teaching? They are complicit, as the Lord points out to Ezekiel 3:17-21…
“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from My mouth, give them a warning from Me. If I say to the wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ but you do not warn him or speak out to warn him from his wicked way to save his life, that wicked man will die in his iniquity, and I will hold you responsible for his blood. But if you warn a wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness and his wicked way, he will die in his iniquity, but you will have saved yourself. Now if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. If you did not warn him, he will die in his sin, and the righteous acts he did will not be remembered. And I will hold you responsible for his blood. But if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he will indeed live because he heeded your warning, and you will have saved yourself.”
Meanwhile, Cardinal “Tucho the Mouth” has NOT apologized:
“I certainly would not write now,” he said, indicating that he doesn’t allow reprints. He said it “could be misinterpreted.” “That’s why I don’t think it’s a good thing to spread it now,” as if saying that made it all better. “In fact, I have not authorized it and it is contrary to my will.” Sounds serious! But…
But that’s not an apology, not a retraction, not even a nuance diverse from that which he had so very blasphemously written. In fact, this is all just an another advertisement for his hell, just another opportunity to scandalize the world and individuals in the Church – in all their billions – leading them into sin, leading them to hell. This is all part of the ongoing great apostacy.
All he is saying is that people are stupid and they might not understand what he writes. The victims of his narcissism are at fault, not him.
Does he now say that what he wrote is wrong? No.
Does he now say that he wants to add to what he wrote? No.
Does he now say that he wants to take away from what he wrote? No.
Does he now say that he wants to change what he wrote. No.
He equates sex and the spiritual life. That means: no sex, no spiritual life.
In fact, it means that those who cannot or do not have sex, such as infants and little kids, such as the severely mentally challenged, such as those with advanced dementia, such as those who are physically incapable for whatever reason, for those those virgins and celibates who abandon all for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven and rejoice in chastity, with purity of heart, agility of soul, all of them are not even persons, certainly are not saints, not holy, not close to God, and, not even being persons, merely backwardists given to ideology, can be eliminated. This is so Satanic.
A lifetime ago, Father Josef Fuchs, S.J., did the same thing, analogously, with capacity for communication. If someone cannot communicate, they are not persons and can be eliminated. That was one of the excuses used in defense of the Holocaust: They can’t communicate in anything but Yiddish, or Romanian, or whatever, and so we don’t understand them and so they are not persons and can and must be eliminated. It happened. It does happen. If priests stand up for what is right, they are cancelled. This is so very Satanic.
Priests and bishops right around the world must rebel against the Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez.
“But Father George! Father George! You don’t understand! You can be said to be fomenting hatred against the Holy Father, and that can, like, you know, get you in trouble! They’ll excommunicate you and stuff like that! Shut your mouth, Father George!”
I’m no Saint Paul. Far from it. I am wretched and would be going straight to hell if without forgiveness from the crucified Jesus (as is the case for all of us). But I can and must say these things. Not making the reprimand would be a sin and, it seems to me, staring at Ezekiel, a mortal sin. Here’s Saint Paul reprimanding Peter:
“When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
ARISE! LET US BE GOING! 