One of the saddest things about Novusordoism's destruction of Catholicism, is that Pope Paul VI was warned about it both before, during and after the council, and before, during and after the many modifications made to Church documents, Church law , Church practice and even the Church's own liturgy.
In what must seem to us like infinite hubris, Paul VI brushed it all off , insisting that everyone should follow him since he is pope, and more concerned that people dared to question him than that the changes made were causing actual harm. That is the take-away from the release of a transcripts from a meeting between Pope Paul VI and the honourable Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre some time in the 1970s.
The honourable archbishop pointed out why he had to resist. He pointed out just how far people had wandered off from the faith. He pointed out how his resistance was done out of love for Holy Mother Church than out of a spirit of rebellion. Pope Paul VI, on the other hand, seemed to be more concerned that Archishop Lefebvre did not accept everything from his mouth as binding, and that he had pinpointed him as the source of many problems, than he was about the souls being lost.
That in a nutshell, is what Novusordoism is all about. It is more important that one never utters a word against the many harmful novelties, than that the souls who are harmed as a result of these novelties be brought back to the faith. Then, of course, if you defend NOChurch enough, there is a dubious canonisation at the end of it for you.
One who will not go quietly down into the bad night is Bishop Gracida, who at 94, is now retired. This week he wrote about how a conclave should be held to depose Bergoglio. I would agree with him , were it not for the fact that I cannot see what authority a council of cardinals has to depose Bergoglio. By all means, Bergoglio should be condemned, but there is no Earthly power to depose a pope, short of killing the man, and I don't see how that can be done licitly, given that no cardinal can stand in judgement over Bergoglio to issue him with a death sentence, even if they were so inclined.
In the Korean Peninsula, North Korea announced that it would dismantle its nuclear test site in ahead of the Kim-Trump summit. Then they threatened to withdraw from the summit given that the U.S. and South Korea were holding drills outside its shores. It's hard to know what to make of this whole scenario, because I think a lot of details are lost in the headlines, and without these details, the timelines are often off, and we cannot appropriately apportion blame.
The same cannot be said of the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of the week before. Iran has been compliant, but Trump decided to pull out, no doubt egged on by his zionist and wahhabist handlers. In anticipation of what everybody excepts will be the cave-in of the spineless Europeans, China announced that it would enter Iran should Total - the oil company - pull out as a result of the sanctions.
In other Trump-roguery news, the U.S. opened its new embassy to zionism in Jerusalem. Among those in attendance were some of the most vile warmongering zionist televangelists around, most notably Haggee. Those Catholics who blindly defend Trump would do well to learn what a man such Haggee teaches. He almost makes John McCain look like a peacemaker, such is his love for war in favour of zionism.
Peter Hitchens asked "What moral standing do we have after this outrage? And are we about to join *another* idiotic war, like feeble minions? " The war part was about Iran, I suppose, but the moral standing bit was in retaliation to news of British torture and kidnap victims. That answer to his question is simple, and it is that the U.K. has never had moral standing. What it has had though, is the appearance of morally upright behaviour. I associate the U.K. with the murder and torture of Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries, barbarous colonisation of Africa in the 19th and 20th, and endless poodleship in American wars in te 21st century. I don't have much on the U.K. in the 18th century, but I doubt they were up to any good then either.
The German president - a protestant - was out in the press saying that the Catholic Church should allow intercommunion. His wife is supposedly Catholic and she pays tax, so he wants a stale waffer on Sundays as well, I suppose. You know what, I don't blame him, because he is only parroting what the German bishops and Bergoglio have been saying for years. I do, however, have to ask whether he cannot afford tastier bread than the one offered on Sundays in Catholic churches, because I cannot for the life of me entertain the notion that he believes in the Real Presence, so I have to wonder why he doesn't instead visit a buffet on Sunday mornings instead of attending Catholic church services. Surely he can afford it.
Finally, the Vatican released a document on the economy, or finance, or some such. I honestly couldn't care less!
If they cannot be trusted with clarity on that which ought to be their speciality, and their bread-and-butter - i.e., the faith - , and they can't, then we ought not to pay attention to anything they say about anything else.
This week's Bergoglio victim of the week has to be Vatican documents. Given the mess in which we find ourselves, the Vatican finds itself with nothing better to do than to write a document on the economy. Some have written that the document is actually quite good, and it may well be, but we ought to insist that...
