Bergoglio scandal

The grinch who stole Holy Week, or more honestly put, the attention whore who tried to upstage it - Sunday 25th to Saturday 31st of March - Holy Week

As we all should be aware, but most are not, the Holy Week reforms of the 1950s were quite sweeping. Berfore Holy Week, Rorate Caeli once again re-posted an article on " The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956". It is well-worth reading, especially in connection with the news recently that some traditional orders had been allowed to celebrate the pre-1950s Holy Week on a 3-year experimental basis starting this year.

Traditionalists are nothing if not resourceful and it didn't take long before there was a resource for the pre-1950 Holy Week with English translations, aptly called Pre-1955 Holy Week (although I grant that it may well have been present before the announcement). Rorate Caeli also provided us with a clarification on who exactly may chant the Passion. These two interventions by Rorate Caeli were quite helpful to me personally, as I finally came to realise taht the Passion is not actually the Gospel reading for Good Friday, but that we actually have a Passion reading followed by a Gospel reading, at least in the traditinal liturgy, pre-1950s edition in any case. Rorate Caeli was also kind enough to provide us with pictures of Palm Sunday from the pre-1955 Holy Week celebration.

Anybody who knows anything about Christianity knows that Easter is the biggest event of the Church year (yet it seems that professional journalists writing for major state-sponsored publications don't have a clue about what Easter is all about, to nobody's surprise, and they are probably even proud about it). We shall also know that Holy Week is the most august week of the year. It is for this reason that the secular anti-Catholic world generally steps up its attacks on the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. It is also the week that the world's most popular attention-whore gets up to his usual attention-seeking antics in order to seemingly steal attention away from the Church's commemorations and celebrations.

This year was no exception, but having noticed that his Maundy Thursday foot fetish doesn't get the attention it used to , Bergoglio decided to get a little help from his now 93-year old atheist friend Euginio Scalfari. Every time he speaks to that an he can be guaranteed a few scandalous headlines and this time was no different. Just in time for the Holy Week Celebrations, in which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist and died to save us from the fires of hell and allow us too spend eternity with God, Bergoglio told his friend that there is no hell, and that those who die in sin simply vanish, while those who repent before end up spending eternity in the presence of God. This interview was timed to coincide with Maundy Thursday, and naturally overshadowed his feet-washing ceremony, which was once more carried out in prison and against the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, rubrics which he himself amended, it has to be mentioned.

The reactions were not long in coming, and predictably, much of the Catholic press tied itself up in knots, blaming the poor atheist fool Scalfari, instead of pointing to Bergoglio as the culprit. The Vatican issued a non-denial denial, informing us, as we all know, that Scalfari does not record his interviews so it cannot be ascertained whether what was reported was the exact phrasing that Bergoglio used. In other words, they were saying loudly and clearly that Bergoglio is a heretic, as we all know, but we can use the he-doesn't-record-interviews card to get us out of a very serious doctrinal situation. They could really have done little else, for had they said that Bergoglio had actually admitted that he doesn't believe in hell, then they would efffectively have been confirming what we all know, that the man is not Catholic. Had they come out and denied that Bergoglio said that, then they would have had to explain how it is that a man who, as far as I know, hasn't faced many accusations of total misrepresenation in his work before - save for when he speaks to Bergoglio - could get such a fundamental thing so wrong.

Bergoglio himself did not come out and deny it, so we can rest safely in the knowledge that Bergoglio told his atheist friend that. It must be noted that this is not the first time that Bergoglio has denied that souls end up in hell, as Scalfari has reported on this before, and even in Church documents Bergoglio has written something to the tune of everything been on its way to Heaven. His defenders have pointed out that Bergoglio mentions the devil quite a lot, and so he must be misquoted if he has said that the devil does not exist. That is a logical fallacy if ever there was one, as it is entirely possible to believe that the devil exists and yet believe that nobody ends up in hell; that the devil would spend eternity in hell with his demons. In any case it was dishonest of them as they could easily have found multiple instances of Bergoglio telling us that those who die in mortal sin never end up in hell, assuming that anybody can even die in mortal sin, which Bergoglio does not seem to believe - save for traditional Catholics who use doctrine as stones to throw at people while sitting in the judgment seat of Moses. That's his phrasing, not mine, of course.

On the topic of attacking the Church's doctrines, Bergoglio could not resist taking a barb at the notion of truth, insisting that priests ought not to make "idols of certain abstract truths". This was in a separate speech, mind you, proving beyond doubt, if anyone is still not convinced, that the man is in constant heresy mode, and not just when speaking to his atheist anti-Catholic friends who, if you are to believe his enablers, have nothing better to do than...

We dare to question, and we dare to join the dots - Sunday 11th to Saturday 17th of February

If one was to write extensively about all the public evils going on in the Church right now one would hardly have time for anything else. For that reason I'll save those for last and attempt to be brief in my coverage of them. It's same old really - Bergoglio's sodomites and apostates are pushing apostasy and sodomy, in different guises and with a different cast of characters every week.

We start with a very curious story regarding Syria, one which confirms what anybody with half a brain already knew but which is nonetheless intriguing. We had the French defence minister admitting that they have never had any reliable evidence of chlorine use in Syria by the government. If I am not mistaken, this came not long after the U.S. defence minister also stated that they have no evidence that the government of Syria has used chemical or biological agents against anti-government Islamists. The question of whether it is any of their business what the Syrian government does in its own country's fight for survival against Jihadis - armed and trained by the West and its allies - is one which I shall not address now. We must assume that none of them have ever had any evidence of the Syrian government ever committing atrocities of the likes against its citizens, or even the non-citizens killing its people in an effort to turn it into an Islamic state.

This should have made news, but predictably did not.

Le Creep did not waste any time stating that if they do find evidence they will strike against Syria - in contravention of international law, of course, but which of these globalists cares about that?

The important thing to take home is that for some reason, the narrative from the NATO aggressors has started to shift. I cannot help but wonder why this is, given that the U.S. has dug its heels in Syria by attacking the Syrian government forces and its allies multiple times. It's almost as though Syria is the battleground for different factions of the Western establishment, the major cost being Syrian blood.

A similar theme, this time limited not to general NATO roguery but only to U.S. roguery, is "If America Wasn’t America, the United States Would Be Bombing It", which I read on the website of the Ron Paul Institute.  The piece was specifically about the multiple war crimes the U.S. has perpetrated since the end of the Second World War, with a special emphasis on crimes only over this past decade. It is difficult to disagree with the claim of the piece, and truth be told, if the U.S. had an embassy in Washington, then they would have found a way of taking out Donald Trump militarily by now. I would much rather think that the U.S. would not be bombing America, had America been a different country, but rather supplying it with weapons and propaganda aid.

The only group of people who largely get the U.S. straight are traditionalists, and even here I would argue that at least within the U.S. it is not a majority which is opposed to U.S. aggression. A lot of American traditionalists, however, are honest enough to recognise the U.S. as the threat to world peace and morals that it really is, and are ashamed of the U.S. for that reason.

If you think I am exaggerating ask yourself this: Since the end of the Cold War, what is the body count of non-U.S. aligned Islamists compared to that of the U.S.?  This is a particularly good mental exercise for those who do nothing but fret about the threat of Islamist violence. I don't have the numbers, but I would be extremely surprised if the numbers were not in the region of 100:1, with the U.S. having the larger number. It is also worth pointing out that the only country in which the U.S. and al Qaeda have been on opposite ends of the battle ground has been Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Iraq (although that's questionable). In Libya, Syria and Yemen, the U.S. and al Qaeda have not only fought side-by-side, but the U.S. has provided air support for al-Qaeda, the very organisation over which the U.S. claims to have started the Afghan war.

For the longest time I resisted the notion that al-Qaeda was a CIA-front, but now I have grudgingly come to accept that it must be the case, given that in most conflicts they fight on the same side, and in the only conflict in which they had direct combat, the U.S. had been responsible for their creation in the first place, having supported Islamists in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet Union.

That war has destroyed a country and destabilised a region. Instead of showing contrition, Americans are now led into welcoming the tune of war drums against North Korea, Venezuela and Iran - and those are only the countries that make it to the news. I am sure there are many other threats made against smaller states but which are not found newsworthy or propaganda-worthy enough for the U.S. to make a big show about.

If we count the dead unborn, and the rising number of dead elderly, killed for no other reason other than for being inconvenient, then the body count of the West versus the Islamic world is in the region of 1,000:1 at least. As Michael Matt from the Remnant asks , why should any American think they have the moral high ground over Islam, or Islamists, or even communists? Well, at this rate the U.S. will be communist before long and large chunks of Europe will be Islamist, so we shall soon be able to see if the body count will increase or decrease.

On the topic of body counts, we were informed that there was a school shooting in the U.S., with 17 people being killed as a formerly-expelled student shot up at his...

Pages

Subscribe to Bergoglio scandal