Bergoglio victim-of-the-week

The Tridentine Mass once ruled the world; It will do so again! - Sunday 5th to Saturday 11th of August

It was a relatively slow news week, with now new theme dominating. Furthermore, many of the articles I read seemed to have been written the week before, further underlining my claim.

There were developments and fallouts of the McCarrick scandal, but sadly that is not new in NOChurch as hardly a week goes by without yet another homosexual scandal. It turns out that even in a relatively(by NOChurch standards) good diocese - the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska - there was homosexual harassment in the seminary.

The  Diocese of Harrisburg released the names of over 70 priests accused of sexual abuse, some of it dating from the 1940s. None of them are in active ministry, and the average comes out at about 1 priest per year over 70 years, which is certainly far from an overwhelming number. However, it is still sickening that these priests seem not to have undergone disciplinary measures, and perhaps worse still that it took the McCarrick scandal for this to come out. I am also split regarding the wisdom of releasing names from people accused of sexual abuse, when the men involved are dead and cannot defend themselves. Something about it rings entirely hollow and insincere.

Not tired of current homosexual scandals,  Bergoglio decided to appoint a high-ranking Vatican official who is suspected of being a sodomite himself . As I have mentioned before, we are well within ourselves to ask whether Bergoglio is not himself a sodomite. In fact, I would argue that at this point we are almost duty-bound to assume that he is. Normal decent folks do not surround themselves with sodomites unless they are partial to their lifestype. One of his closest aides, Maradiaga, had to defend himself from accusations of misconduct after it transpired that one of his closest aides had been sexually harassing seminarians. This is the man often referred to as the 'vice pope', on account of being so close to Bergoglio.

In The Moment Before the Storm, Steve Skojec tells us that there is an eerie feeling about the Church, as if something big is about to burst out, and the hierarchy seems utterly oblivious to the anger bubbling up amongst the faithful. There have been indications of this anger coming to the surface, but as I do not hang out with people in the Novus Ordo, I dare not comment on whether he has his finger on the pulse regarding that.

A Bergoglian appointee in  Argentina forbade the faithful in his diocese from receiving Holy Communion kneeling. You see, NOChurch bishops have no qualms stamping their authority upon the faithful when it comes to things which destroy the faith. They just have trouble being authoritative when it comes to protecting the faith.

The Bergoglian attempt to teach that the death penalty is "inadmissible" continued to attract attention. It is difficult to make sense of the piece written by Fr. Allan McDonald, who argued that by stating that there are no exceptions allowed with regards to the death penalty, it will be easier to make the case that there are no exceptions allowed for abortion. He is against the change, and naturally against the killing of unborn children. However, his statement does not seem to me to make much sense, since most of those people care not about what the pope says anyway. Furthermore, he misrepresents the teaching on capital punishment: The Church's teaching is not that the death penalty is an exception to the absolute prohibition of murder, but rather that it is a fulfillment of the command that we should protect life. Mundabor had no problem calling Bergoglio's attempt "formal heresy", or making a coherent case as to why this is necessarily so.

Social media censorship continues to gather pace. I am not on social media, so I care not for what they do. I do remember over 10 years ago saying that the West is much more likely to end up like China than China is likely to end up like 'the West' - whatever 'West' means - and I have largely been proven correct. We now have NATO through the Atlantic Council deciding what is acceptable on facebook, and who deserves censure.

This week the censoring agents came for   Alex Jones, the US's premier conspiracy theorist . I have watched a lot of his stuff, and I like that he is mostly anti-war, although I must admit that he was much better before Trump was president, as he could focus on completely opposing U.S. imperialist murderous policies, as opposed to defending his man against legitimate criticism, or deflecting that criticism to others. After they were done with Alex Jones, they decided to ban a Venezuelan news site. Expect this kind of censorship to continue and widen in scope!

On Alex Jones, I must admit that I still have not figured out whether he is a legitimate opposition figure or false opposition. If he is legitimate, then it is likely that he sold out a while back, as he now never mentions Israel as being the problem in the Middle East, and especially in the Syrian conflict. This he did do earlier in his career. He is very much onboard with the anti-Iraninan propaganda, presumably because Trump spouts it. I can only presume that when he uses the word "globalist" he means "zionist" and that the man is smart enough to know that there are people you are not allowed to criticise, which is why he cannot criticise the zionists head-on. Either way, the man is insincere in not pointing out Israel's complicity in the creation of Islamist groups in the region, and in launching war after war after war. He seems to have no trouble mentioning Saudi Arabia, so at least we can conclude that it's not the Saudis who he fears, and therefore that it's not the Saudis...

Bergoglio goes for low-hanging theological fruit, and neo-Catholics largely let him get away with it - Sunday 29th of July to Saturday 4th of August

There is really only one place to start this week and that is with the news that Bergoglio has altered the John Paul II Catechism to read that the death penalty is now  "inadmissible" in all circumstances because it violates "human dignity" . That God Himself in the Bible did not realise this, or the various Church fathers, or Doctors of the Church, or all the popes up until Bergoglio ought to get us suspicious.

I cannot do justice to the arguments against this latest heresy by Bergoglio so I shall simply leave it to you to have a look at the links below, one of which is from OnePeter5 and is titled "Pope Francis Is Wrong about the Death Penalty. Here’s Why." Rorate Caeli ran one under the title "What was black is now white".

The one thing I shall note is that the argument that Bergoglio uses is one that is expressly condemned by the Catechism of Trent. Bergoglio argues that using the death penalty deprives the convict of the chance of conversion. The Catechism of Trent tells us, in rather common-sensical terms, that he who knows that his life will end and is granted the grace of knowing when will scarcely convert at a later time if he cannot do it while at the point of oncoming death. So Bergoglio's argument is not even original, and is one which has been put down before as nonsensical.

It is interesting to note that the only person Bergoglio can quote to rationalise his new posture is himself, continuing his now-growing list of novelties by self-quotation.

As usual, the neo-Catholics were mostly out in force proving that they are part of the problem. To watch EWTN reporting that "the pope has changed the Church's teaching on the death penalty" or the "pope has strengthened the Church's opposition to the death penalty" would have  been to come away with the conclusion that a pope can change the Church's teaching. The Papal Pose was misex, with Fr. Murray arguing that it was a break, and Robert Royal at his usual neo-Catholic best when responding that canonists will have to determine whether it is 'de fide', when asked that by Arroyo. It's striking that these people are there to respond as experts and they do not even know that catechisms are not in and of themselves infallible, not even the venerable Catechism of Trent. They ought, however, to contain infallible truths.

Some of the Novus Ordites argued that it is a case of the pope implanting his prudential judgement and that we should take it seriously, having been offered this opinion. Excuse me, but the Catechism is there to tell us what the Church teaches explicitly, not to argue for selective enforcement of prudential judgements, regardless of where they hail!

This is nothing short of heresy because the Church has taught definitively about this issue from her beginning, and God has made it clear that the death penalty can be justifiably imposed by legitimate authority. To argue otherwise is to do nothing short of lying, and to pass it off to others it to shirk responsibility.

What is clear is that Bergoglio has gone after low-hanging theological fruit. He knows that even among those who argue for the licitness of the death penalty, many are opposed to it in practice. The death penalty is only available in a few countries and even in these it is rarely used. He knows that people will not die on 'death penalty hill', so to speak, protesting "thus far but no farther!" We can, however, be sure that if Bergoglio gets away with this he will not stop there.

The arguments he puts forward for it, namely that people nowadays have a realisation that the death penalty is opposed to human dignity, can be used to rationalise pretty much every heresy and Church teaching which is not popular with the modernists. It is pretty much what he has attempted to do with divorce and remarriage and you can be sure that he is testing waters by formally changing the Catechism on the death penalty. Next up on the line might just be your favourite teaching.

Some have argued that Bergoglio only did this to divert attention from the McCarrick scandal - given that it involves one of his closest aides - while others have argued that even with Bergoglio being an idiot, using heresy as deflection is a move too dumb even for him. I am not sure there is anything so dumb that Bergoglio will not do it, so I'll not dismiss the theory entirely.  I too was initially drawn to the theory that he used it as a distraction from the McCarrick scandal. However, I do pride myself in thinking outside the box, and I have wondered: What if the reverse is true?

What if Bergoglio used the McCarrick scandal to introduce formal heresy into the teaching of the Church? What if the McCarrick scandal was itself the distraction? Most of the Catholic and secular media is pre-occupied with other stuff anyway, and there is no better time to poison  the Church's  already-sub-standard Catechism . If he pulls it back on account of major opposition (yeah, as if Bergoglio listens to anyone!) then it will hardly be headline news. If it sticks, then he can use it as reference for even further heresy, knowing that EWTN and the rest of  the neo-Catholic establishment has his back arguing as dishonestly as ever that we need to try and take onboard something which is obviously a heresy simply because the pope has put his weight behind it.

I have often maintained that neo-Catholics, or 'conservative Catholics', will reject every heresy unless it comes from the pope. This incident proves me right, yet again!

All I can say is that I am in total agreement with Christopher Ferrara that The Reversible Magisterium...

Humanae Vitae, NOChurch's crown jewel, is still problematic, but there is good news to be found, if you know where to look - Sunday 22nd of July to Saturday 28th of July

With so much evil going on in the Church and the world, it is sometimes easy to forget that we do have a few bright spots. The most positive bright spot is the traditionalist movement, but we also have a 'negative bright spot' in the form of the implosion of the NOChurch regime.

The McCarrick scandal (to which we shall return) has certainly helped in this regard, but even before that NOChurch was in steep decline, from attendance, to money, to morals, there is simply nothing to keep NOChurch alive, and that is a good thing because it signlas that the revolution has failed and might be reversed, probably incrementally, before too long. The rod to its complete abandonment will be rough though.

Back to traditionalism, we hade the Institute of Christ the King ordaining 4 men to the priesthood. This happened in early July, but it's worth mentioning. The larger FSSP and SSPX have also had more priests ordained to the priesthood this summer. We  had news from Italy that a second personal parish for the Tridentine Mass has been erected. Then we also had news from Spain which had its first traditional family retreat , also in early July. These are all good things, good seeds, all worthy of celebration.

It is true that our numbers are small, but they are steady and impressive, especially when put into a greater context of an institituional Church which is opposed to authentic Catholicism and a wider society which is opposed to even the watered-down Novusordoism. The Catholic counter-revolution started with practically nothing, but now there are more than 1,000 priests associated exclusively with the Old Rite and traditionalism extends an influence in certain places - France, for instance - far in excess of its size, and this influence will only grow as NOChurch seminaries continue to empty. In theory, this ought to lead to a traditionalist becoming a bishop sometime in the not-too-distant future and then all-bets-are-off really, as I am quite certain that will create a domino effect.

We are far from there and things are far from good, but it is not all dark, and we have to recognise these bright spots, all while avoiding a pollyannic attitude which I often see among many political commentators trying to convince themselves that there is a 'Christian' revival going on in Europe, or that the somewhat anti-lefist currents in Europe are solutions to Europe vast suicidal problems - all stemming from immorality and apostasy.

As if to emphasise the continuing failure of NOChurch, in Colombia, a protestant pastor forced himself into a Church in Colombia and smashed a Marian Statue on the Feast of Our Lady of Carmel . This is in spite of NOChurch assuring us with to its great ecumeniacal drive that there is no difference between protestants and Catholics. Some protestants know better, of course.

I shall, however, agree that  if by Catholicism they mean Novusordoism and not the Catholicism which Novusordoism has sought to eclipse, the differences are very slim. In essence, Novusordoism is a protestant belief system, one of plurality, one which does not seek to worship God in the fullest, and one which plays foot-loose with the truth, including that  of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture; actually, especially those.

The crowning moment of NOChurch came with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which celebrated it's 50th birthday this week. It's pretty much the only thing Paul VI didn't get completely wrong, and which he probably got mostly right. Of course, it was only needed because Pope John XXIII had convened a commission to study the issue of the newly-invented contraceptive pill, and thanks to the modernising effect of Vatican II, it had come to be seen as a commission which would look into the actualy morality of contraception. That was Paul VI's fault and his alone. Still, in the end he did the right thing, just about.

In Humanae Vitae’s Challenge to Modernity, Crisis Magazine pointed out why Humanae Vitae is still as relevant as ever, as well as why it is still so despised. While Humanae Vitae was the crowning moment of NOChurch - at least with regard to its Catholicity - the dissent that followed it could be argued to be one of NOChurch's low-points, although here the competition is very strong, and Bergoglio has not helped in this regard, with a series of low-points vying for lowest point in Church history. In any case, the Catholic Church had hitherto been seen as a giant monument to morality, a bullwark against the worst instincts of man, even by her enemies. In Widespread dissent against Humanae Vitae put me off becoming a Catholic, we are given an insight into how damaging the Humanae Vitae fall-out was to the reputation of the Church among non-Catholics. The  piece was written by Malcolm Muggeridge in August of 1968, and appeared in the Catholic Herald. He did though, finally convert to Catholicism, albeit 14 years later, proving that the essential elements of Catholicism still remain and that God does work for conversion towards the Catholic faith,  in spite of NOChurch, not because of it.

The eminent historian Roberto di Mattei gave his take on Humanae Viate with at least 2 pieces. He is not overly positive in his assessment of the encyclical, and it would seem that he echoes the view of Louie Verrechio who sees Humanae Vitae as part of the problem and not the solution. In "The Birth of Humanae Vitae in light of the Vatican Archives ", he reviews a book written by a Vatican official which purports to trail the creation of the document. He sees in the book an attempt to suggest that the issue may be revisited. He also takes aim against the idea of Humanae Vitae being prohetic, and he wrote:

Humanae Vitae was not a “prophetic” encyclical. It would have been, if it had dared to

...

The shortest comeback in sporting history and a month-full of NOChurch news, if you can stomach it - Sunday 24th of June to Saturday 21st of July

On day 3 of what was supposed to be an almost 2-week vacation, I managed to injure myself in what must be the shortest sporting comeback in history, after a very long sports 'retirement'. It meant that my holiday wasn't what it was supposed to be, but it also meant that I managed to do a lot more reading than I had intended

This entry covers the week prior to my vacation as well as the week afterwards, since I did try to stay as much away from the computer as I could. As usual, I shall try to keep it short. I shall probably fail in that aim, as usual.

As June 30th marked the 30th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations conducted by Archbishop Marce Lefebvre in 1988, Rorate Caeli saw it fit to commemmorate this with a 3-part series 3-part series documenting the events which led up to it. It becomes clear that Lefebvre was not looking for a fight and that Cardinal Ratzinger did his best to try and stop the consecrations proceeding without Vatican approval. Take place they did, however, and one is left with an incomplete picture of exactly why it was that the Vatican held off its approval. Given how much else the Vatican had allowed to get out of control, it is striking that the one thing they managed to crack down on in the harshest of ways in the 1980s was the consecration of bishops whose purpose it was to continue doing what the Church had always done.

One cannot help but feel that there were agents in the Vatican who either wanted Marcel Lefebvre to die, and with him any organised clerical resistance to the Novus Ordo, or wanted to provoke a consecration without  Vatican's approval, so that they could ostracise those who held tradition dear and who opposed all the disastrous changes that were introduced following Vatican II. Scheming against tradition is one of few things NOChurch has managed to do efficiently, after all.

As if to highlight the scheming against Catholic tradition, we had news that Fr. Frank Phillips of the Order of St. John Cantius in Chicago had his his faculties for public ministry withdrawn despite beingexonerated of the charges of sexual misconduct brought against him. That the man in charge of the archdiocese of Chicago is arch-homosexualist and arch-modernist Cupich, one of Bergoglio's favourites, should surprise nobody.

A few weeks previously, I had written that we should expect Bergoglio to come up with a major heresy after he had attacked eugenics and abortion (and according to some gmarriage) in a speech to a pro-family organisation in Italy. Bergoglio did not take long to prove me right and on a flight back from Geneva to celebrate and promote ecumenism (nothing more than NOChurch speak for religious indifferentism), he informed us that  local bishops should decide on intercommunion. This, of course, came just several weeks after the Vatican had stopped the Germans from issuing intercommunion guidelines.

Not content with promoting heresy, Bergoglio once again proved himself to be a liar when he claimed that he only found out about the Amoris Laetitia dubia through the media  neo-Catholics took realised was an outright lie , an assertion which even neo-Catholics took realised was an outright lie and traditionalists found it as  more proof (if any were needed)  that Bergoglio is a petty idiot. Even if we somehow manage to convince ourselves that he was telling the truth, we are left with the fact that he is a heretic and a disgrace because it has been almost 2 years now since the dubia was issued, so he has no excuse for defending Church teaching. Instead, the has clarified time and time again that he wanted to teach heresy.

With Bergoglio, one can almost always expect bad to dovetail into sheer absurdity, and so it was when he declared not too long afterwards that consecrated virgins no longer have to be virgins, among other craziness, in yet more Bergoglio legislation designed to destroy religious life. He is relentless on attacking consecrated religious life.

It should therefore not surprise us that over in Germany, NOChurch central, Bergoglio's fellow ingrates are doing the same thiung. We were informed that Cdl. Marx is making himself the enemy of monasteries and Nuns. In the most recent example, he closed a convent and appropriated to himself all of its property. You see, it's not enough for NOChurch officials to destroy religious life, they must also destroy materially all religious institutions. That might actually be why they continue to allow the largely homosexual abuse of minors to continue in the Church, while turning many seminaries into little more than sodomital orgies conventions. The resulting lawsuits ensure that the Church loses her material wealth, on top of the moral capital that is flushed down the drain when these revelations come to light.

Speaking of which, the McCarrick scandal continues, and wouldn't you know, that particular pervert had received a well-deserved “Spirit Of Francis Award” from his fellow sodomy-pusher Bergoglian Cardinal Cupich of Chicago, previously of destroying St. John Cantius' founder fame, mentioned above.

NOChurch has been nothing short of a disaster, if we assume that it was brought about to safeguard Catholicism - a dubious assertion at best. Formerly fertile Catholic lands have turned to wastelands, and nowhere is this better illustrated than in Ireland, which has hopped from one public apostasy to another. The Catholic World Report ran a piece titled May 25th was the burial, not the death, of “Catholic Ireland” and it is difficult to argue. For the more argumentative types, however, we had news which can only be categorised in the "just when you thought things can't get any worse" category. You see, at a  Mass in Ireland, with the priest not showing up - a priest shortage is another of NOChurch's most...

From Russia with love - the coolest award in the whole wide world - Sunday 17th to Saturday 23rd of June

With so much bad news going around it is rarely that I get a chance to lead with a positive story, so when one comes along I sometimes feel duty-bound to start with it. That is certainly the case this week. It deals with family, and introduces what turned out to be a rather family-centric entry.

Given the general malaise in the Western world in general and in what can loosely be termed as Latin Rite countries, it should surprise few that the good news come from outside the Western world, from good old Mother Russia. You see, they have what must be the coolest award in the world in Russia titled "The Order of Parental Glory" and it is given to the father and mother who have raised large families well. If my understanding of the award is correct, we have different winners from different regions of Russia, which presumably is why some families will be much smaller than others. Most of the families will have 8 or more children.

This year's award presentation is embedded below:

whereas last year's, the first I watched, is to be found below:

The event took place some while back but what occasioned me writing about it is an article on The Remnant titled "Putin Less Than Impressed with Culture of Death" .

Before I proceed I would like you to pause for a bit, and realise just how far ahead Russia is compared to all Western countries when it comes to social cohesion and the promotion of decent societal values.

In the West, and especially since the Second Vatican Council, there has been a well-funded drive to destroy any vestiges of  commonality, of common values, of ancestral heritage, of natural existence, of natural law and of course of Christianity in favour of individualism, multiculturalism, mutli-religiosity, atheism and the idea that each and every one ought to decide what is good for himself, and that the state cannot get involved in promoting what is good, unless one can put monetary value on it - and not even that, if what is good monetarily gets in the way of the sexual revolution or zionism, or seems to evoke Christian values.

Can you imagine such an award in Sweden, with the king presenting large families with awards based on the fact that the parents have managed to stay together, conceive , bring to term and raise a large number of children? I certainly can't. For one, the awards hall would probably be full of Somali families (more on that later), with the odd Laestadians, and perhaps one traditional Catholic family once every few years (although I doubt Catholics would ever qualify). Secondly, it wouldn't be long before the king bowed to pressure from feminists and homosexualists to include single women with multiple children from multiple sperm donors (which is what men have been reduced to in Sweden), and of course, sodomites with their artificially-conceived children. Soon afterwards, it would probably devolve to parents with 1-2 children, and perhaps even none, as there would also be pressure to show that marriage has nothing to do with children. It would probably not be long before zoo animals would qualify, and they would probably be more deserving that most of the other recipients.

Swedish society is simply messed up and there is no way in which the king, however inclined he may be, would get away with promoting families, unless it was pseudo-families with the award quickly turning into one big depravity fest, more depraved for every year.

Could you imagine Donald Trump doing it in the U.S.? I can't, for he would probably be accused of one phobia or another, of wanting to destroy the planet with humans, of wanting to chain women to kitchen sinks, of taking his cue directly from Putin with the 'logic' that since Putin encourages large families in Russia, an encouragement of large families in the U.S. is somehow doing Putin's bidding. In fact, the only reason I could see this possibly ever happening is because Donald Trump seems to enjoy nothing more than annoying and agitating leftists, so the jury is out on whether Trump would do this given that it aligns with one of his few passions. That, of course, assumes that Donald Trump would even want to promote family life, a contentious point at best.

In any case, where we can imagine him doing  it or not, we ought to be able to count on the condemnation of much of academia and the mass media, given how decadent these institutions have become. By this time, it ought to be certain that a number of Catholic bishops would probably get in the act of condemning it, and maybe even the pope - or whatever Bergoglio is.

Neither can one realistically expect the queen of England or the president of France to do such things, for the very same reasons I have outlined above. The less said about the president of Germany the better. Both Poland and Italy seem to have governments which are willing and even working towards raising the birth rate, but I cannot envision either of their political rulers doing such a thing.

So now we can see just what a wonderful - in the true sense of the word - thing it is when the political ruler of a country gets in front of everyone and declares "We are going to promote the family, and we are going to promote large families!" None of that breeding-like-rabbits and great irresponsibilities talk that Bergoglio has thrown about at the mention of large families.

For all of Russia's ills - and the highest abortion rate in the world has to count as the very worst - it is still a nation of old, with  a ruler who is expected to look out for the best interests of the country, not only for the short-term so as to ensure his re-election,...

Beware of NOChurch cardinals, especially when they come saying the Tridentine Mass - Sunday 10th to Saturday 16th of June

In a week which contained a lot of major news from the secular world, it might seem odd that my highlights are to do with an event that didn't even take this week - the Chartres pilgrimage. My primary concern is for the Church, for only the Church can save the world, and with that in mind I shall go on to address some of the events on the Chartes pilgrimage.

It is rather significant that the Chartres pilgrimage has become so famous. I had not even heard of it until som 4 years ago or so, but I shall have to agree with Michael Matt that it is one of the most significant events taking place in the Church today, although in his case he plainly states that it is the most significant, with which I do not quite agree. Along with its increasing profile, the mass has attracted higher profiles of celebrants. Last year it was Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is probably the closest thing we have right now to a champion of the faith. When Cardinal Burke celebrated though, it was without a position in the Curia, having been unceremoniously kicked out of his position as the head of the Apostolic Signatura (the Church's highest court) so that Bergoglio could railroad his full-throttled assault on marriage through easy annulments and sacreligious Communion.

This year's celebrant, therefore, would have to count as the most high-profile yet. In Cardinal Sarah, we had the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, the man in charge of not only the Mass but the administration of all sacraments. Yes, there are bureaucratically speaking other higher-profiled cardinals - the secreatary of state comes to mind - and even with regards to Catholicity the prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith ranks higher. However, in his capacity as head of worship, he ranks second only to the pope, so one is entitled to say that they don't come much higher than Cardinal Sarah. Also in terms of standing up for the faith, Cardinal Sarah is one of only 2 cardinals under the age of 80 - the other being Cardinal Burke - who have consistently stood up against efforts to water down the faith, or to outright corrupt the faith (however tepidly).

It was therefore with great sadness that I read a piece written by Peter Kwasniewski titled Traditional Clergy: Please Stop Making “Pastoral Adaptations”. It quickly became clear that the piece was about the final High Mass at the Chartres pilgrimage, of which Cardinal Sarah had been the main celebrant. Among the 'pastoral adaptations' on show was reading both the Epistle and the Gospel in French, instead of Latin, and not bothering with having the proper orientations when reading Sacred Scripture, instead turning towards the people, and not even bothering to chant but rather speaking it out instead. These were grave liturgical abuses. It is unclear who was in charge of these abuses - the master of ceremony, the local bishop, or the cardinal are all potential agents. What cannot be denied, however, was that in perhaps the most prominent Tridentine Mass in the world today, we were being confronted with a very well-orchestrated Novusordoisation, and that ought to trouble us all.

If there is anything that the Novus Ordo has taught us, it is that slippery slopes are real, and once embarked upon one will quickly find oneself close to the bottom. It is therefore inexcusable that at the most prominent Tridentine Mass the celebrants would embark upon the same slippery slope which led us to where we are in NOChurch today, i.e., little if any reverence at Mass, with priests who treat the Mass as if it is their plaything, and laity who froth in anger at hearing that there are authentic Catholic alternatives. Another point that Dr. Kwasniewski made which is worth repeating is that Latin is the language of the Church, and the Chartres pilgrimage is the most international pilgrimage that we have today. It therefore makes little sense to have the readings in French when many of the attendees will be non-French. They could, if they so wished, read out in Latin according to the rubrics and then afterwards read in French (which is allowed by Ecclesia Dei, it turns out, although even that is a slippery slope) but that's not what they did. In other words, I am quite certain that whoever made the decision did it knowing full well that it was against the liturgical laws and against the spirit of the Tridentine Mass, yet did it anyway, perhaps to force the point that the Tridentine Mass has to get along with the Novus Ordo mass.

This being NOChurch times, of course, not everyone was upset. As I have previously mentioned, Catholics as a whole have lost the ability to get angry at anything directed against the faith. In "WHEREIN ROBERT CARDINAL SARAH GETS IT RIGHT AND FATHER Z DOESN'T " (I've no idea why he insists on capital letters for his headlines), a response to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's Why we Say The Black and Do The Red, which was in turn a commentary on what Dr. Kwasniewski had wrriten , Fr. Allan McDonald chimed in that Cardinal Sarah was right to make adaptations in order to get people to feel at home, once again showing that the Novus Ordo has poisoned the minds of even many of those who say the Tridentine Mass occasionally. We don't adapt the Mass to ourselves; rather we adapt ourselves to the Mass, and the arguments he was making were well-adressed in Dr. Kwasniewski's original piece, which it seems blew completely over his head.

The best commentary on Fr. McDonald's piece came from Henry , who wrote:

A single instance of vernacular abuse, as at Chartres, is not a big deal. No doubt God will survive the desacralization of a couple of moments in this one Mass, and the

...

Bergoglio outdoes himself in Bergoglian mercy, this time back in his old stomping ground - Sunday 3rd to Saturday 9th of June

This will have to be one of my shorter entries, as I have fallen hopelessly behind schedule in my commentaries. I shall attempt to limit myself to this week's Bergoglian attack on the Church - every week has one - as well as the most important news otherwise.

As we are all well aware by now, Ireland is no longer a Catholic country, and in fact has not been for a while. In Ireland: A Chronology of De-Christianization, ChurchMilitant.tv attempted to chronicle various low-points which led to where we now find ourselves.

Some have not given up on saving the lives of unborn in Ireland, however, and Another big rig in Ireland mentions that there were many irregularities with the referendum, to the extent that some are calling it rigged. As proof of this, the author cites the large discrepancy between the polling data and the outcome. I have no doubt that the elitists would have rigged it had they felt it necessary, I just doubt that it would have been necessary to do so. This is, after all, the same country which voted for sodomitical unions just some 2 or so years ago. It is the same country which has a sodomite as its political ruler, an elected one at that to boot. Having voted for one of the 4 sins which cry out to Heaven, it is rather fanciful to think that the Irish would not want to complete the set and vote in another one.

As if to emphasise my point, Eamon Martin, an archbishop, came out after the referendum and said that abortion should be "safe and rare" - not necessarily a direct quote. He had to walk back those words but it is nonetheless instructive that a Catholic - and I use that word extremely loosely - prelate uses the language of abortionists in response to the referendum. The very fact that protection of the unborn was removed from the constitution does not in itself mean that the battle is over. His duty should have been to make it known that Catholics are obliged to oppose legalising abortion. Alas, we have one of our effeminates mouthing off support for the culture of death.

At this point I am forced to ask: Would anyone follow this guy? Part of the problem with NOChurch is that it has given us such spineless leaders that one is ashamed to say as a Catholic that these people represent any form of hierarchy. Can anyone actually see himself lining up behind Martin in a sort of campaign for the common good? Why is it that NOChurch popes think that being an effeminate non-believer is some sort of qualification for being a bishop? It's no wonder a lot of people think that priestesses  can be acceptable clerics.

It is not all doom and gloom though, and I was happy to see that the Portuguese parliament rejected euthanasia. It is a sad state of affairs though when it is the communists who come to the aid of  Catholic values in what was a Catholic country just 2 generations ago.

After much consternation, the Vatican released a document saying that the Church in Germany ought not to proceed with issuing heretical guidelines which would allow protestants to receive Holy Communion. The term "heretical", is of course, one I added myself, since this term seems to have been forbidden in the 1960s even for the most obvious of heresies. The Germans were, true to form, most displeased at having to hold off on their sacrilege jumboree. The point to take home in all of this, however, is that Bergoglio only informed the Germans that it was inopportune to do it, not that it was wrong. In other words, it is a bit too early to celebrate! Wait for this one to come back to the forefront when Bergoglio finds his moment!

Whether the prohibition of sacrilege at the hands ordained ministers is cause for celebration, is obviously another matter entirely, but these are desperate times, and there is so little good news to go around.

In the Diocese of Buffalo in the U.S., a couple which attends SSPX services was barred from acting as Godparents . So much for reaching out to the peripheries.

Staying on the theme of the U.S., but this time in the secular realm, we were informed by the 9-man junta which runs the country - the supreme court - that a  baker does not have to bake a cake for a sodomite pair  which enters his bakery. Most of us would call this common sense, but the decision is not the victory of common sense that some have made it out to be. From what I have been able to understand, the supreme court found that a lower court had been openly prejudicial against religious arguments in siding with the sodomites. My reading is that if the civil rights court had not been as openly hostile to the baker's religious motivations, the decision would have stood. At the very least, it is unlikely to think that 7 of the judges would have come to the baker's aid in those circumstances, although we can still hope it would have been a 5-4 decision on the side of sanity (or what's left of it in the Western world anyway).

Finally, I would like to conclude with another act of Bergoglian mercy. It turns out that there is a bishop in Argentina who did not see eye-to-eye with Bergoglio in his time there. This was the bishop of La Plata - apparently an important see in Argentina - Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer. This bishop reached the arbitrary age of 75, which NOChurch has set as the age of sending in one's resignation letter to the pope. To the surprise of nobody, the resignation was accepted immediately. This is where things really get interesting...

His hypocrisy  Bergoglio then had the bishop...

Novus Ordo is to Catholicism what the West is to Christendom - Sunday 27th of May to Saturday 2nd of June

This was a very eventful week; in fact, far too eventful for me to do it any justice, especially having fallen so far behind my weekly reviews that I am forced to be brief. I shall therefore only pick out 2-3 stories which I found to be of paramount importance, and anything beyond that will get a simple passing mention.

For honourable mentions alone, I must begin with Cardinal Sarah who in his homily at Chartres told us that "The West Has Nothing to Offer but Emptiness", at least as headlined by Gloria.tv. I must admit to not yet having read the whole transcript but these are sobering words, for several reasons.

The most important reason is that his words are the bitter truth. When Cardinal Sarah said that “the Western society, chosing to organize itself without God, has fallen into lies and selfishness”, he was only saying what any open-eyed Catholic can tell from reading the news, or looking around, or reading various statistics. He then went on to state that Western society “has embraced the craziest ideologies and has become the target of an ethical terroism more destructive than the terror of the Islamists.” That is a point I have made too many times to recall, and often ended up in heated conversations about it.

The fact of the matter is that the suicidal policies of the West - and I don't simply mean the governments alone here - are what has brought the Western world to the edge of destruction. It's not Islamists who got the West to kill off a vast number of their children. It is not Islamists who got the West to squander the investments of their forefathers and get itself into a debt it is unlikely to ever climb out of peacefully. It is not Islamists who turned men against women, women against men, women against children, people against their very nature. It is not Islamists who destroyed the great heritage of Christianity in Europe, and even the Americas. All these things have been done by Westerners. Granted, they have been driven by the rulers of Western states, but with every missed Mass, with every modern interpretation of ancient wisdom, with every vote cast for a morally dubious candidate, with every bomb dropped unjustly, the West has turned itself into the enemy of the very Christendom which built it, and I feel, has brought itself beyond the point of salvation.

Virtually all of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century all originated from the West , be it all-out homosexualism, transgenderism, feminism, communism, nazism, freemasonry, warmongering, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, the killing of the unborn, the killing of infants (although China gets a dishounourable mention here), the killing of the elderly and I am sure the list could go on and on.

It has become common among many so-called Alt-Right or generally 'conservative'-leaning people to proclaim the West is best without specifying what is good in the first place. If an alien landed on Earth today and used Christian metrics to measure a society's standing, I can assure all that the West would not indeed be best. If another alien was to use metcis of sustainability - and I don't even mean eco-stuff, but simple demographics - the West would not be best. If yet another alien was to use metrics of economic sustainability, even there the West would not be best. If yet another alien was to use more natural law metrics, such as quality of family life, value of human life, number of friends, or what not, the West would trail even here. The warmongering NATO would also drag the West down on any metrics measuring peaceability.

In fact, the only area in which the West is clearly best is that which has to do with self-indulgence, but it is precisely due to winning this particular 'award' that the West trails on so many other fronts.

Christendom was the best culture. The West is the monster that chewed up Christendom and is trying to dump what remains of it in the deepest sewer it can find. The sooner we realise that, the better.  We must never conflate 'the West' with Christendom for the former is a morally decrepit empty shell of a society with very bad future prospects, whereas the latter is what built up virtually all the good that we enjoy today. Europe without Christianity is likely to be no different than the Soviet Union - a cold, sterile, ugly, violent, hateful place.

The sooner we work to restore Christendom, the sooner Europe can in any honest sense attempt to reclaim moral or even existential superiority.

It has escaped nobody's attention that the Irish voted to remove legal protections for the unborn. This means that before long the sodomitical prime minister of theirs will be able to introduce legislation to kill all the unborn, if he so desires. No doubt he will play it safe by introducing an age limit on those who can be killed, but we can expect this to be the top of the slippery slope. I am not going to waste much time on this, except to state that this is yet another win for the Novus Ordo. Everything the Novus Ordo touches, it kills, and Ireland is the best example of that.

As the author of the piece May 25th was the burial, not the death, of “Catholic Ireland” notes and as I have mentioned many times before, the Catholic Church runs most of the schools in Ireland. According to the piece, 93% of primary schools are run by the Catholic Church. This means that virtually each and every one of those people who voted to kill the unborn will have been touched by NOChurch in no meaningless way.

Ireland is not the Novus Ordo done badly, but the Novus Ordo done well, almost to perfection. This is what the Novus Ordo does: It kills the faith, then poisons society, then destroys the...

The Bergoglio revolution streamrolls its way through the College of Cardinals - Sunday 20th-Saturday 26th of May

The world's 'humblest' attention whore certainly got his money's worth this week, because he was all over the headlines.

We were informed that Bergoglio has named 14 new cardinals, from 11 countries. I don't know much about any of them, apart from Ladaria, the CDF prefect, who will now be made cardinal. I do get suspicious of anybody who Bergoglio thinks worthy of being a cardinal, knowing the sort of types with whom he surrounds himself. With this set of appointments, I am quite certain that more than half of all cardinals eligible to vote for a new pope will have been appointed by Bergoglio.

This is obviously cause for concern, and I am not alone in worrying about this. In The Silence Of The Cowardinals Creates More FrancisCardinals , Mundabor makes the valid  point that the dubia cardinals have helped facilitate this, bu vacillating on their correction. With every new cardinal, Bergoglio gets closer to making his mark on the church more long-lasting, and the cardinals lose any numbers they might have been able to marshall.

At least those 4 cardinals tried, is all I can say about that. It was always going to be a tough call to expect manhood from a bunch who for at least 60 years has been selected and promoted on effiminacy.

As if that wasn't enough, the world's most well-known sodomy pusher had the galls to tell a victim of clerical sexual abuse that God had made him a sodomite, and that he was happy for him to remain that way; Bergoglio, as one would expect, taking the time to add spiritual abuse to the sexual abuse that the man had received. Of course, he didn't use the word sodomite, but 'gay', as is par for the course for the perverted. I'll not waste your time dissecting that, as common sense should suffice to realise just how absurd and evil this notion is. It gets even more absurd in the context of something else which the most hypocritical pope in history said. You see, he came out and said later that homosexuals cannot enter seminary. Gloria.tv reported it thus:

If bishops’ have “the slightest doubt” that a young man is homosexual, it’s “better” not to let him enter the seminary, Pope Francis said in a closed door meeting with the Italian bishops.

This was enough for one of the commenter's to respond:

It seems, they only let them enter if their homosexuality is certain

Indeed, given the amount of statements and actions that Bergoglio has made in favour of homosexuality, one cannot draw any other conclusion.

There is something else troubling about this episode, on top of the obvious one of having a pope pushing the sin of sodomy when it is obvious to many that he is more than likely himself a sodomite. The problem I have is that this episode rather perfectly demonstrates the kind of nonsense which we have come to expect from NOChurch.

If homosexuality is a gift from God, then it can only be good. If this gift is good, and God wills it that way, then it is difficult to see why sodomites should be excluded from the seminary. I accept that we can find a way around it, but I would much rather have Bergoglio explaining how something can simultaneously be a gift from God, yet be something that ought to be denied service to the wider Church. Instead, those who defend this kind of waffle are left trying to reconcile two evidently irreconcilable statements, and yet claiming that the errors are on the part of those who cannot make sense of it.

Possibly in response to this, Cardinal Müller took the time to inform us that homophobia does not exist, and is a totalitarian invention. I naturally agree with this sentiment, but if it is at something Bergoglio has said, it would be only fair to drag Bergoglio's name into it. Another example of avoiding the widest elephant in the room could be seen with Arhbishop Chaput accusing Cardinal Marx of inserting “a lie” into the intercommunion debate. Again, this is just picking at low-lying fruit, when there is a very clear target in sight.

It is utterly sickening watching grown-up men playing the part of teenage girls talking on social media behind their friends, behind inuendos and smileys. It is obvious that all the confusion we have right now is because of Bergoglio, yet even the few who address these problems seem hell-bent on pretending that they do not originate from the pervert-in-chief. They really ought to man up or shut up because they are hardly doing anyone any good. In 20 years, nobody will remember a speech they held in a place probably torn down by them to in reference to a cardinal who will probably long have been brought down by scandal. If they were to speak directly against the most dangerous man against the faith today, in clear unambiguous terms , chances are they would at the very least get a not-too-dishonourable mention.

The zionists continue to kill Palestinians in Palestine. As I mentioned last week, the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem, and protests which had begun even before then have only got more heated. The victims among the Palestinians have piled up as the Israelis continue to shoot practically anything that moves, in full knowledge of the fact that the U.S. will cover up for any crimes they commit. In Gaza Massacre Exposes Western Hypocrisy on Russia’s ‘Annexation’ of Crimea, the Ron Paul Institute re-printed an article on precisely this point.

Not to get left behind by the anti-Russian propaganda train, the Swedish something in charge of civil readiness something (blah blah blah) printed a pamphlet on  disaster preparation or some such thing. In something which would be a strong contestant for the fakest news of the year award, the pamphlet told us that...

Chessehead Doland does what he does best, making a fool out of himself and mocking the Church yet again - Sunday 6th of May to Saturday 12th of May

This week's entry will be quite brief, as I have fallen far behind my blogging schedule.

It would be tempting to begin with political matters given that there were some momentous ones this week, but I'll choose to highlight the Met Gala disgrace officiated by Cheesehead Doland with a lot of help from the Vatican.

For anyone who may have missed it, there was a charity gala in New York. This year it was termed "Heavenly Bodies", with a sub-title too long for me to remember and too ridiculous for me to look up. In any case, the Vatican lent some garments and items to the exhibition. The museum itself had some scandalous garments on display, some portraying priestesses' clothes inspired by real priests' attire. The biggest scandal, however, was reserved for the red carpet, when the celebrities paraded in scandalous Catholic-related garments, each more ridiculous than the last, each more blasphemous than the last.

Many were outraged and righly so. Cheesehead Dolan, however, informed us that he saw nothing offensive and nobody out to mock the Church. His sodomitical Jesuit priest buddy Martin followed suit, ecstatic about the blasphemies which the world had witnessed. Cardinal Ravasi represented the Vatican in this horror show. He's head of some pontifical something in charge or culture or some stuff.

Some were keen to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt, insisting that it was not certain that the Vatican was informed of the scandal that the world was about to see, proving yet again that those who defend the NOChurch hierarchy are even more cruel towards the hierarchy than those who attack them. We think they are simply weak, populist, vain and possibly evil, whereas these folks think they are simply mind-numbingly stupid. When the best excuse someone can come up with is that you're a total moron, chances are that they are fooling themselves into that defence.

In any case, Cheesehead Cardinal Dolan soon put paid to that notion with his insistence that he saw nothing blasphemous or mocking. In other words, what he was saying, and the Vatican with him, was that they would have done the very same thing had they had the opportunity. After all, why not, if they saw nothing offensive? They even got to rub shoulders and cleavage with some of the most glamorous women in the entertainment industry, an offer too good for them to refuse for sure.

Many were quick to say: "Imagine if this had been Islam!", "Would they ever do that with Islam?" To that I must once again reply that if the ayatollah of Iran, or indeed any ayatollah, granted me the permission to mock Islam as freely as Cheesehead Dolan and the Vatican did, I would do it to no end. However, they don't, nor should they. They at least pretend to respect the religion they claim to follow at the very least, which is more than we can say about our evidently mainly apostate hierarchy.

The blame cannot and must not fall on the atheist Christianity-hating entertainment industry, which we all know detests Christianity anyway; it has to fall firmly on the shoulders of the Vatican and cheesehead himself for allowing this to happen and allowing themselves to be seen promoting it. If they are invited to a large and prominent mock-fest of Holy Mother Church, you can be sure they will join in, either out of stupidity or out of malice. I cannot, however, accept the notion that the bishops do these kinds of things out of sheer stupidity, unless you can convince me that they are so stupid that somebody dresses them in their robes because they are incapable (the few who still wear robes, let's not forget).

Let us at least give them the benefit of having chosen to betray Christ, instead of assuming that they were suckered into it by liposuctioned over-proportioned barely-clad heavily-cleavaged women!...Although at least in that scenario, these effeminate types would at least be drawn to women, so perhaps there is some charity there after all. I don't buy it in any case.

On the political front, Donald Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. It's hard to see who benefits from this, apart from the warmongers, of whom he is now very prominently a part, it has to be said. Tearing out agreements simply because your predecessor signed them, however incompetent, sodomitical and evil he may have been, is simply no way to behave if you want to make your country 'great again'. The Europeans have insisted that they will resist Trump, although I very much doubt it. After about 70 years of not having a spine, it is difficult to see the Europeans suddenly growing one, especially when they are led by pretty-much the most bought-and-sold unqualified political class to ever see the light of day.

I very much hope to be proved wrong on that.

Donald Trump then has the gall to say that he wants another deal. Who would sign another deal with him? Even if Trump was to keep it, his successor would probably come and rip it up anyway, judging from recent American precedent. Furthermore, which self-respecting country would want to join an agreement whose sole purpose seems to be its humiliation?

In the meantime, Donald Trump continues his warmongering against Iran, to the wild applause of the zionists in Palestine and Islamists in Saudi Arabia. The zionlist-Islamist alliance is strong indeed and Trump seems to be its figurehead.

One of many sad things about this is that as soon as Trump is no longer useful to whomever-he-has-sold-himself-out-to-serve, he will be discarded like a wet rag, given that there is no shortage of material to pin on him. That day may be coming sooner than anyone of us realise, because as useful as Trump has been to the congressional-military-industrial complex, they will never trust him because he is simply too unpredictable. At the first sign of...

Pages

Subscribe to Bergoglio victim-of-the-week