A terrible force of destruction meets an immovable object - Early reactions to Correctio Filialis - Sunday 24th to Saturday 30th of September

It turns out that the Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis was released at exactly midnight of September 24th, and not on September 23rd as I had previously written. What confused me was the fact that I went to Rorate Caeli shortly after midnight and found it there, and naturally assumed that it had been posted somewhat earlier. If we check their timestamp though it seemed to have been set for publication at exactly midnight. I had caught wind of something being released from reading Fr. John Hunwicke's post from the day before, in which he claimed that something big was expected on the Sunday. For that reason I was surprised to learn that it had been released before, or so I thought, and it didn't help that so many blogs I read put the 23rd on it.

Time zones help explain that confusion, because many of the blogs I follow are from the Western hemisphere, where it was still the 23rd on the day of publication. I would much rather use the Rome time since the document was meant for Rome, and since it was released on the 24th my time as well, so I'll henceforth refer to the 24th as the release date, but I digress, although...Distinctions Matter!

The phrase "an irresistible force meets an immovable object" is I believe quite common in weather-speak and I believe it is used when a weather front meets a mountain area or some such thing. In my particulary context, it obviously refers to Bergoglio and while he has been immovable in his obstinacy against Catholic doctrine and practice, in this particular analogy he predictably plays the part of "a terrible force of destruction" with the signatoris of Correction Filialis acting as representatives of the immovable object that is the deposit of faith.

For my part I acquired it from "The Dark Knight" - one of the best movies ever made, by the way, and unquestionably one of the most well-made, if not the ouright winner of that particular category. In the final confrontation with the Joker, Batman saves him from an untimely death out of moral principle, despite spending most of the movie actually trying to stop him, at great danger to his own life and that of others. In that particular scene, the Joker says "this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object".

My memory tweaked it a bit to read "terrible force of destruction" but I'll stick to that terminology since Bergoglio is unstoppable only on account of the timidity of the hierarchy of the Church, along with the complicity of many modernists in the Catholic establishment at large. He is by no means unstoppable, but that he is a terribe force of destruction I deem indisputable.

The more I think about it, the more I realise just how numerous are the similarities between Bergoglio and the Joker as portrayed in that film. Some time, I might get around to writing about that.

In any case, the correction was an attempt to stop Bergoglio's seemingly unstoppable march towards the destruction of what remains of the Catholic edifice. For what it's worth I don't think he will succeed with or without the correction, but the correction is a huge stumbling block. This has been proved very clearly as Bergoglio's enablers and attack hounds have had no other course but to attack the signatories in defence of Amoris Laetitia, and not the content of the correction itself.

Some have pointed out that there is nothing in the correction which shows that Amoris Laetitia actually teaches heresy, completely bypassing, it seems, the main charge of the signatories, which is that in his words and his deeds since the publication of Amoris Laeitia, Bergoglio has encouraged heretical readings of it (an already dubious text at best), in turn propagating heresies. If you're going to critique a document, the least you can do is read it and attack what the document actually asserts.

Others have pointed out that the number of signatories is small, the hypocrisy of which one writer, I believe on Rorate Caeli, took exception. He notes that the Bergoglio party has spent the better part of 5 years (and 5 long long years, I hasten to add) intimidating those who disagree with the dangerous direction this horrendous pontificate has taken us, only to point to the number of his opponents being small as proof that the majority is not with the opposition. We remember, by the way, that Bergoglio speaks constantly of dialogue and parrhesia, all the while either threatening or ignoring those who actually attempt to dialogue with him. It seeems hypocrisy is his only mode.

The most ingenious and at the same time non-sensical defence of Amoris Laetitia is that it is all due to a mistranslation! They claim that the whole furore was due to a mistranlation of the Latin. You couldn't make this stuff up!

Christopher Ferrara took dissected this ridiculous claim  at the Remnant. I suppose their implicit claim is that Bergoglio is somehow a Latinist who wrote the whole thing up in Latin, no doubt in their mind consulting the great treasure of Latin writings that the Church possesses. This is a staggering claim, in defending a man whose grasp of Italian evidently is as incompetent as his grasp of Spanish. No matter which language he speaks hardly anybody can figure out what he actually said. I suppose Latin being his primary language might explain why nobody understands him when he speaks any other language, but we are left with the small issue that the official Latin version of Amoris Laetitia was only published in July of this year, well more than a year after the original publication of Amoris Laetitia, and that the document itself was probably written in Spanish, given the large input of Tucho 'art of kissing' Fernandez, the ghostwrite and brains - at the risk of misapplying that word - of the Bergoglio racket.

That this pontificate has put good priests under untenable pressure is exemplified by the post which Fr. Ray Blake wrote, titled "To Sign or Not to Sign" in which he explained why he will not be signing this petition. He signed the previous petition asking for a clarification, after which the "tanks" of Cardinal Nichols showed up at his door to voice their displeasure. He will stay on the sidelines as long as that is tenable and hope not to be drawn into the war, he insists. A commenter pointed out that by his admission of what happened he has earned the persecution without the rewards, given that he has exposed where his loyalties lie even without signing it. His agony shone through, and no doubt it is shared by many priests. Fear was also the theme of Fr. Hunwicke in a piece titled "Episcopal Update on Fear" and Professor Claudio Pierantoni, who informed us that 7 out of 10 told him they would not sign out of fear of reprisals.

Speaking of persecution and rewards, Cardinal Müeller chimed in, confirming that the Bergoglio reign of terror is real, and telling us that "people working in the curia are living in great fear". Just when we thought we could take Inspector Cloussea of the case, Cardinal Müeller stopped short of actually implicating Bergoglio in it, proving once again that he is a man who wants the rewards of orthodoxy without any exposure to persecution, however symbolic it would be in his case, now that he does not even have a title or a post to lose. If he wants to be seen as a bastion of orthodoxy, he could at least join the dubia cardinals, and at least join in the threat of future correction, sometime down the line, maybe, if the stars align just right and the humidity hits the right level, or something. It's interesting that Cardinal Burke continues to speak of urgency in response to the dubia. The dubia is well over 18 months old now. The good news is that he didn't choose to be a surgeon or a law enforcement officer, I suppose. That bad news is that he's the best and boldest that we've got.

With usual frankness, Mundabor critiques Cardinal Burke's lack of urgency. Michael Matt, with his usual cool, defends Cardinal Burke and his approach. I am torn in between. The very least Cardinal Burke can do is stop talking about urgency, because right now he is accepting the applause of the defenders of the faith without actually defending it. Bergoglio must be thinking that "if this is urgency, I can get away with a lot more than I thought!"

Whatever Cardinal Burke's intentions, right now he is acting as false opposition to Bergoglio. The lay correction of Bergoglio was very welcome because of this particular fact, in that it was beginning to look as though Cardinal Burke's stance is delaying correction efforts by others. Bishop Fellay said just as much in an interview a while back when he told us that the SSPX had planned a correction of sorts, but scuppered those plans when they heard of the dubia from the cardinals. For that reason, it is even more pleasing that Bishop Fellay signed up to the correction.

There have been very many responses and charges associated with the filial correction, and I can't cover them all. Joseph Shaw has responded to some of the critics and was even granted time on The World Over with Raymod Arroyo on EWTN - no bastion of masculine Catholicism by any account. He acquitted himself well, and the other guests on the show were of the same mind, showing that Bergoglio has very much lost the battle of ideas.

This story has lots of legs on it and will run for a long time. I'll try to keep myself updated and share any meaningful developments.

Alas, I must turn my attention to other events, but in conclusion I would like to point out the following: I am not sure we can stop Bergoglio, mainly because after 60 years of the Novus Ordo, there doesn't seem to be enough Catholics who can be offended by attacks on Catholicism.

The next best thing we can do is stop Bergoglio getting onto the NOChurch canonisation train. I am pretty sure the filial correction will be a meaningful impediment towards that, as even the NOChurch canonisation process would have to deal with the issues brought up. Furthermore, by issuing this correction, it might free up others - mainly in the secular media - to come out and report on what I have understood to be a very sordid past, not to mention his very sordid present at the Vatican today. If we can get momentum against Bergoglio going then we ought to be able to bypass our timid and lukewarm hierarchy in our efforts to derail the Bergoglio revolution.

Now onto something competely different...

There was news in Sweden about a few refugees who were received at great cost in Nacka, Stockholm. The costs for housing them amounted to SEK 17 million, after the local council bought  3 apartments to house 3 different woment who were married to the same man back in their home country. The media caught wind of this and ran with it. I do not have any links to the story as I only caught it through word of mouth, seeing as I avoid the Swedish fake media. Yes, we have a fake news media in Sweden as well.

It would seem to me that the uproar was for the most part misguided and is a classic case of rejecting a conclusion which is perfectly consistent with premises all of which one has accepted. The immigrational/residential premises are the following:

  1. Sweden has an obligation of taking in refugees from half-way across the world who have no connection whatsoever to Sweden or its 'heritage'. (I reject this.)
  2. Refugees who come to Sweden have a right to individual shelter of the same standard as the permanent residents of Sweden, a right which the state is obligated to meet at little or great expense. (I reject this also.)
  3. Christian refugees should not get preferential treatment even in areas where they are at the greatest threat of persecution,  because all religions are the same anyway. (I reject this vehemently in its parts and in its whole.)

Then we have 2 moral order/marriage premises, which are only incidental to the case at hand but well worth declaring:

  1. The state should not involve itself in the moral affairs of its citizens. (This is blatant hypocrisy at best, since the Swedish state involves itself in pretty much everything.)
  2. The state should not favour marriage in any way or form, and if anything should work against marriage. (Textbook Swedish social policy.)

Most Swedish people will accept at least all of the first set of premises and at least the first of the second set. I would argue that many would be in favour of legally favouring marriage in some form, but given the erroneous view of what constitutes a marriage, in effect, and in practice, they will be agreeing with the social policy as I have stated it.

So we have a man with children by 3 different women. In Swedish law, polygamy is not recognised. In Swedish law, bastardry is subsidised. If the state places all 3 of these women and their children in one house, then the state will be in essence recognising the polygamous marriages. If the state puts them in 3 different residences then the state will be paying for at least 3 residences (assuming the man gets to live with one of his 'wives'), at great cost to the poor Swedish taxpayer, but at least it will not recognise the polygamy. If we accept the 3 residential/immigratory premises, then it is difficult to take umbrage with the decision. Suck it up or reject the premises, is what I say! Vote someone else in!

In Germany, Angela Merkel managed yet another term as chancellor. I used to think that Germans were smart and philosophical people; now not so much. The big news in the media though, was that the AFD got into parliament for the first time, and as the third biggest party to boot. Hysteria ensued. It would seem as though the German establishment will not be happy until the AFD actually manages to become the biggest party in Germany, seeing as they do not seem willing to address the issues which have brought the AFD to power. They may well get their wish. I doubt the AFD is a Christian party, but in a state which recently abolished marriage protection by recognising sodomitical unions in law, a state which has sent vast amoutns of money and arms to Islamists in Syria, it is hard to believe they are not better than the current lot.

Speaking of abolishing marriage protection and defiling marriage, we had a woman in Italy who 'married herself'. This is at least the second case I have heard of this curious phenomenon. It even has a name nowadays, 'sologamy'. I prefer to call it self-marriage. I have long argued that as Christians, we have no longer any obligation to prop up civil marriage against various perversions, now that sodomitical unions have gained legal protections. Doing so, in fact, enshrines sodomitical unioins as one set of perverse sexual relations which is protectable, at the exclusion of all other perverse acts which are not protectable, for now at least. I saw let's sit on the sidelines and watch civil marriage redefine itself out of existence. The only thing worth having after all that will be natural and sacramental marriage. Once it collapses, however long that may take, we can rebuild it from the ashes. I would file t his story under Western decadence and/or Western civilisation downfall. Metropolitan Hilarion warned about as much, when he critiqued the mass apostasy in formerly Christian Western Europe.

The attack on marriage, at least in former Christendom - popularly called 'the West' - began, of course, with divorce, civil divorce to be more specific. NOChurch has joined in all guns blazing with Catholic divorce, which is essentially what the annulment system has become. You will never hear Bergoglio or any of his minions mentioning it, but children are often the real victims of divorce. In "From a Child of Divorce: What I Wish They Would Have Told Me", Melody Lyons writes from the perspective of one whose parents were even granted an annulment. The annulment, of course, did not change the fact that her parents actually left one another, the two people who brought her into the world going separate ways whether or  not a tribunal deemed them to have been validly married or not. What made things worse, she writes, is the fact that in the new world order, divorce has become part of common culture, and all the grown ups were telling her how good it was that their parents can now go on to happy lives. "Don't you want them to be happy?", is what the world seems to ask children of divorcees. The children experience a sense of guilt, as though their misery is not normal. She would have appreciated someone, the priest, anyone, telling her that "of course this is not right; of course it is wrong, and you are well within  your rights to be aggrieved now that your parents have gone separate ways!"

As I have written previously: There is only one point on which feminists and I agree, and that is that everything is the Church's fault! You will never be able to convince me that the world would be as miserable as it is today had the Church held firm on moral law instead of jumping onto the sexual and cultural revolutions like a bitch in heat. Of course, when I write the Church, I mean earthly Rome and not the entire Mystical Body of Christ.

The most famous pornographer in the world died. A priest took umbrage at the fact that even many Catholics seem to think that people who lived lives in great scandal go to Heaven automatically. It would seem as though one has to work overtime to avoid Heaven, and even then, one may not succeed. Fr. David Nix shows how out of tune this is with what the Church has consistently taught regarding our final destinies, and reminds people that if they have a problem with this, they sould take it up with the Church, with Christ and with the Church Fathers, since this is their teaching, not his. It is extremely difficult to have perfect contrition, and that is what we need unless we make use of the sacramental grace, with which imperfect contrition will suffice. In many of these deaths of famous celebrities, no sign of contrition is evident. He made the point that it is very difficutl to get even Catholics to confess when receiving the last rites, but the good thing is that he gave a nod to traditionalists, at least. They always, he wrote, appreciate the chance of making a final confession.

We also had news that the U.S. wants to pull out of the Open Skies Treaty since it deems it no good to itself, and Vladimir Putin declaring that Russia has finished the destruction of all of its chemical weapons stockpile ahead of time, while the U.S. is still not keeping its end of the bargain. This comes, of course, hot on the heels of the fact that the U.S. wants to pull out of the nuclear treaty with Iran, for no good reason. I believe the charge of Donald Trump is that Iran is not in keeping with the "spirit of the agreement", whatever that means, given that absolutely every other party agrees that Iran has kept its end of the bargain. Oh, "spirit", ye of "spirit of Vatican II fame"! It is the word of modernists and oath-breakers.

It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot trust a rogue state to stick to its agreements, and I am by no means referring to Iran as a rogue state.

One piece of good news to come fromt he U.S. was the election of Roy Moore as the GOP candidate to replace Jeff Sessions, who now serves as the attorney general. It was a rebuke to Donald Trump as much as anyone else and served as a warning that he will be called out if he sells out.

No doubt much else happened that would have been well-worth writing about. This is what caught my and grabbed my attention enough at the time of summing up the week. Much of it was bad; some of it was hopeful.

This seems like a good at time as any to finish  with my tried and trusted "this is everybody else's fault except traditional Catholics and me!"

The world needs all the prayers it can get.