Bergoglio attack hounds

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 -...

The hounds attack converts, and Bergoglio discovers his magisterialism card, but nobody can really figure out what he said or meant - Sunday 20th of August to Saturday 27th of August

Apart from isolated terrorist-related activity in Barcelona in Spain, Turku in Finland and somewhere in Russia, it was a rather slow newsweek in Europe, I would argue. I certainly didn't pick up in anything. The leftists continued destroying statues and the North Korea vs. U.S. ensured that the media didn't have to look very far for stories, but on the secular front there was little different to set the week apart. In fact, terrorist attacks in Europe are not really newsworthy any more, if we are to be honest.

What did make some news on the Catholic front was one of Bergoglio's lay attack hounds attacking prominent converts and reverts to the faith. It turns out that many of the more prominent anti-Bergoglians are Catholics so a Bergoglio fan decided to make that a point of attack. Perhaps it is a surprise to him that people who actually take the trouble of converting to the Catholic faith - often at great social cost - do it because they take Catholicism seriously. Several prominent Catholics were attacked by name, showing that the Bergoglians really are starting to feel the heat.

Getting insulted by the Bergoglians is now a mark of honour, so I don't think any of them will lose sleep over it.

The really big news though was how Bergoglio attempted to shore up the failing Novus Ordo by telling us that he can say with magisterial authority that the liturgical reforms are now "irreversible". Nobody knows what he meant, although we all took it as an attack on the Roman Rite and an attempt to prop up the Novus Ordo innovations.

Fr. Hunwicke and Novus Ordo Watch (sedevacantists) both had pretty good analyses on it, but it was  Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman who has probably the best analysis, and he also provided a summary from others who had a go at one of Bergoglio's more delusional statements. His basic contention was that this is not such big news because first of all nobody can really figure out what Bergoglio meant. The good priest did, however, manage to shed light on the fact that Bergoglio had quoted mainly himself (as is par for the course) while also spicing his verbiage with references to other popes, except most tellingly Pope Benedict XVI - his immediate predecessor and one who has probably written more on the liturgy than any of the others - who famously issued Summorum Pontificum.

The contention of Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman was that if the liturgical reforms are irreversible (whatever that means) then they would obviously have to include Summorum Pontificum.

A take I saw on one of the comment boards, made an interesting observation, worth quoting in full:

 

Our beloved Holy Father is a Jesuit, and can make good use of mental reservations, and other techniques of communication and diversion. He did *not* say, “I affirm that the post-concilar liturgical reform is irreversible,” rather he said “I can affirm that, etc.”

“Possiamo affermare con sicurezza e con autorità magisteriale che la riforma liturgica è irreversibile”

In a somewhat similar way, I could say: “I can affirm that I am from Mars” but if I did so I would be fibbing.

 

That's good plain old Jesuitism, and I would not be surprised if Bergoglio actually put it that way in order to be able to deny that he actually was trying to impose the Novus Ordo mess on posterity, something he has no authority to do in any case and simply proves his delusion is getting the better of him.

Although we cannot actually pin down what Bergoglio said or meant, we all pretty much know what he intended to convey: Big bad old Church must go, new NOChurch must take its place, but to prop up it's sinking hull we shall pretend that sinking is the new floating.

It is noteworthy that Bergoglio only pulls out his magisterial authority card when he wants to suppress authentic Catholic expression, and not say, when trying to clear up confusion, of which he himself is often the cause.

Then we had another anti-Russian propaganda piece on the Catholic Herald, an action which is becoming sadly predictable. Their trustworthiness has fallen very much, and I shall never forget, God-willing, the amount of propaganda they put into the whole Libya affair, urging the invasion of Libya by the Western forces.

It is difficult to discern who or what exactly the Catholic Herald serves, but truth is definitely not the master over there. Since they took away the commenting ability, they can pretty much print anything without concerning themselves with being corrected by people who either know better or are more honest, so I definitely do not  turn to them unless I have little choice.

 

In Bergoglian times, fake papal news is indistinguishable from real papal news, and a novel idea - Sunday 6th of August to Saturday 12th of August

There was a statement alleged to have come from Vladimir Putin regarding Bergoglio. I cannot for the life of me figure out if the news is fake or whether it is real.

I came to the piece through Fr. Zuhlsdorf's site. In the piece we found the following (emphases from his site):

President Putin has slammed Pope Francis for “pushing a political ideology instead of running a church”, and warned that the leader of the Catholic Church “is not a man of God.”

“Pope Francis is using his platform to push a dangerous far-left political ideology on vulnerable people around the world, people who trust him because of his position,” Putin said. 

“If you look at what he (the Pope) says it’s clear that he is not a man of God. At least not the Christian God. Not the God of the Bible,” Putin said at the Naval Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Kronstadt.  

“He dreams of a world government and a global communist system of repression.

“As we have seen before in communist states, this system is not compatible with Christianity.”

The charges made against Bergoglio are certainly true, but the tone is certainly not that of Vladimir Putin, who is the most diplomatic statesman around. He is very cautious in his statements and I fail to even see why he would bother taking time from his busy efforts rebuilding Russia to criticise a man who is busy destroying the Catholic Church, of which he is not a member (the 'which' refers to Putin here but since heretics cannot be members of the Church...). I just don't see Putin making these statements, and at a cathedral no less.

Mind you, I would certainly not respect him less if he said it!

The truth is that Bergoglio's attack hounds have  been critical of Putin so it would be only fair of Putin to point out that Bergoglio is not a man of God and that he is deceiving people. I just don't think that Vladimir Putin said it, because I have not seen any confirmation of this piece from trustworthy newspapers or blogs, and even Fr. Zuhlsdorf seems to think it is fake news.

There were many comments on this piece at the website, but one in particular was noteworthy:

Fake news or not (I think it is largely invented), Pope Francis is to blame for having said things that make people wonder if articles like this are true. What this article says would not be remotely plausible if it pertained to either of our previous two popes. Not so with Pope Francis. Even if Putin never said what the article says he says, it is plausible that he did say those things and it is also plausible that there is some element of truth to at least some of them.

The truth is the more absurd a story coming from the Vatican nowadays the more likely that it is true, and the more anti-Catholic it is the less we can dismiss it. Even Bergoglio's defenders cannot pretend that the man is not a disaster for the Catholic Church.

The same priest writes about the 'North Korean' situatoin and suggests some solutions. There was only one contributor who wrote anything worthy of a Catholic response, while the rest showed off their americanism. As it turns out, he is British, and seemed generally to be the most informed. One of his responses captures his general attitude towards the 'problem', and he had many.

Simples. Don’t threaten North Korea. Don’t put THAAD missiles in South Korea. Don’t carry out massive battle manoeuvres in the south. In fact go back home and look after your own people.

I have a novel idea: Just leave North Korea alone!

My idea runs roughly along the same sentiments in other words. The fact is that most other countries have come to terms with the fact that North Korea is a nuclear power, including all of its neighbours, which are well within the range of North Korean weapons. It is only the U.S. which thinks it is so special that it has a right to prevent another country from defending itself.

North Korean concerns are not exactly unjustified, as the U.S. has been on a global campaign to take down anyone who opposes its policies and not strong enough for self-defence. We have seen Iraq, Libya and Syria attacked militarily by the U.S. and on top of that you can add other countries the U.S. has bombed int the recent past on multiple continents. As a sovereign country, North Korea have every right to defend themselves or at the very least to assure the destruction of anybody who attacks them, adn contrary to popular opinion, it is the U.S. which is the aggressor as it keeps holding military drills - some with such ominous names as "Operation Decapitation" - and imposing sanctions on what is already one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Truth is, sanctions are considered an act of war.

It is time for the U.S. to stop acting as if it is special - and being allowed to get away with it - and live with the rest of the international community as part of the community, and not as an overlord. It is the U.S. which is the real rogue state!

There is simply no good reason why anybody should accept the ridiculous notion that the U.S. has a right not to be under threat from other countries, given that it threatens virtually all countries on the planet. Furthermore, there is nothing irrational about the behaviour of North Korea: They simply seek the survival of their nation, as do most right-thinking people (which obviously excludes most of the Western politicians and electorate at this point in time). I would hope that at least Catholics can agree that it is unjust to threaten a country with annihilation simply for seeking the means to preserve itself,...

Pages

Subscribe to Bergoglio attack hounds