What follows is a conversation between two Catholic friends. We will call them Beppe and Carlo.
« In between sleep and wakefulness (is that wokish?) I was thinking about the photo you sent with the multi-color runner and matching mask. [NOTE: this was a presumably Catholic priest who had the altar covered by a rainbow runner and appeared wearing a rainbow surgical mask]
Strangely my thoughts turned to the three little peasant children at Fatima. They were 10, 9 and 7 years old at the time of the apparitions. They reported with trepidation that Our Lady had showed them souls falling into hell like snowflakes – mainly from the sins of the flesh. So I was lying back and considering. If a ten year old child wanted to make up a story about hell, what would be top of mind? Stealing cookies? Telling lies? Not doing as told? Missing mass? All seem reasonable to me. But sins of the flesh? Either the kids were making it up or they were telling the truth. So Mary either appeared to them and spoke to them or they were just telling a story. Since it seems to me improbable that children of that age would make up an image of souls banished to hell for sins of the flesh (not impossible, mind you because children hear things and repeat them to sound more sophisticated) and backed up by the fact of the mystery of the dancing sun witnessed by some 70,000 persons it seems to me beyond any reasonable doubt that Mary was communicating through the children what she wanted us to hear.
Baron von Bishop wishes that we can dare hope that all are saved. He is of the John Lennon school, “imagine there’s no consequences. It’s easy if you try.” But what of the souls pictured falling into eternal exile from the source of all love in the image Mary showed the visionaries? Rented extras to make a point? A kind of scared straight reenactment? And for sins of the flesh? What could those possibly be? Love is love, right? Harvey? Jeffery? Elliot? Andrew? Ghislaine? Bubba? What about “My 600 pound life?” What about Ms. Sanger?
What the foolish priest in the photo offers is affirmation, when what he should be offering at the very, very least is caution. We know from personal experience that those who have a problem with sin often find it near impossible to control themselves in the face of temptation. But there is often the tension arising from guilt. The soul is never lost as long as the possibility exists of repenting. The good thief was hours away from death when he turned to the Lord – the very meaning of repentance. What if the Good Thief had been told and believed (overcoming his natural guilt) that he had a right to steal other people’s belongings? Or what if he had been told that his thievery made him a better person than those he stole from because they were greedy and he was an agent of social justice – that his career of theft should be affirmed? What if some clever marketing expert made a thievery flag and logo? Maybe worker’s tools on a red field? And it became a stated goal to abolish private property?
Two things happen. Nature and morality are overturned. And secondly, the thief loses the way home. When he is on his deathbed and no longer capable of breaking and entering, and he begins to review his life having nothing else to do, and his salvation needs only a single prayer for forgiveness, the thief will be feeling smug and prideful and except for a kind of stain trace of uneradicated guilt, will be feeling not only pretty good about his conquests of other’s goods, but pridefully superior to the suckers he ripped off.
“How many times must one forgive another? Seven times?”
“Seventy times seven!”
In other words, for the sinner caught in the addiction of sin, there is no limit to divine forgiveness – save one; it must be asked for. What the modernists in the Church are proclaiming is that repentance is not required. If one is born with thieving tendencies then one must act on those tendencies in order to experience life in full abundance. God is Love and Mercy and He understands and affirms. It is not a bug, it is a feature.
Such thinking obscures the lines on the road, removes the guard rails and pulls up all of the road signs, leaving the sinner alone and lost in the darkness with danger on every hand.
The prelates are driving the getaway car. They may not be in the bank pulling the trigger (although tragically many are!) but they are enabling the heist and accompanying the thieves is no defense after the inevitable shootout and trial. In fact, in law it is called aiding and abetting. I want to shout at them, “You are playing with fire! Are you abetting man?” »
« Good summation, Beppe!
The way I would describe that kind of thinking –“all are saved, etc.”– I would call them deicide theologies, the god-killing theologies that came after Luther’s delirium tremens.
Those children at Fatima did not even know what Russia was. When the town’s priest asked them “Do you know what Russia is?” (In Portuguese, “tu sabes ó qué é a Rusia?” does not reveal if the object of the question is a thing or a person) little Lucía responded with another question “Uma mulher muito má?” (“a very bad woman?) She did not know Russia was a country.
The theological concepts the children spoke about were precise and stayed precise through several interrogations! It is obvious that the children were infused with knowledge beyond the normal capacity for their tender age. Remember their version of the Rosary was limited to saying “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph” in every bead.
“Such thinking obscures the lines on the road, removes the guard rails and pulls up all of the road signs, leaving the sinner alone and lost in the darkness with danger on every hand.” — Beppe
Which is a long way to say “Such thinking kills the idea of God as rector and light of the believer.” It is a deicide theology, a personal act of crucifixion that nails God’s hands and feet so He would not embrace the sinner nor walk towards the sinner to save him.
The other deicide theology is the one that disregards guilt as a grievous burden that has to be tossed aside. C. S. Lewis detects there the border between good and evil and a proof of the existence of God in the very conscience of man. But John Lennon, Allen Ginsberg, et al see in guilt a useless trinket and in religion an antiquated, unnecessary clutch.
What the infiltrates are preaching now from inside the Church are basically tools to dismantle, to abolish man. Society is about to fall (if not fallen completely) and now the individual follows. The nature of man has to be deconstructed and “built back better” as a diabolical missile to be hurled against the crucified God.
Well, there’s a job very likely to end up in failure. »