anti-Iranian propaganda

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...

The German problem colludes with the Bergoglio problem - Sunday 29th of April to Saturday 5th of May

There was a Pontifical High Mass held by a relatively young archbishop on the 28th of May. Much has been written about this Mass and especially the homily that accompanied it, but I would remiss if I did not take the opportunity to point out the fine work done by Olivia Rao in her article for The Remnant covering this event.

The piece was exemplary in its attention to detail and I especially enjoyed the list over all the celebrants. Virtually nothing was left to assumption, which is a rarity in modern reporting. Olivia Rao certainly deserves credit for her fine work and I hope to read much more from her in the future.

The archbishop in question was Achbishop Sample, one of the best bishops in the U.S. who for the most part gets it right and it was held at the Basilica of National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, the U.S. capital.  It is especially pleasing that he learnt the Tridentine Mass after Pope Benedict had issued Summorum Pontificum - the 10th anniversary of which the Mass was meant to celebrate (delayed due to construction issues ) - because he wanted to act in accordance with the pope's wishes. He says very reasonable things much of the time, with the odd Novusordoism from time to time, as even this homily proved.

The homily itself I must admit I have not listened to, but I have read a lot of reports on it and most of them have been positive. I have read, for instance, that he sees the liturgical revolution as a mistake, and he makes a point in highlighting that a lot of young people are attracted to the Tridentine Mass, thereby destroying the prejudice that it is a Mass which only caters to the "nostalgic", as Bergoglio put it.

He also spoke of "mutual enrichment" and this is the bit I don't like. I can certainly accept that he can't be seem to be making an unapologetic love poem to the authentic Roman Rite, but talk of mutual enrichment bothers me because it will inexorably lead us back to the mess which started all this stuff. Indeed, Tantumblogo had a similar reaction, writing "I also see basically no ways in which the Novus Ordo might enrich the TLM" and I cannot but agree. I do see one utility for the Novus Ordo though, and that is as a negative example. If the Tridentine Mass is Latin Rite worship as it should be, then the Novus Ordo Missae is 'worship' - or it's bad imitiation anyway - as it ought not to be. It serves the purpose of a cautionary tale, a warning to future generations of what to avoid and what not to do, and above all, of the dangers of allowing a bunch of atheists and heretics to butcher what is sacred for reasons most un-Catholic.

Christopher J. Malloy grapped with the question of aggiornamento in "Make Catholicism Relevant? Or Let it Be What it IS." I vote for the latter, for nothing is more irrelevant than something struggling to make itself relevant to fickle minds.

EcclesIsSaved continued his mocking of the bishops of England over their handling of the Alfie Evans case in "Eccles explains it to the bishops" and "English bishops to be replaced by jelly-babies", and the mockery is well-deserved. No insult is too great for these pathetic sorry excuses formen. In fact, Gloria.tv titled one of it's articles "Cardinal Nichols Defends Alfie's Murder" and I have to admit that the title is not misleading.

Donald Trump's admninistration's threats and warmongering continued, as newly-installed foreign minister (secretary of state as they call them over there) arrived in Saudi Arabia. I believe that was one of his first foreign trips. His very first foreign trip was to NATO headquarters if memory serves me right, which says a lot about the outlook of those serving in the Trump regime. In any case, when in Saudi Arabia he naturally didn't waste time threatening Iran.

The other Middle-Eastern state which receives  unconditionaly support from the U.S. is, of course, the zionist criminal state of Israel, whose crimes against the Palestinian people continue in full earnest in response to the Great Return March. Scores of unarmed and non-violent protesters have been short and killed, including journalists and medical personell. Bleeding-heart Trump and Ivanka cheer on, so I suppose we can only assume that whoever is in charge of their TV-watching has screened the broadcasts to leave out images of crying children, as no doubt they do when Trump watches images from Yemen. If we are to believe the 2017 Syrian false flag bombing, after all, we are to believe that Donald Trump launched strikes against Syria because bleeding-heart Ivanka saw images of suffering children and talked her daddy into bombing the bad man who was causing it.

One of my theories regarding why Donald Trump attacked Syria a month ago - following the 2018 hoax flag - is because he wanted to deflect attention away from the zionist crimes in Gaza. It worked largely well, as attention has mainly been on Syria since then.

In a rare piece of good news, the leaders of the two Koreas met last week and agreed to pursue peace and de-nuclearisation of the peninsula. Much credit has to go to Moon Jae-in, who has pursued an independent policy of seeking peace with the North and one suspects this has dragged Donald Trump into the process as he no doubts wants to claim the credit for it, as he does for much else even where he has had no hand in the achievement. That he took credit for 2017 being the safest year in aviation history, as well as taking credit for the defeat of ISIS in Syria, are two very glaring examples of this tendency.

The German problem continues in the Church, and this time it colluded...

Pages

Subscribe to anti-Iranian propaganda