Acknowledgning Christianity's true enemies in the modern world would kind of help...

Part of winning a war, or even a battle - perhaps the most important part - is knowing who the enemy is. When someone comes at you wielding an axe, it is easier to assume the person is more your enemy than say, the manager of your hostel, no matter how bad he treats you.

It would be difficult to imagine that the manager of your hostel would want you dead given that you think he needs your money for his establishment, even though he has been trying to kick you out ever since he took over management. That bitter taste in your morning porridge may wreak of chlorine or cyanide, but you are probably going to dismiss it. "Pouring chlorine or cyanide into my morning porridge is something he said he would never do",  you convince yourself.

That little intro brings us to a piece which ran on Russia Today, or more specifically, RT America - the American version. I much prefer the international version because it is far more serious in its work, and employs far more serious journalists rather than simply slim and young women, although I suppose when in Rome...

The piece is the one below:

It is about Christians who were killed in Libya for their faith, by ISIS or people claiming to be ISIS anyway, whose mass grave has now been uncovered - or at least found. In the piece they are labelled Ethiopians, but I remember them being Egyptians and much of the talk in the piece ends up being about Coptic Christians in Egypt anyway, so I don't know whether it is RT America's  young slim women who have made an error or whether the victims referred to were actually Ethiopians or whether they were Egyptians. I digress...

The debate then comes around to something I have often mentioned myself: Namely, that people who claim to be Christians in the U.S. often end up supporting wars in the Middle East whose one consistent outcome has been depriving Christians of their ancestral homelands.These so-called Christians are mentioned as the biggest pro-war faction, which is hardly a controversial opinion, to be fair. The evangelicals in particular are pointed out, again, not in any way unfairly.

The journalist makes the case that it is probably about ignorance; that the U.S. public does not know much about what happens in the world, that it has been duped by the media and political establishment to support wars it otherwise would not do. There is probably some truth to that.

Much more to the point though, is the fact that Christianity is not the biggest religion in the U.S., but actually zionism is, or ameri-zionism, which I suppose is a mix of zionism and americanism in which no number of victims are too great if the U.S. does the killing or zionism is the cause. Most so-called Christians in the U.S., when push comes to shove, would rather support Talmudist Jews who hate Christ and hate everything about the Church that Christ founded than they would support Christians in the Middle East, Arabs or otherwise. That is the cold hard fact that most people do not acknowledge. 

In fact, as someone put it recently, Americans would rather give up Alaska than give up support for the zionist state of Israel.The particular appeal of zionism is that it appeals to no particular faith: One can be a zionist with little or not faith in God, and in fact atheist zionists are just as bloodthirsty as their 'religious' peers. Most zionists in the U.S. are not even Jews, but people who claim to be Christians. Of course, zionism is a heresy, so no Christian can hold to it without apostasising.

I wish this were only an evangelical problem, but years of listening to Catholic Answers has taught me otherwise, as have many conversations with people who call themselves Christians, even Catholics, in Sweden. I am often tempted to ask them: "If Judaism is so swell, why don't you just convert to it and leave Christianity to those who follow in the footsteps of the early Christians, the earliest of whom converted from Judaism to Christianity, often at great peril?" One day, perhaps in a bout of anger, I shall ask that question.

That evangelicanism is a creation of the devil is a topic I might have time to pursue in future. For now, suffice it to write that evangelicanism is entirely devoid of intellectual substance, so it should surprise us little that they will claim to care for Christians while supporting regimes which kill them and starting wars which are sure to leave Christianity worse off than it was before. The devil is smart that way, in that he can use our intellectual and moral blindness to fight for evil in the name of an imaginary good.

In the meantime, it bears remembering that the very same people who wage wars in the Middle East - ostensibly against dictators or Islamists - are the very same people who attack Christianity in the formerly Christian lands of Europe. It would indeed, take a very massive mental disconnect, to believe that these people want Christianity expunged from Europe but have it thriving in the Middle East.  That these same peope - and the zionists who support them - have been arming the same Islamists who they claim to fight, even in the face of clear evidence that these Islamists want to destroy every last shred of Christianity in the region, is also worth remembering. Let us recall that with the possible exception of Iraq, the U.S. and al-Qaeda have fought on the same side of every war that has taken place in the Middle East over the past 20 years or so - whether that be Libya, Yemen or Syria.

It is sad that I have to contextualise my piece with the following clarification but, given times are as they are I must: I am no friend...

The Christmas octave clarified, and reverence loses out again, starring your favourite whatever-he-is - Sunday 30th of December 2018 to Saturday 5th of January 2019

As part of my vow to try and be more timely in my weekly reviews - and to have proper weekly reviews - I thought I would release one in record time. I hope, as usual, to be brief, but given that I've been hoping for an end to the Bergoglian plague for over 5 years now with no end in sight, be prepared to learn that my hopes do seem to often end in disappointment! Anyway, here goes...

The year starts with what used to be called "The Feast of the Circumcision", but which was renamed to "The Solemnity of Mary" in the Novus Ordo deforms, on the 1st of January. Fr. John Hunwicke has often written about how this is a return to ancient tradition and not a proper novelty, strictly speaking. I have been willing to accept this notion, even though I have had my doubts, given how all the readings of the Mass have to do with the Circumcision and do not even mention the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is even without going into the question of whether reverting to ancient practice would not fall into the heresy of antiquarianism, given there was no particular need for it.

Well, I need not have worried much because Gregory DiPippo over at the beautiful blog Novus Motus Liturgicus had my back covered. He explained in The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision first of all how stunning it is that historians who ought to know better manage to get this issue wrong despite all evidence to the contrary. He also explained why the confusion came about, and why the feast is not called "The Feast of the Circumcision" until much later: It seems as though in the early Church there were 2 celebrations which fell on that day - none of which were particularly Marian -, these being the Circumcision and the Presentation.

Here are my first reflections of his piece, as commented on that day:

I am indebted to Gregory DiPippo over at Novus Motus Liturgicus for clearing up a few points of irritation I have had with the whole notion of the Octave of Christmas. It has become fashionable to say that it only acquired the name of circumcision later and that traditionally it was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This would seem to vindicate at least in part NOChurch practice.

He manages to slay that notion entirely by showing that the most ancient sacramentaries all have reference to the Circumcision and that possibly the only reason it was not called the Feast of the Circumcision is because it might have been united with the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple.

Given what  I know - however inadequate - about the Tridentine Reform, it would have been odd to see them innovating on titles. The explanation given in his piece titled  The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision does much to bring clarity to this whole issue.

He then followed his initial article with another one titled The Marian Character of the Feast of the Circumcision. That is also well-worth reading.

It often gives me pause to disagree with the good Fr. Hunwicke, but Gregory DiPippo is a very meticulous scholar, and he provides very strong evidence for his assertions - which Fr. Hunwicke does not even attempt to do - so I have no hesitation in following Gregory DiPippo's line on this. Ultimately, whether or not there may have been observance of some Marian feast on this day, the theological significance of Christ's Circumcision is much more necessary to commemorate on that day, especially given that it cannot escape anyone that all of Christmastide is a celebration of the divine motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and we detract nothing from it by not celerbating it on the octave day of Christmas, the day on which Jesus Christ was circumcised.

The Bergoglian apostasy tour continues as do his attempts to try and prove to anyone paying attention that he absolutely abhors anything that Catholics hold sacred. The latest installment in his displays of irreverence was standing and absolutely refusing to kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament  during Eucharistic Adoration on new year's eve. The man will kneel for all and sundry, but not for God. I commented the following:

The Bergoglio menace - a beast of irreverence - does it again, refusing to kneel in front of the Holy Eucharist. Quite how anybody can claim that Bergoglio is a Catholic of any stripe is beyond my comprehension, because I doubt there are many who have worked harder to prove that point than Bergoglio has.

In fact, I would be willing to wager he is a satanist, a free-mason, a Talmudic Jew, even a Muslim, before I can call him a Catholic, and I can't even wager on him being a  believing protestant because although most such protestants, though they do not believe in reason, natural law or Sacred Tradition, at least they pretend to believe in the Bible, which Bergoglio clearly does not.

I don't know who or what Bergoglio is, but as I have often remarked, if there is a problem with perceiving Bergoglio as an anti-Catholic, the problem is not on the broadacasting side, but on the reception side. He has been broadcasing in high-fidelity audio ever since at least Maundy Thursday of 2013 that he has little regard for the Catholic Faith.

No doubt the Novus Ordites will tell us that standing is the new kneeling,  but anybody using his mind ought to be able to see that Bergoglio is now simply mocking us, and is being very forthright in his atheism. If  you don't believe me, then keep in mind that the Bergoglian Vatican press had written in celebration of...

The Grinch who attacked Marian dogmas, and kangaroo trials aplenty - Sunday 25th of November to Saturday 29th of December

There is, as usual in NOChurch, plenty of bad ecclesiastical news to go around. I shall, however, start with what is unquestionably bad news, but one which has still divided opinion because of the secrecy and irregularities surrounding it. That news, is of course, the conviction of Cardinal Pell for sexual child abuse, down in Australia, which seem to be working extra hard to cement its association with kangaroos, this time with what seems clearly to be a kangaroo court.

The uncontested facts are as follows: The cardinal was charged with a crime dating from the 1990s. Before that he was in charge of financial reforms at the Vatican, during the course of which he is widely reported to have found irregularities and was blocked in his attempts at following these irregularities up. He was also opposed to the Bergoglian antics of the 2015 synod, famously shouting "the manipulatio of this synod must stop!" or some such thing. Not long afterwards the accusations against him picked up steam and he chose to go back to Australia to fight the charges rather than stay in Rome, which he could have done given that he had a Vatican passport - or so I have been led to believe.

Many obviously see the charges against him as part of a conspiracy to remove him from the Vatican so that he would not follow up the financial corruption he had uncovered. Others see Cardinal Pell's case as another example of a highly-placed Vatican official being a child molester. Those 2 stories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some see him as an ardent traditionalist, a charge false at best, while others see him as a conservative who is part of the problem, probably  not entirely unfounded but far from telling the full picture.

In any case,  Cdl. George Pell was found guilty by unanimous verdict, but even that is contestable as the trial was secret. The actual details about the case read like something from a bad fiction on Soviet times.

As has become popular in Anglo-Saxon countries, the details of the court case were kept under wraps and there is a gag order on reporting on it. Not only that, but  they have also gone after foreign news outlets which dare to shed light on the case. The Remnant put it best with the title Cardinal Pell Convicted, Details Available On Need-to-know Basis (and you don't need to know). The cardinal can appeal, but he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion by a media which is hostile to him largely because he opposes the sexual deviancy that they have been promoting.

Some authentically Catholic outlets have   chosen not to criticise the process and accept the conviction as proper. However, I find this odd because it does not seem to me that they can have any sort of insight into the case against him, and to judge a man based on largely unsubstantiated accounts is gravely unjust and an offence to justice. Others, most notably Gloria.tv, have labelled it a witch trial.

Not knowing all the facts, I cannot make much of a case in favour of or against the cardinal. For a good account of the irregularities surrounding the trial, I can do worse than point to an article titled The inexplicable conviction of Cardinal Pell, written by Phil Lawler., not exactly a reflexive defendant of NOChurch hierarchs. He makes the case that " in a proper legal system, not only is justice done, but justice is seen to be done" and there is nothing about a secret trial, held under a media gag order, in which irregularities in the timing seem not to be challenged, that can be considered just.

This case has eery similarities with that of Tommy Robinsion - a man I really have no affinity for and a zionist who I consider to be part of the controlled opposition - in which a secret trial reached a conclusion favouring a totalitarian mindset under the cover of a media gag order. Unlike that case, there does not seem to be any actual proof of any crime (although I hasten to add that the crime in that case was a made-up one), but rather conviction is handed down based on the witness of people who have dubious motives and characters, to say the least.

There is good reason to suspect that Cardinal Pell is innocent of these crimes, and good grounds for that comes also from Australia, where a Abp. Philip Wilson who had been convicted of covering up sexual abuse was later cleared. The accuser confessed to making the whole thing up.

I have previously warned that we must be very careful with the sexual abuse hysteria. Enemies of the Church, both within and without, will use it to attack the Church, both Her reputation and Her material wealth. They are hard at work at this, and given the potential financial rewards of accusing prelates or priests of sexual abuse, it is not surprising to see all and sundry coming up with accusations, and the media dutifully obliging in demonising the accused, with no evidence whatsoever. For that reason I am very pleased with the suspicious line that Gloria.tv has taken with regard to allegations of sexual abuse by priests, something from which Church Militant could learn a great deal. Watching Church Militant, it seems there is no accusation they are not willing to take as well-founded, even those coming without proof or those which have previously been dismissed. Perhaps it is because, after years of having gone after those who opposed Bergoglio and finally having to concede that those were right, but not having the integrity to admit it outright, they now find themselves having to jump on the bandwagon against anybody facing any sort of accusation of sexual misbehaviour, Whatever their reason, it is rather unsavoury, and not particularly charitable towards the truth.

Either way,...

Bergoglio shatters the irony-meter as the synod against the youth ends with gay abandon - Sunday 28th of October to Saturday 24th of November

Sometimes this Bergoglio character is quite amusing, probably without even meaning to be; almost certainly so. Without a hint of irony, the man who has led what is without a doubt the most sustained attack on the Catholic faith ever carried out by a bishop found it fit to tell us that we should, as one newspaper titled it "Defend Church from those who seek to destroy it". It deserves mention that he also implicated those who reveal sins of the hierarchy in this. He wasted no time in labelling them "the great accuser", no doubt in reference to Archbishop Vigano, who has exposed him as the sexual abuse enabler that he is.

I hope this will be a short entry, as I am running far behind current events and I would like to catch up. So I'll jutt make it a recap of what I think were the most interesting topics which caught my attention.

The synod, or "gaynod", as it was aptly called by some, finally ended, and not a moment too soon. The whole exercise was a waste of money, time and opportunity, or as Mundabor put it, "the faithless leading the stupid", although that was in reference to Cardinal Tagle who managed to demonstrate the absolute imbecillity of those who run the Church by engaging in a silly dance with some youth. What is it with NOChurch and the cult of  youth, and old men always debasing themselves trying to look hip? I shall not even mention the dance at the closing ceremony, in which even Bergoglio seemed to realise the stupidity of it all and chose to remain in his seat while all the geezers and  youths danced with gay abandon around him.

The always-combative and often painfully-honest Louie Verrechio had his say on the final document, which he described as "Montini’s gift to the LGBT cause", in reference to a Vatican document published during his time as pope. There is much to read in that piece but the most eye-catching was the following line:

As for the mitred bozos that approved of this text, their minds are another matter altogether.

There was once a time when I would have considered such a statement out of line, but frankly, that is much better than I care to address them, and "mitred bozos" actually flatters much of the NOChurch hierarchy.

It has been reported that most of the people who voted on the document didn't actually understand what they voted on, since the final draft was only available in Italian, and they had but a few hours to read them. If this is true, then it makes me think even less of these bozos who think so little of the Church and of their office that they are willing to sign off on documents which they do not understand. That fact alone ought to render anything they did as inadmissible, and them as certifiable, but in NOChurch, it seems absurdity and incompetence is rewarded instead of punished, and we can be sure that those who signed off without question were given much more of a red carpet treatment than those (if any) who resisted what was obviously underhanded tactics.

One of the many idiotic ideas proposed at the synod was the idea that there needs to be some sort of Catholic blog certification. Obviously, the Bergoglians are tired of the fact that all of the authentically Catholic blogs are against them so they aim to silence their critics as they have managed to do on the ecclesiastical front. Quite why they think anybody takes them seriously enough to consult them for advice on what they should read is anybody's guess. It just outlines how out of touch they are with reality. If such a list were introduced, a "FrancisCertification", if you may, it would act as nothing more than a list of outlets to avoid .

Come to think of it, I would be very much in favour of them publishing such a list! It would make my job of discerning what not to read that much easier.

Enough on the synod against the youth...Bergoglio's attack on Catholicism is multi-pronged after all.

One of his favourite tactics is going after faithful orders, which almost exclusively seem to be Tridentine-Rite, or trending that way. This period was no different, as we were informed that Bergoglian commissars have gone after the French order of sisters in France called "Little Sisters of Mary, the Mother of the Redemer". About 90% of the sisters have asked to be dispensed from their vows, rather than put up with a commissioner who is almost certain to be working counter to the mission of the Church and the charism which attracted them. As usual, they made up claims in order to justify their intervention , with the odious Braz de Aviz licking his lips to get in on the action, yet again. This is the man who claimed that the Church had never been better, some years back, which makes one wonder whether  his memory is bad, his grasp of the current situation is bad, or whether he simply does not understand what the word "better" means.

It bears wondering whether the man has ever seen or heard of a faithful order he did not wish to see crushed...

Destroying Holy Mother Church (or at least attempting to) is not a task at which Bergoglio can manage alone, nor is it one which he is undertaking on his own, as he seems to have ample help from most of our largely faithless Catholic hiearchy. Case in point: In Italy they had a bishops' conference, and one of the things some bishops brought up was the need to  abolish Summorum Pontificum. Only a few brought it up though, which in these times must be considered a sort of victory for sanity. No...

More dubious canonisations: Heads decency loses, tails perversion wins - Sunday 7th to Saturday 27th of October

We had yet another dubious NOChurch canonisation, as Pope Paul VI was canonised by Bergoglio, the man who seems to want to attack Humanae Vitae - pretty much the only thing Pope Paul VI did somewhat right, just about. The miracles attributed to Paul VI are as dubious as his character, but that didn't stop NOChurch from counting them as genuine, and using them as proof for his sanctity; these people are nothing if not relentless in their quest to destory all things Catholic.

Needless to say, real Catholics did not take this lightly. The SSPX issued a statement issued questioning it. Peter Kwasnieski went even further, and explained Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint’. Louie Verrechio, in his own particular way, had his take on this queer man being raised to the altars. I have no idea what NOChurch media wrote about this, but I am quite certain it was entirely uncritical.

With so many canonisations, and so many dubious, people have begun to wonder: What exactly are we to think of canonisations? Does it mean the same thing? Are we bound to accept these things? How come there are so many of them nowadays and every pope seems to get a halo as his retirement present. Well, Canonization: Old vs. New Comparison in Unam Sanctam Catholicam attempted to show us what has changed and it shows clearly that whereas the old process was concerned with the integrit of the process, the integrity of the faith, the new one seems to be more interested in expediting the process, and not so concerned with anything which might slow or halt a canonistaion.

Part of the problem with the McCanonisations, is that we often do not get to evaluate objectively what was done, as much of the information is still hidden. The McCarrick scandal, for instance, has done much to cloud John Paul II's legacy, since it has come to light that there were warnings about McCarrick long before he got made cardinal, and that he was promoted in spite of these warnings. We were informed by ChurchMilitant.tv that the Vatican is gigging the McCarrick Investigation so as to place the blame on Pope John Paul II, now sainted by NOChurch's saint factory, and deflect attention away from Bergoglio - soon-to-be-sainted by said factory. Mundabor saw in this proof that Bergoglio is clearly an atheist, arguing that no true Catholic would canonise someone and then question the man's virtues after he had been canonised. I shall not waste your time in pointing out that Bergoglio is not Catholic at all, since that much should be obvious from what I have written many times on this blog, but I agree with Mundabor that this can count as proof.

My take on that is the following: This is a classic case of Bergoglian intrigue. It's a case of "heads, I win; tails, you lose". By this I mean that Bergoglio wins his greater plan to destroy the Catholic faith no matter how it turns out if he implicates Pope John Paul II in the McCarrick scandal, and the stronger the implication, the stronger his victory, and there is a connection to Pope Paul VI here as well. Let me explain...

It is no secret that Bergoglio is partial to sodomy. There are strong reports that Pope Paul VI at least before he became pope was involved in sodomitical relationships of the homosexual nature. If it turns out that Pope Paul VI is definitely proved to have done this, then now that he is a 'saint', what Bergoglio will have done is to create the space for him to claim that homosexuality is no big deal, since even some saints were homosexual. If, however, it turns out that the blowback is so large, then he can tar all canonisations by saying that canonisations are not infallible, are not trustworthy, and therefore the Catholic faiith has no certainties. It is the same with McCarrick: If you pin the blame on Pope John Paul II, then you  say thatt McCarrick's perversions either were not that grave, or failinng that, that Pope John Paul II was a flawed pope, who still managed to become a saint, and therefore we can be as flawed as we like and still manage to become saints. One can expect him too caption it "canonisation is  medicine for a fall world, not a prize for the perfect", just as he does with Holy Communion.

So what are we to do, given all these canonisations, a large chunck of tthem highly dubious? Well, a piece on either Rorate Caeli or Novus Motus Liturgicus tackled this issue head on. The conclusion was that perhaps we do not need to take an all-or-nothing approach. Although the Church does not define canonisations as infallible, certainly not within the scope of the dogma of infallibility, we can still maintain that pre-Vatican II canonisations are infallible, while those after the process was changed are not infallible. If the intention and the matter of canonisation has changed, then surely this cannot be without consequence for how we approach them.

The zionists in occupied Palestine continued their aggression. It was in many ways inevitable, as not having Syria as a playground for their airforce, they were bound to find other victims for Etheir murderous appetites . Donald Trump withdrew from yet another treaty, this time the INF Treaty, yet again proving that he will stop at nothing to placate the war party, contrary to his many statements on the campaign trail speaking of a responsible foreign policy. There were reports that the U.S. helped coordinate the drone attack on Russia's aribase in Syria earlier this year , really to the surprise of nobody since the U.S. has admitted to helping the Islamists ever since the start of the Syrian war, which they themselves helped to...

A problem so urgent it can be put off for 5 months, and making the Chinese military great again - Sunday 9th of September to Saturday 6th of October

This has been another Bergoglian month, full of scandals and distasteful accusations and insults against the few remaining faithful Catholics.

Much can be written about Bergoglio's implication in the McCarrick scandal, but I feel no need to engage that topic much more. We already know what we need to know: Bergoglio is a pervert, almost certainly a sodomite, who surrounds himself with sodomites and who promotes sodomy at virtually every given opportunity. He has already said that one can make up one's own idea of right and wrong, and he seems to pick people whose moral deviancy is beyond dispute. Anything else is just details, and I feel no desire to soil my blog with more of Bergoglio's sordid affairs.

This does not mean that we still can't cover his many other scandals, and indeed we ought, lest we lose sight of the sustained assault in which Bergoglio has engaged against the faith. In the secular world too, things are not looking good, and Bergoglio's assault on the Church from within has strengthened the Church's enemies on the outside.

By far the most thought-provoking pieces  I have read over the past month were on the Remnant. In a series of articles titled A Wilderness of Mirrors, columnist Jesse Russell laid out "as to why the media, after all this time of knowing about both Bergoglio's and McCarrick's perversions, seems to have decided to turn against them by highlighting stuff they could very easily have done previously, and much earlier, as I summarised them on the 4th of October. His general contention is that, just as news of the Boston clerical scandal was used to undermine Pope John Paul II's opposition to the Iraq war as it was in its planning phase, so too the revelations of Bergoglio's involvement in the McCarrick scandal have been brought up to undermine Bergoglio's assumed opposition to any America-led war on Iran.

I too have wondered "why now?" It turns out that the information about the Boston sexual abuse cases was pretty much well-known in the Boston area at least, and an inquisitive mind ought to at least wonder in that case why the scandal blew up in 2000, just as the American political establishment was making its case for a war in Iraq. So too, information about Bergoglio's perversions has been all-too-easy to find, yet we are supposed to believe that the media has only now got wind of it. The question I have had all along is why the media has not been following up leads on Bergoglio's many scandals, given how much the media likes to drag up dirt on the Church, but it did not take me long to conclude that whoever controls the media sees Bergoglio as their man, and does not wish to see his demolition of the Church come off course by airing his dirty linens in public.

That brings us to the question of why the media now is tentatively covering this scandal, and the only explanation I can come up with is that they simply could not igore it outright, given how hard they have worked to undermine the Church on its handling of sexual abuse, a problem which is not worse in the Catholic Church than it is in other organisations both secular and religious. That is, of course, no excuse, and I do not mind this exposure, because the Church is supposed to be held to a higher standard. It is, in fact, supposed to set the standard. Still, the media coverage of what for any other pope would be a witch-hunt is very half-hearted at best. For this, Bergoglio probably has to thank the media's general homosexualist stance, since any digging into this scandal would reveal its homosexual roots, but that hardly explains everything.

For that reason, Jesse Russell's contribution was an eye-opener in that it allowed one to step back and look at the whole situation from a larger perspective, to see the whole chess board as it were.

I have often maintained that it is important to give Bergoglio credit for what little good he has done, and as far as I am concerned he has done only one good thing since becoming pope, and that is opposing what seemed to be a certain U.S. attack on Syria in 2013 on account of one of the many false/hoax flag events we have seen during that proxy war. Not only did he oppose it, but he called for worldwide prayer for a peaceful solution, which allowed my main man Vladimir Putin to come in and steal the U.S.'s excuse from war from under its nose when he declared that a deal had been reached with the Syrian government to transfer all chemical weapons out of the country. This was later verified by the OPCW and has been re-verified on multiple counts since, not that it has stopped Donald Trump and his neo-cons from attacking Syria on further false/hoax flags.

The main goal for Trump and the American kleptocracy has always been Iran, and so we should not be surprised that the lies against Iran have been ramped up. Iran being what it is - a rather powerful nation - the groundwork for an attack has to be planned out long in advance and opposition to a war has to be snuffed out considerably more methodically than was done against Iraq. Witness false flags against Russia in the U.K., Ukraine and Syria, and Trumps obsession with demonising Iran's presumed allies in Turkey and China, trying to put economic pressure on them, presumably so they can cave in to his war plans in return for an allevation of the economic pressures.

If you ask me, Jesse Russell's conspiracy theory is a bit too clean for my liking. It's too neat, and explains too much too well. I don't see particularly much methodology in the Trump administration, although I must admit that confusion and madness may well be its...

Bergoglio's stupidity catches up with his perversion - Sunday 12th of August to Saturday 8th of September

It has been far too long since I wrote, and it has not been for lack of topics, rather perhaps the exact opposite. There has been so much to write about that it has been difficult to know where to start.

Most of what has caught my attention has been Church scandals, but there have been some siginificant secular news as well. I shall make the unusual choice of starting with the secular news, although I shall only cover  the secular world in brief.  The rest will be taken up by Bergoglio's most headline-grabbing scandal to date, so perhaps it is just as well that my update-rate has been sub-optimal, for otherwise I would have been writing about that very thing all this time; so dominant has it been.

The most significant news was that China may scrap it's abhorrent two-child policy after 40 years of callous murders. What has often been called a one-child policy was for most people always a 2-child policy, since people outside the cities were 'allowed' 2 children, as were those without siblings. I write allowed in quotation marks because I cannot get over how absurd it is that the government sticks its nose into how many children  a couple has. A government can no more allow people to have more than 2 children than it can allow its citizens to breathe, which is to say that having children is a natural right which the government has no right to infringe upon more than it has on our right to breathe. It can only allow it only insofar as it has violated that right in the first place.

In any case, the 2-child policy created a childless society en large, which was not helped by the Chinese traditional preference for boys, or Chinas world-leading suicide rate among women. China is on course to have the oldest population in Asia in a few decades,  and all because of its communist ideologues. When you fight against nature, you will always lose.

I have, however, long maintained that China might indeed become the first country in modern times to outlaw the killing of unborn children, after having allowed and even mandated it. This is because the Chinese are not as ideological as their Western leftists. To them abortion was what they thought would bring them out of poverty. To the Westerners, abortion was a way to rebel against God and former Christendom's cultural and moral heritage, through the 'liberation' of women, which of course, has been the enslavement of women to their sexual appetites. The Chinese have no time for this nonsense; they are materialists. If killing hundreds of millions of children is what they think will bring them wealth, then kill hundreds of millions they shall. They have finally realised that children are not a cause of poverty, but rather a nation's greatest resource, and now they are despreate to increase the birthrate. The easiest and cheapest way is to simply outlaw the killing of children, and you can be sure that if they think that will help their bottom line, then it is exactly what they will do.

I recently read that the Chinese have spoken about introducing a tax on those who don't have children. In other words, my prediction is not far off from being realised.

A bridge collapsed killing at least 35 in Genoa, Italy. This collapse affected me more personally than most other tragedies since I am certain I drove over that very bridge last summer on my way to Florence. In other words, I could have been one of those people. The Italian government, with Salvini at the helm, blamed it on the EU, given it has forced Italy into budget cuts. I hope that was a statement brought out more by being overcome by emotions more than calculated political opportunism, because even by modern political discourse, that is stretching political truthiness beyond breaking point. I do like Salvini a lot, but that was well below the belt. There is much blame to go around, but the EU cannot be blamed for this.

The EU, to the extent it can even be blamed for forcing the Italians to attempt to live within their means, simply called for budget cuts. I am quite certain they never mandated that these cuts be on vital infrastructure. As one good piece pointed out, if Italy did not invest so much on the NATO racket, it might have had more to invest in its infrastructure. Instead of buying fighter jets costing hundreds of millions of euros, they could build very good bridges for much less than that, and save lives while doing it, instead of taking them.  Instead of going along with sanctions on Russia which could have brought billions which might have been used on infrastructure, they decided to go along with the American racket. They could have stood for their sovereignty in both cases. Instead they decided to put the money into the hands of the U.S. military-industrial complex, and the lives this and similar decisions took just ended up being their own.

Russia kept warning against a false-flag chemical-weapons attack in Syria, even providing evidence to the OPCW and the U.N.. The U.S., meanwhile, continued to protect its Syrian Islamists by making the militants know that any false or hoax flag conducted on them would lead to strikes on Syrian government positions, and being the lap dogs they are, the British and French followed suite. This comes as the Syrians and their Russian allies are preparing the final assault on the last major Islamist strong-hold in Syria, having cleared most of the country, despite American interference. The Netherlands, in turn, decided to end support for Syrian militant groups, which confirmed what we have been saying all along - that militants in Syria have been backed up by secular Western countries - in addition to Arab sheiks and Jewish zionists...

The Tridentine Mass once ruled the world; It will do so again! - Sunday 5th to Saturday 11th of August

It was a relatively slow news week, with now new theme dominating. Furthermore, many of the articles I read seemed to have been written the week before, further underlining my claim.

There were developments and fallouts of the McCarrick scandal, but sadly that is not new in NOChurch as hardly a week goes by without yet another homosexual scandal. It turns out that even in a relatively(by NOChurch standards) good diocese - the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska - there was homosexual harassment in the seminary.

The  Diocese of Harrisburg released the names of over 70 priests accused of sexual abuse, some of it dating from the 1940s. None of them are in active ministry, and the average comes out at about 1 priest per year over 70 years, which is certainly far from an overwhelming number. However, it is still sickening that these priests seem not to have undergone disciplinary measures, and perhaps worse still that it took the McCarrick scandal for this to come out. I am also split regarding the wisdom of releasing names from people accused of sexual abuse, when the men involved are dead and cannot defend themselves. Something about it rings entirely hollow and insincere.

Not tired of current homosexual scandals,  Bergoglio decided to appoint a high-ranking Vatican official who is suspected of being a sodomite himself . As I have mentioned before, we are well within ourselves to ask whether Bergoglio is not himself a sodomite. In fact, I would argue that at this point we are almost duty-bound to assume that he is. Normal decent folks do not surround themselves with sodomites unless they are partial to their lifestype. One of his closest aides, Maradiaga, had to defend himself from accusations of misconduct after it transpired that one of his closest aides had been sexually harassing seminarians. This is the man often referred to as the 'vice pope', on account of being so close to Bergoglio.

In The Moment Before the Storm, Steve Skojec tells us that there is an eerie feeling about the Church, as if something big is about to burst out, and the hierarchy seems utterly oblivious to the anger bubbling up amongst the faithful. There have been indications of this anger coming to the surface, but as I do not hang out with people in the Novus Ordo, I dare not comment on whether he has his finger on the pulse regarding that.

A Bergoglian appointee in  Argentina forbade the faithful in his diocese from receiving Holy Communion kneeling. You see, NOChurch bishops have no qualms stamping their authority upon the faithful when it comes to things which destroy the faith. They just have trouble being authoritative when it comes to protecting the faith.

The Bergoglian attempt to teach that the death penalty is "inadmissible" continued to attract attention. It is difficult to make sense of the piece written by Fr. Allan McDonald, who argued that by stating that there are no exceptions allowed with regards to the death penalty, it will be easier to make the case that there are no exceptions allowed for abortion. He is against the change, and naturally against the killing of unborn children. However, his statement does not seem to me to make much sense, since most of those people care not about what the pope says anyway. Furthermore, he misrepresents the teaching on capital punishment: The Church's teaching is not that the death penalty is an exception to the absolute prohibition of murder, but rather that it is a fulfillment of the command that we should protect life. Mundabor had no problem calling Bergoglio's attempt "formal heresy", or making a coherent case as to why this is necessarily so.

Social media censorship continues to gather pace. I am not on social media, so I care not for what they do. I do remember over 10 years ago saying that the West is much more likely to end up like China than China is likely to end up like 'the West' - whatever 'West' means - and I have largely been proven correct. We now have NATO through the Atlantic Council deciding what is acceptable on facebook, and who deserves censure.

This week the censoring agents came for   Alex Jones, the US's premier conspiracy theorist . I have watched a lot of his stuff, and I like that he is mostly anti-war, although I must admit that he was much better before Trump was president, as he could focus on completely opposing U.S. imperialist murderous policies, as opposed to defending his man against legitimate criticism, or deflecting that criticism to others. After they were done with Alex Jones, they decided to ban a Venezuelan news site. Expect this kind of censorship to continue and widen in scope!

On Alex Jones, I must admit that I still have not figured out whether he is a legitimate opposition figure or false opposition. If he is legitimate, then it is likely that he sold out a while back, as he now never mentions Israel as being the problem in the Middle East, and especially in the Syrian conflict. This he did do earlier in his career. He is very much onboard with the anti-Iraninan propaganda, presumably because Trump spouts it. I can only presume that when he uses the word "globalist" he means "zionist" and that the man is smart enough to know that there are people you are not allowed to criticise, which is why he cannot criticise the zionists head-on. Either way, the man is insincere in not pointing out Israel's complicity in the creation of Islamist groups in the region, and in launching war after war after war. He seems to have no trouble mentioning Saudi Arabia, so at least we can conclude that it's not the Saudis who he fears, and therefore that it's not the Saudis...

Bergoglio goes for low-hanging theological fruit, and neo-Catholics largely let him get away with it - Sunday 29th of July to Saturday 4th of August

There is really only one place to start this week and that is with the news that Bergoglio has altered the John Paul II Catechism to read that the death penalty is now  "inadmissible" in all circumstances because it violates "human dignity" . That God Himself in the Bible did not realise this, or the various Church fathers, or Doctors of the Church, or all the popes up until Bergoglio ought to get us suspicious.

I cannot do justice to the arguments against this latest heresy by Bergoglio so I shall simply leave it to you to have a look at the links below, one of which is from OnePeter5 and is titled "Pope Francis Is Wrong about the Death Penalty. Here’s Why." Rorate Caeli ran one under the title "What was black is now white".

The one thing I shall note is that the argument that Bergoglio uses is one that is expressly condemned by the Catechism of Trent. Bergoglio argues that using the death penalty deprives the convict of the chance of conversion. The Catechism of Trent tells us, in rather common-sensical terms, that he who knows that his life will end and is granted the grace of knowing when will scarcely convert at a later time if he cannot do it while at the point of oncoming death. So Bergoglio's argument is not even original, and is one which has been put down before as nonsensical.

It is interesting to note that the only person Bergoglio can quote to rationalise his new posture is himself, continuing his now-growing list of novelties by self-quotation.

As usual, the neo-Catholics were mostly out in force proving that they are part of the problem. To watch EWTN reporting that "the pope has changed the Church's teaching on the death penalty" or the "pope has strengthened the Church's opposition to the death penalty" would have  been to come away with the conclusion that a pope can change the Church's teaching. The Papal Pose was misex, with Fr. Murray arguing that it was a break, and Robert Royal at his usual neo-Catholic best when responding that canonists will have to determine whether it is 'de fide', when asked that by Arroyo. It's striking that these people are there to respond as experts and they do not even know that catechisms are not in and of themselves infallible, not even the venerable Catechism of Trent. They ought, however, to contain infallible truths.

Some of the Novus Ordites argued that it is a case of the pope implanting his prudential judgement and that we should take it seriously, having been offered this opinion. Excuse me, but the Catechism is there to tell us what the Church teaches explicitly, not to argue for selective enforcement of prudential judgements, regardless of where they hail!

This is nothing short of heresy because the Church has taught definitively about this issue from her beginning, and God has made it clear that the death penalty can be justifiably imposed by legitimate authority. To argue otherwise is to do nothing short of lying, and to pass it off to others it to shirk responsibility.

What is clear is that Bergoglio has gone after low-hanging theological fruit. He knows that even among those who argue for the licitness of the death penalty, many are opposed to it in practice. The death penalty is only available in a few countries and even in these it is rarely used. He knows that people will not die on 'death penalty hill', so to speak, protesting "thus far but no farther!" We can, however, be sure that if Bergoglio gets away with this he will not stop there.

The arguments he puts forward for it, namely that people nowadays have a realisation that the death penalty is opposed to human dignity, can be used to rationalise pretty much every heresy and Church teaching which is not popular with the modernists. It is pretty much what he has attempted to do with divorce and remarriage and you can be sure that he is testing waters by formally changing the Catechism on the death penalty. Next up on the line might just be your favourite teaching.

Some have argued that Bergoglio only did this to divert attention from the McCarrick scandal - given that it involves one of his closest aides - while others have argued that even with Bergoglio being an idiot, using heresy as deflection is a move too dumb even for him. I am not sure there is anything so dumb that Bergoglio will not do it, so I'll not dismiss the theory entirely.  I too was initially drawn to the theory that he used it as a distraction from the McCarrick scandal. However, I do pride myself in thinking outside the box, and I have wondered: What if the reverse is true?

What if Bergoglio used the McCarrick scandal to introduce formal heresy into the teaching of the Church? What if the McCarrick scandal was itself the distraction? Most of the Catholic and secular media is pre-occupied with other stuff anyway, and there is no better time to poison  the Church's  already-sub-standard Catechism . If he pulls it back on account of major opposition (yeah, as if Bergoglio listens to anyone!) then it will hardly be headline news. If it sticks, then he can use it as reference for even further heresy, knowing that EWTN and the rest of  the neo-Catholic establishment has his back arguing as dishonestly as ever that we need to try and take onboard something which is obviously a heresy simply because the pope has put his weight behind it.

I have often maintained that neo-Catholics, or 'conservative Catholics', will reject every heresy unless it comes from the pope. This incident proves me right, yet again!

All I can say is that I am in total agreement with Christopher Ferrara that The Reversible Magisterium...

Humanae Vitae, NOChurch's crown jewel, is still problematic, but there is good news to be found, if you know where to look - Sunday 22nd of July to Saturday 28th of July

With so much evil going on in the Church and the world, it is sometimes easy to forget that we do have a few bright spots. The most positive bright spot is the traditionalist movement, but we also have a 'negative bright spot' in the form of the implosion of the NOChurch regime.

The McCarrick scandal (to which we shall return) has certainly helped in this regard, but even before that NOChurch was in steep decline, from attendance, to money, to morals, there is simply nothing to keep NOChurch alive, and that is a good thing because it signlas that the revolution has failed and might be reversed, probably incrementally, before too long. The rod to its complete abandonment will be rough though.

Back to traditionalism, we hade the Institute of Christ the King ordaining 4 men to the priesthood. This happened in early July, but it's worth mentioning. The larger FSSP and SSPX have also had more priests ordained to the priesthood this summer. We  had news from Italy that a second personal parish for the Tridentine Mass has been erected. Then we also had news from Spain which had its first traditional family retreat , also in early July. These are all good things, good seeds, all worthy of celebration.

It is true that our numbers are small, but they are steady and impressive, especially when put into a greater context of an institituional Church which is opposed to authentic Catholicism and a wider society which is opposed to even the watered-down Novusordoism. The Catholic counter-revolution started with practically nothing, but now there are more than 1,000 priests associated exclusively with the Old Rite and traditionalism extends an influence in certain places - France, for instance - far in excess of its size, and this influence will only grow as NOChurch seminaries continue to empty. In theory, this ought to lead to a traditionalist becoming a bishop sometime in the not-too-distant future and then all-bets-are-off really, as I am quite certain that will create a domino effect.

We are far from there and things are far from good, but it is not all dark, and we have to recognise these bright spots, all while avoiding a pollyannic attitude which I often see among many political commentators trying to convince themselves that there is a 'Christian' revival going on in Europe, or that the somewhat anti-lefist currents in Europe are solutions to Europe vast suicidal problems - all stemming from immorality and apostasy.

As if to emphasise the continuing failure of NOChurch, in Colombia, a protestant pastor forced himself into a Church in Colombia and smashed a Marian Statue on the Feast of Our Lady of Carmel . This is in spite of NOChurch assuring us with to its great ecumeniacal drive that there is no difference between protestants and Catholics. Some protestants know better, of course.

I shall, however, agree that  if by Catholicism they mean Novusordoism and not the Catholicism which Novusordoism has sought to eclipse, the differences are very slim. In essence, Novusordoism is a protestant belief system, one of plurality, one which does not seek to worship God in the fullest, and one which plays foot-loose with the truth, including that  of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture; actually, especially those.

The crowning moment of NOChurch came with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which celebrated it's 50th birthday this week. It's pretty much the only thing Paul VI didn't get completely wrong, and which he probably got mostly right. Of course, it was only needed because Pope John XXIII had convened a commission to study the issue of the newly-invented contraceptive pill, and thanks to the modernising effect of Vatican II, it had come to be seen as a commission which would look into the actualy morality of contraception. That was Paul VI's fault and his alone. Still, in the end he did the right thing, just about.

In Humanae Vitae’s Challenge to Modernity, Crisis Magazine pointed out why Humanae Vitae is still as relevant as ever, as well as why it is still so despised. While Humanae Vitae was the crowning moment of NOChurch - at least with regard to its Catholicity - the dissent that followed it could be argued to be one of NOChurch's low-points, although here the competition is very strong, and Bergoglio has not helped in this regard, with a series of low-points vying for lowest point in Church history. In any case, the Catholic Church had hitherto been seen as a giant monument to morality, a bullwark against the worst instincts of man, even by her enemies. In Widespread dissent against Humanae Vitae put me off becoming a Catholic, we are given an insight into how damaging the Humanae Vitae fall-out was to the reputation of the Church among non-Catholics. The  piece was written by Malcolm Muggeridge in August of 1968, and appeared in the Catholic Herald. He did though, finally convert to Catholicism, albeit 14 years later, proving that the essential elements of Catholicism still remain and that God does work for conversion towards the Catholic faith,  in spite of NOChurch, not because of it.

The eminent historian Roberto di Mattei gave his take on Humanae Viate with at least 2 pieces. He is not overly positive in his assessment of the encyclical, and it would seem that he echoes the view of Louie Verrechio who sees Humanae Vitae as part of the problem and not the solution. In "The Birth of Humanae Vitae in light of the Vatican Archives ", he reviews a book written by a Vatican official which purports to trail the creation of the document. He sees in the book an attempt to suggest that the issue may be revisited. He also takes aim against the idea of Humanae Vitae being prohetic, and he wrote:

Humanae Vitae was not a “prophetic” encyclical. It would have been, if it had dared to

...

Pages

Subscribe to Distinctions Matter RSS