Bergoglio sacrament attack

You don't need God; You have me! Sunday 14th to Saturday 20th of January

There is a lot of ground to cover this week so I shall try to be brief on each topic.

We begin with some good news in the form of a series of articles by the always-unpredictable Fr. Allan J. McDonald. I refer to him as unpredictable because one never knows what he is going to write. One day he could be attacking the latest destructive Novus Ordo novelty and the next day he could be attacking not only an analogous novelty, but the very Novus Ordo mentality that brought the novelty into being in the first place.

This time he published 3 posts on Vatican II, the sum total of which was geared towards defending the Catholic Church pre-dating before Vatican II. He linked to a series on interviews from people who lived before Vatican II, and only one of 6 was negative, and that 6th one turned out to be a bitter feminist who was a toddler at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, so her opinion can be dismissed out of hand. What we have is a snapshot into the life of a Church which was caring, loved and vibrant; a Church which was the centre of the lives of many of her sons and daughters. It was a loving Church which inspired those under her care to aspire to be the best they could be.

In a follow-up post, he responded to a comment from the original piece, in which the notion that the pre-Vatican II Church could not have been that good given that it collapsed virtually overnight once NOChurch went into high gear was advanced. He finished off with citing a study which shows that only 24% of Catholic women in the U.S. go to Church nowadays. This number was naturally much higher before the Novus Ordo. In other words, in spite of - or perhaps, due to - the mass effeminisation programme undertaken by NOChurch authorities, even women find NOChurch unappealing.

On Rorate Caeli, Peter Kwasniewski outlined the Church's traditional wisdom in having post-Christmas and pre-Lented periods, to slow us down from the highs of Christmas before we enter the gloom of Lent. It was a piece well-worth reading.

We were also informed that at least 20% of non-religious people pray, often in times of trouble. I would have thought the figure was higher. So perhaps the old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes should be updated, but I would think that even 80% of the rest have some kind of notion of God, only they let their anger get in the way of their humility. You find it commonly expressed in the "God doesn't exist, because if he did then so-and-so would not have died" and so on.

In the U.K., we had Bishop Egan visiting a foreign diocece and to his dismay and horror most Catholic churches were locked. He did not appreciate that, and neither do I since I have also attempted to go to many churches which I found locked. That this diocese seemed to be in England precludes the possibility that he could have paid a visit during siesta hours. Churches being locked is yet another fruit of Vatican II, and a bitter one at that.

We then get to the bad news, and not entirely unpredictably, these are headed by our very own Bergoglio.

The world's favourite attention-whore was up to his old tricks again, although this time he outdid even himself. On another of his scandalous trips - this time to Chile and Peru to do nobody-knows-what-good, he 'wedded' a couple on the plane, after joking that it is witchcraft which gives him all his wrecking-ball energy. The couple both worked as air stewards, and the story they gave was that Bergoglio by chance inquired as to their marriage status, and finding out that they were not sacramentally married - only civilly -, volunteered to wed them on the plane. I must admit that I never bought the story for a second, because more or less everything Bergoglio does is a stunt. Furthermore, we are talking about a man who says that most couples who are married are not married and many couples who are not married are actually married. It is an unlikely candidate for an inquisition into whether the steward serving him is in a sacramental marriage.

It reminded me of a scene from an X-Men movie, in which the grandfather mutant tells Charles that he doesn't need Cerebro (the machine he uses to reach into far-away minds) in order to reach out to all the world, because he can do with his powers instead, saying "You don't need a machine to amplify your powers. You have me!". Bergoglio was simply stating "You don't need to call on God for marital blessings; You have me!". The mutant seems to have been correct, as he had the power; Bergoglio, not quite so, as he doesn't.

Now, at a wedding Mass, we call down God's blessings on the new couple and pray that they will have a fruitful marriage. Bergoglio obviously seem that a wave of his hand can replace the blessings that are brought down from Heaven upon a newly-wed validly and sacramentally married in the House of God.

It never seemed likely that Bergoglio would warmly speak to flight attendants anyway, as insider portrayals of Bergoglio paint him out as a rather unfriendly man. It seemed even less fanciful that a man who has launched a fully-fledged assaunt on the institution of marriage would care whether a couple was canonically and sacramentally married.

To nobody's surprise, therefore, the whole stunt turned out to have been pre-planned but that didn't stop Bergoglio continuing to lie about the whole event and sticking to the original story.  What id did, however, was show just how irreverent and narcissistic all involved were. No longer could...

Doctrine to a fool is as fetters on the feet, and like manacles on the right hand

A while back I had intimated that I would write a 3-piece exposé on Bergoglio and his agenda. When I opened the article which I had begun writing, I noticed that the timestamp read

2015-09-07 22:39:09 +0200

In other words, this is a piece which has been more than 1 year in the making; shameful stuff. One would think given such a revelation that it will be long. One would be wrong.

In fact, I have abandoned the original idea totally and only aim to highlight what I think is my input into the dreadful pontificate of a faithless ravenous incompetent duplicitous Argentinian Jesuit who manipulated his way into the top of the mediocrity-promoting NOChurch. Hmm, here I was thinking I would work up to that,  but evidently, hand me a keyboard and I can't stop writing what I really feel about Bergoglio, just like hand Bergoglio a microphone and he can't stop talking about how much he hates God's Holy Church.

Before I get too worked up, I thought I might try to explain why I never really got around to writing the piece, whose unfinished version I shall leave unedited in order to kind of hint at what I had in mind.

Basically, there are 4 primary reasons for why I abandoned the idea, although the struggle to abandon it was a long back-and-forth tale:

  1. However much it might seem the case, no faithful Catholic (and I do make a genuine attempt at being faithful) likes to write about Bergoglio and what the modernists are doing to the Church. It is disheartening, and frankly, a lot of us feel it distracts us from the real mission to which Christians are entrusted - that of proclaiming the Gospel. I genuinely would like to write about positive news, or at least positive things, of which there is no shortage. That being the case, we cannot simply ignore the errors being fed to the unsuspecting, which is why many faithful Catholics feel themselves reluctantly bound to write about the unfortunate Bergoglio pontificate.
  2. A growing realisation that no matter how many scandals and heresies Bergoglio spouts, far too many will refuse to see that he is an enemy of the Church. They either do not have the faith or the love for truth to learn about what the Church actually teaches. Embracing the whole of the Catholic faith is a daunting prospect, not least because it forces us to leave our comfort zones and actually engage in spiritual warfare, often to the detriment of our social relationships or economic opportunities. It is far easier to be a NOChurch Catholic with no idea that much of what one defends has been condemned by the Magisterium and actually is still condemned, though tolerated (even promoted) by people who have no authority to change what the Church actually proclaims (since the message comes from Christ) so settle for confusing the faithful either through misleading them or leaving them in ignorance.
  3. The fact that in most of the faithful Catholic circles (i.e., traditionalists) the idea of Bergoglio as an enemy of Christ and His Holy Church is now a mainstream opinion. In fact, it is a mainstream opinion even among believing Novus Ordo Catholics, who for the most part cannot bring themselves to make excuses for the man any more. When I originally planned to write this, those who had concluded that Bergoglio was an enemy were a small and shunned minority - basically Mundabor, a few others and I - even the Remnant couched its criticisms in soft gloves. Now though, there is no shortage of articles and writers listing Bergoglio's crimes against the faith, many of whom are more eloquent, learned and thorough than I am. Some of those articles are linked at the bottom of this piece. The gloves have truly been taken off,
  4. The sheer volume of the insanity coming from the man and his comrades in arms make it impossible for me to keep up, and would have made any article showing examples of his assult on Catholicism outdated nearly as soon as it was published.

With that out of the way, I would still like to think I can make a small contribution to the debate not by highlighting what Bergoglio is doing - his agenda, as it were - but in sifting out his overall strategy.

Now you might be wondering: Why write anything about this if you abandoned the plan? To this I answer that it is for 2 reasons:

  1. I would like to think of myself as a man who keeps his word, so if I write that I shall do something then I either do it or at the very least offer an acceptable reason for refraining.
  2. With Bergoglio on his way to this God-forsaking country for his heresy jumboree, I felt duty-bound to at least wrap this up, not least because I intend to write about the heresy fest, and anything I write about that will make more sense in lieu of what I have to write.

So here is my small contribution to the greatuer unpacking-Bergoglio debate. Basically, I have Bergoglio's actions down to a 3-pronged attack on the pillars of the Church:

  1. Attack the doctrines, dogmas and teachings of the Church
  2. Attack the defenders of the faith and the hierarchichal structure created by Our Lord, especially the papacy
  3. Attack the family

 Those are the 3 pillars upon which all of Bergoglio's actions are based, his 3-pronged armada aimed at the barque of St. Peter, our Holy Mother Church. In fact, with these in mind anything which seems odd, creepy, stupid or downright  perverse on his part soon begins to make sense.

I'll just pass over them in brief.

Attack the doctrines, dogmas and teachings of the Church

Whether it is in his promotion of adultery, his attack on the holy institution of marriage, sacrilege in the form of Holy Communion for lechers or non-Catholics, insulting the Blessed Virgin Mary,...

Pages

Subscribe to Bergoglio sacrament attack