Bergoglio show

Even by Bergoglio's insanely absurd crazy standards, the ring-kissing switcheroo is weird...

Just when one thinks that Bergoglio cannot get any weirder he does something completely absurd, something completely off the charts. Even by Bergoglio's absurdly crazy standards, this is weird:

It is like something from a Benny Hill or Monty Python sketch. For an overweight man with probable drinking problems, one lung, and obviously slow-of-thought, he sure does more fast. That whole ring-kissing switcheroo could spawn a thousand memes, and with good reason.

I have never seen anything like it and I don't know if it is the first time he has done it or if it is a trademark dribbling move.

My initial  comments are the following:

  • First of all, it is really really weird. Even by his insanely-high bizarro standards   it's so weird it's almost creepy.
  • Secondly, it serves these people right for wanting to kiss the ring of a man as perverted as Bergoglio. The man has nothing Catholic about him, and yet they still want to bow down and kiss his ring, that same ring which has adorned some of the worst documents any bishop has ever produced in Church history. They desrerve a slap, not merely having Bergoglio move his hand. Maybe that would teach them that the man is to be avoided.
  • Thirdly, it is as though the man is going out of his way to prove that he is not pope and is not worth of the respect due to one. That he is pope is dubious, that he deserves contempt is unquestionable.

I am not big on the whole ring-kissing thing. There is an indulgence attached to it of some sort, and I suppose to get some poor soul out of purgatory I might bring myself to do it if the man whose ring I was kissing was worthy. Bergoglio most certainly is not. Yes, I know, it is not about the man but about the office. In reality though, kssing someone's ring affirms the man considerably so it should be reserved for good shepherds.

Even if he were worthy, I really cannot see how I could justify kissing a gold-plated silver ring. It smacks of trans-materialism, to borrow some jingo from today's crazy leftists. It's from a man who doesn't know the symbolism of his office, wants to pretend to be humble by using silver instead of gold, yet isn't secure enough in his imbecillity to go all the way through with it so he covers the ring with silver. Kissing his ring only affords him a respect he most certainly does not deserve.

Still, I have never seem him move so fast. It is as though somebody had transported him from a free-masonic temple into the Vatican (or Loreto, where it turns out this particular show was staged), and finding himself there and not having a clue who all these people are or what he's supposed to do, he thought all these people were coming towards him to take a bite out of his hand.

For pure comedy gold, this has to be the most entertaining of Bergoglio's many cringe-worthy stunts. It is most "disturbing", as LifeSite News put it.

It certainly cracked me up anyway, and I suppose unless we prefer weeping that's all we can do at this week's installment of the Bergoglio horror show.

The Christmas octave clarified, and reverence loses out again, starring your favourite whatever-he-is - Sunday 30th of December 2018 to Saturday 5th of January 2019

As part of my vow to try and be more timely in my weekly reviews - and to have proper weekly reviews - I thought I would release one in record time. I hope, as usual, to be brief, but given that I've been hoping for an end to the Bergoglian plague for over 5 years now with no end in sight, be prepared to learn that my hopes do seem to often end in disappointment! Anyway, here goes...

The year starts with what used to be called "The Feast of the Circumcision", but which was renamed to "The Solemnity of Mary" in the Novus Ordo deforms, on the 1st of January. Fr. John Hunwicke has often written about how this is a return to ancient tradition and not a proper novelty, strictly speaking. I have been willing to accept this notion, even though I have had my doubts, given how all the readings of the Mass have to do with the Circumcision and do not even mention the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is even without going into the question of whether reverting to ancient practice would not fall into the heresy of antiquarianism, given there was no particular need for it.

Well, I need not have worried much because Gregory DiPippo over at the beautiful blog Novus Motus Liturgicus had my back covered. He explained in The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision first of all how stunning it is that historians who ought to know better manage to get this issue wrong despite all evidence to the contrary. He also explained why the confusion came about, and why the feast is not called "The Feast of the Circumcision" until much later: It seems as though in the early Church there were 2 celebrations which fell on that day - none of which were particularly Marian -, these being the Circumcision and the Presentation.

Here are my first reflections of his piece, as commented on that day:

I am indebted to Gregory DiPippo over at Novus Motus Liturgicus for clearing up a few points of irritation I have had with the whole notion of the Octave of Christmas. It has become fashionable to say that it only acquired the name of circumcision later and that traditionally it was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This would seem to vindicate at least in part NOChurch practice.

He manages to slay that notion entirely by showing that the most ancient sacramentaries all have reference to the Circumcision and that possibly the only reason it was not called the Feast of the Circumcision is because it might have been united with the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple.

Given what  I know - however inadequate - about the Tridentine Reform, it would have been odd to see them innovating on titles. The explanation given in his piece titled  The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision does much to bring clarity to this whole issue.

He then followed his initial article with another one titled The Marian Character of the Feast of the Circumcision. That is also well-worth reading.

It often gives me pause to disagree with the good Fr. Hunwicke, but Gregory DiPippo is a very meticulous scholar, and he provides very strong evidence for his assertions - which Fr. Hunwicke does not even attempt to do - so I have no hesitation in following Gregory DiPippo's line on this. Ultimately, whether or not there may have been observance of some Marian feast on this day, the theological significance of Christ's Circumcision is much more necessary to commemorate on that day, especially given that it cannot escape anyone that all of Christmastide is a celebration of the divine motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and we detract nothing from it by not celerbating it on the octave day of Christmas, the day on which Jesus Christ was circumcised.

The Bergoglian apostasy tour continues as do his attempts to try and prove to anyone paying attention that he absolutely abhors anything that Catholics hold sacred. The latest installment in his displays of irreverence was standing and absolutely refusing to kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament  during Eucharistic Adoration on new year's eve. The man will kneel for all and sundry, but not for God. I commented the following:

The Bergoglio menace - a beast of irreverence - does it again, refusing to kneel in front of the Holy Eucharist. Quite how anybody can claim that Bergoglio is a Catholic of any stripe is beyond my comprehension, because I doubt there are many who have worked harder to prove that point than Bergoglio has.

In fact, I would be willing to wager he is a satanist, a free-mason, a Talmudic Jew, even a Muslim, before I can call him a Catholic, and I can't even wager on him being a  believing protestant because although most such protestants, though they do not believe in reason, natural law or Sacred Tradition, at least they pretend to believe in the Bible, which Bergoglio clearly does not.

I don't know who or what Bergoglio is, but as I have often remarked, if there is a problem with perceiving Bergoglio as an anti-Catholic, the problem is not on the broadacasting side, but on the reception side. He has been broadcasing in high-fidelity audio ever since at least Maundy Thursday of 2013 that he has little regard for the Catholic Faith.

No doubt the Novus Ordites will tell us that standing is the new kneeling,  but anybody using his mind ought to be able to see that Bergoglio is now simply mocking us, and is being very forthright in his atheism. If  you don't believe me, then keep in mind that the Bergoglian Vatican press had written in celebration of...

Pages

Subscribe to Bergoglio show