Tags
Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Francis church, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, Indignus Famulus, Jesuits, messeging, Modernists, MSM, Mundabor, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, spirit of Vatican II
A friend of this blog, A very dear friend of this blog, Indignus Famulus wrote that my last post titled The Jesuitical Bait-and–Switch inspired them to produce a reciprocating acronym to the one coined and made famous (and hopefully trademarked) by another friend of this blog, the one and only Mundabor. As most readers by now can guess, I am referring to the acronym THE MOST ASTONISHING HYPOCRITE IN CHURCH HISTORY or “TMAHICH”.
The new acronym devised by Indignus Famulus is as follows: OBVIOUSLY FALLACIOUS FRANCIS ARGUMENT-LANGUAGE OR “OFFAL”
I found this so brilliant, that I have given it the honor of a post all on its own. Below is their kind letter which I am reproducing with minor styling alterations.
And one further note, Indignus Famulus’s letter has the honor dishonor of the Deus Ex Machina’s first Msgr Ricca photo embedded onto a post to appear on this humble blog. See what you went and done. 😉
So without further a due, here is the letter:
—This thought-provoking post just inspired us to invent a Mundabor-like acronym -which is yours for the taking, if you like it: OFFAL (usual meaning= refuse, garbage, carrion). In this case, a more specific type of same standing for:
OBVIOUSLY FALLACIOUS FRANCIS ARGUMENT-LANGUAGE
OFFAL #1
In effect he’s [Francis] proposing that “since there are validly married Catholics who are most likely BAD godparents–why keep laws which try to avoid creating A WHOLE LOT MORE OF THEM and with CERTAINTY?OFFAL #2:
His basis for undermining the validity of countless already-consummated marriages: the couples didn’t have a proper understanding of the meaning of the words “lifetime commitment”. So the hardships that come from living together, prove too unexpected and difficult, and nullify the original commitment?In that case:
A. How can ANYONE EVER validly contract a marriage- except a gifted seer, of course?
B. Our Lord and His Church teach that hardships are allowed by God for our sanctification.OFFAL #3:
People are scared? (Wisdom 1:1) “The beginning of all Wisdom, is fear of the Lord”Righteous fear is Scripturally differentiated from the foolish dread of the unbeliever, who listens to the voice of God’s enemies, and has ” fear where there is nothing to fear”. Proper understanding of the Divine attributes of Justice and Mercy eliminate wrongful fear, and are part of the catechetical work of the Church. Francis would keep people in fearful ignorance once again, and comfort them with permission to live in a way that leads them to an eternity in Hell.
-Cardinal Burke’s words echo those you quoted in this post:
“THERE CAN’T BE IN THE CHURCH A DISCIPLINE WHICH IS NOT AT THE SERVICE OF DOCTRINE”
and he explained:
“The reformers were saying, “Oh, we’re not questioning the indissolubility of Marriage at all, we’re just going to make it easier for people to receive a declaration of nullity of Marriage, so they can receive the Sacraments.” “BUT THAT IS A VERY DECEPTIVE LINE OF ARGUMENT, WHICH I’VE BEEN HEARING MORE AND MORE in this whole debate.” “If that line prevails, CATHOLICS WILL see those who are divorced and remarried (without an annulment) taking Communion, and will ASSUME THAT THE TEACHING ON MARRIAGE HAS CHANGED, OR THEY WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE CHURCH IS HYPOCRITICAL..”
Mundabor saw where the real hypocrisy is, and labeled him TMAHICH.
On your conclusion about Francis being controlled by the homo-lobby, we see two other possibilities:
1. The Diabolic Disorientation predicted by Fatima could be blinding him (how he could not otherwise be straight and not repulsed is beyond us) and/or :
2. What if he’s not controlled by them, but is their leader, with his chosen second in command being Ricca–who had to be recalled from his Uruguayan post because of his scandalous homo lifestyle-, in particular that related to his time in the Montevideo nunciature. Sandro Magister said “Further documentation is available from the Uruguayan authorities, from security forces to fire brigades. Not to mention the numerous bishops, priests, religious, laymen in Uruguay who were direct witnesses of the scandal and are ready to speak.”
a. We’re aware that Magiser thinks the Pope was “kept in the dark” about Ricca. But one look at the guy is enough to set off alarm bells in anyone, and the Pope stayed with him when, according to Magister: he [Ricca] won Bergoglio’s trust — initially as director of the residence on Via della Scrofa at which the archbishop of Buenos Aries stayed during his visits to Rome, and now also as director of the Domus Sanctæ Marthæ in which Francis has chosen to live as pope.”
b. Magister goes on to write: “in Just one week after appointing the “prelate [Ricca],” however, during the same days in which he was meeting with the apostolic nuncios who had come to Rome from all over the world, the pope became aware, from multiple sources, of some episodes from Ricca’s past previously unknown to him and such as to bring serious harm to the pope himself and to his intention of reform.”
c. Sorry, we just can’t buy into the idea that after staying with Ricca on numerous previous visits to Rome, the future Pope didn’t “get” that he is an active homo–especially as your article on the state of the Jesuits pointed out, that such a huge percentage of them are homosexual and active, it simply defies reason to believe Francis can’t “tell”. and “didn’t know”.
d. And once he appointed Ricca and was shortly thereafter informed about the parts he supposedly didn’t know, he did nothing, but takes a broadly grinning, lovingly smiling photo with Ricca stroking his cheek, which Mundabor frequently displays? What can the lobby really hold over Francis’ head, if he is not himself a homo? He’s showed himself willing to make many other enemies elsewhere among conservatives.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-gay-lobby-tricked-francis-into.html
The above are all questions that definitely need to be asked.

Dear SA
You mentioned the theory of the Pope having no Supernatural Faith.
We just came across this quote from bishop Fulton Sheen, in which he predicts the circumstances of the false church, false prophet and anti-Christ, and couldn’t help seeing the similarities. We typed out the video so you could take a look at the words:
From Fulton J. Sheen’s Book: Communism and the Consciousness of the West 1950
“We are living in the days of the Apocalypse, the last days of our era. The two great forces-the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of the anti-Christ are
beginning to draw battle lines for the catastrophic contest.”
The False prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit Church.
Christ’s Church the Catholic Church will be one; and the false Prophet will create the other.
The False Church will be worldly, ecumenical, and global. It will be a loose federation of churches and religions, forming some type of global association.
A world parliament of Churches. It will be emptied of all Divine content, it will be the mystical body of the anti-Christ. The Mystical Body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot, and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from our Bishops.
The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed
tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he exercises. God has
defined Himself as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I am who am not.”
Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an
angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there
is no hell; if there is no hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge, and if there is no judgment then evil is good and good is evil. But
above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect–and certainly no devil ever seen in picture
books could deceive even the elect. How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?
The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to
God, but as ends in themselves. . . .
. . . The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the temptation to have a new
religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion–one that renders unto Caesar even the
things that are God’s.
In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will
not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counter-church which will
be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its
divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .
. . . But the twentieth century will join the counter-church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra from Moscow on the subject
of economics and politics, and as chief shepherd of world communism.
LikeLike
Dear SA
We’ll put this link here too, because we don’t want you to miss it.
Burke apparently has even more to say about all this–like a pre-Christmas present to his troops:
http://theradicalcatholic.blogspot.com/2014/12/an-intereview-with-cardinal-burke.html
And when they get back to the basics–what happened immediately after the Council he says:
” I saw that there was something that had definitely gone wrong. I witnessed, for instance, as a young priest the emptiness of the catechesis. The – texts were so poor.
Then I witnessed the liturgical experimentations
-SOME OF WHICH I JUST DONE EVEN WANT TO REMEMBER.”
“I must say that THE LITURGICAL REFORM IN PARTICULAR WAS VERY RADICAL–, EVEN VIOLENT, and so the thought of a restoration didn’t seem possible, really. But, thanks be to God, it happened.”
–He acknowledges the continuity
-“Yes, I understand that they are the same rite, and I believe that, when the so-called New Rite or the Ordinary Form is celebrated with great care and with a strong sense that the Holy Liturgy is the action of God, one can see more clearly the unity of the two forms of the same rite.
ON THE OTHER HAND…
“the difference between the two forms is very stark.”
Q. “In what sense”?
A. “The rich articulation of the Extraordinary Form, all of which is always pointing to the theocentric nature of the liturgy,
IS PRACTICALLY DIMINISHED TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE DEGREE
in the ordinary form.
Many other topics are covered (with the exception, we noticed of ecumenism)
but this emphasis on the Liturgy, points once again to how central the Lex Orandi is to the passing on of the Faith. And Cardinal Burke obviously believes that.
LikeLike
He and many many other young and middle aged priest who still have the faith.
Thks for the link. I actually seen the interview and saw another aspect that struck me greatly. When he was asked about the SSPX, he seemed to say that yes, they did the right thing.
Can’t wait to see the next responce from cd. Muller when he gets that same question.
As for focusing on the lex Orandi, it is a back door approach to kill the ecumenism. Remeber, the N.O. was created to support the ecumenism in that it eliminated the internal contradiction whereby Truth only “subsisted in the Catholic Church”. That why he had his army of proddies advising him.
LikeLike
Great point. And your’re right, you look at the words of the interview in total, and get the feeling he covered everything- despite not addressing it directly..
LikeLike
P.S. We posted this link on Harvesting and to Mundabor as a response to his Christmas piece. People are already discussing it on Harvesting …
LikeLike