Bergogliovacantism

In the article On Francis and sedevacantism, Louie Verrechio laid out why Bergoglio must without doubt be considered a heretic. It is not only the sheer volume of his actions against the faith, but the fact that he obstinately persists in his errors despite very public corrections. He holds that Pope Benedict XVI is the real pope, although this has more to do with the strangeness surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's abdication and his subsequent life as "emeritus", with little incomprehensible statements issued from him from time to time. It is a piece worth reading.

He also called out a truly scandalous movie review by Greydanus, a regular visitor on Catholic Answers, at least when I used to listen to them, and if I am not mistaken, still a writter for the National Catholic Register. The movie has pederasty as its theme and the deacon did not condemn either the message or the movie, which raised some eyebrows. I used to think that the guests on Catholic Answers were orthodox Catholics, but I have to question that now. Truth be told though, he might have been orthodox before and become a scandal-rouser to emulate his pope. Either way, one more example of Novusordoism-in-action.

On the topic of Novusordoism, things have really been happening and the scandals keep coming so fast that I more or less have a hard time keeping up.

We have Cardinal Marx in Germany saying that the Church should bless homosexual relations/unions. What I think of Cardinal Marx ought not be written here, but let's just leave it at that he is obviously a sodomitical apostate. If we had any faith in NOChurch, we would have a whole raft of condemnations coming his way, but instead we have crickets. There has been some negative reaction from a few prelates in Germany, and we can assume that the normal gang of generally faithful cardinals and bishops are against, but the ones who really ought to address this - the Vatican - have been silent.

Mundabor wirtes that Cardinal Marx Should Be Defrocked Yesterday, to which I can only add that he perhaps ought to be tarred and feathered as well. If what some say about names is true - that the name of a child in large part determines his destiny - then we can surely note that in the case of Cardinal Marx at least, they have the very best evidence of their notion.

The sexual impropriety scandals regarding Bergoglio just keep coming. We have the Bishop Barros case in Chile, whose details are now coming to the fore, and even being picked up by the secular media, Bergoglio's most loyal allies to date. We can only hope that this will continue, because there is a whole treasure trove of scandals touchig Bergoglio for any journalists willing to do any slight amount of detective work. Of that I am entirely sure.

It would be very ironic, many have noted, if Bergoglio was to be brought down by a paedophilia scandal, given that the Barros affair is pretty much the least of the offences he has had against the faith. The secular world cares not for morality in the least, but it still manages to work itself into some sort of (false) outrage when paedophilia is concerned, , mainly, it would seem, so as to attack the Church and the wolves we have had within Her since the 1950s, who went unpunished.

Bergoglio, with his bottomless pit of perversion, only needed to stay clear of paedohilia, and the press would have lauded him every day of the week for doing so. Alas, the man is too much of an idiot to realise even that, so it would be the irony of ironies if Bergoglio, who ever since he was elected has done everything to sell out to secularism, was brought down by the only sin the secular world still manages to pretend that it condemns, by the very same secular world to which he has been pimping out the Church.

Did you know that "China is the best implementer of Catholic social doctrine"? Neither did I, and neither, I would bet, did the Chinese. Yet according to one of Bergoglio's sodomy-pushing entourage, this is precisely the case. This is, of course, the same country in which the unborn and the born alike are killed with impunity if they are born in the wrong order, or  are of the wrong sex, or fill-in-your-reason.

According to Sorondo though, since China implements Laudato Si laudably, they are the best implementers of Catholic social doctrine. We can disregard that they raze houses, put clergy under house arrest, murder the laity and ban children from attending Church; other than that they are exemplary Catholics.

It would not take a particularly conspiratorial mind to notice that what Sorondo is saying is that those who hate the Catholic faith the most are the ones to be emulated. I would argue that has been the very theme of this dreadful diabolical pontificate.

We were also informed that some cardinals had approved the 'miracle' attributed to Pope Paul VI required for his canonisation. Without divine intervention, we are therefore likely to be treated to yet another NOChurch pope canonised for loyalty to the revolution.

In "Vale Vatican II: Moving On", Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman argues that it is time we put Vatican II to rest and move on from it, given that everything about the council has been a failure at best, and more honestly speaking, a diabolical catastrophe. The theme was picked up and expounded by Brian Williams in "Time to Let Go of Vatican II".

Finally, some good news, with the Polish president having recently signed a bill which will outlaw Sunday trading. It is little more than Sunday Sanity, Mundabor tells us, as he writes about fond memories of his childhood in what was still a Catholic Italy. We should pray that the Sunday...

The term "Benedict option" is normarlly used to refer to a course of action which leads people away from the midst of a messy society and into seclusion, from where they can regroup and re-introduce sanity into the society. It refers to St. Benedict, the founder of Western monasticism, who did just that and whose monastic communities would go on to save the cultural inheritance of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire.

There was a book published not too long ago titled "The Benedict Option" in which an apostate - to Orthodoxy and who is said to be a self-promoter so I'll not mention his name or link to his articles- argues for much the same thing. The fact that St. Benedict strove to secure and promote the Catholic faith does not seem to faze the author, and some reviewers of the book have noted that without the authority of the Church, we would still end up with the same situation since a secluded society, even of moralists, would soon run into disputes about what was moral and what was not. Some would counter that by pointing to the fact that the Catholic Church - at least its earthly hierarchy - has been largely responsible for the destruction of morality in much of the world, a charge I do not dispute. Of course, NOChurch does by no means share the soul of the Catholic Church, but that's a topic for another day.

The biggest fallacy of the author seems to be the presupposition that a secluded society which insists on moral grounds would be left alone by the decadent world around it. There seems to be little grounds for that presupposition given that the modern state does not recognise any sphere in human affairs in which it is not entitled to not only interfere but actually dictate. In the future though, after this particularly self-destructive phase of Western civilisation (or what's left of it anyway) has crumbled, out of the ashes we might well end up having a Benedict option similar to the origial one, which rebuilds what's left of former Christendom.

However, I would like to argue that there does exist in these dark times of the Bergoglian papacy a real Benedict option which we cannot simply dismiss. It requires a re-definition of what is commonly known as the "Benedict option" and it refers rather to a pope, and not a monk, not withstanding the fact that this particular pope told us he would like the life of a monk, though he only manages to make a half-decent impression of one.

The pope in question, of course, is Pope Benedict XVI, and the real "Benedict option" is the notion that Bergoglio is not really the pope, but that Pope Benedict XVI is still the rightful pope.

This notion was popularised by Ann Barnhardt, who pursued it with the "tenacity of of a psychopath", to quote a very good moving which uses the those words to describe  a detective who pursues a very far-fetched theory in attempting to solve a murder of one of his colleagues, and manages to find the murderer in doing so,

As Bergoglio's manners have deteriorated towards total open depravity, more and more have bought into the notion that he is not pope. After all, isn't a Pope supposed to be Catholic? How can a Catholic poke fun at the Holy Trinity? How can a Catholic  insult the mother of God  - multiple times? How can a Catholic insult those who attempt to convert others to the one true faith, while praising some of the most immoral apostates in history in the process? How can a decent priest surround himself with sodomites and paedophile-enablers? How can a pope attack the sacred institution of marriage? How can a pope promote sodomy? How can an even half-decent Catholic shower praise at mass murderers and mass abortionists? How can an even moderately sub-intelligent human being advance the notion that youth unemployment is root cause of evil in the world today? How can a pope state that communists are the real Christians? I could go on and on and on, and on...

The simple answer to that is that Bergoglio is not Catholic, and more or less the only people who believe that Bergoglio is Catholic are the neo-Catholics of the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-or-pretend-it-is-good-if-the-pope-does-it Novus Ordite variety. Most traditionalists, I would argue, have realised that Bergoglio is not pope, and most non-Catholics who follow the man realise that he also is not Catholic, which is why it is popular among modernists and leftists to openly state that Bergoglio is attempting to completely revamp the Church but is being held back by conservatives and resisters (i.e., that he is not Catholic). In fact, Bergoglio has used much the same words, as have a few of his closest collaborators.

In claiming that Bergoglio is not Catholic, I am naturally counting as Catholic someone who actually believes in the Catholic faith, in Holy Mother Church as the Church divinely instituted by Christ, and one who desires to further her divinely-commissioned purpose: the salvation of souls. Strictly speaking, of course, a Catholic is anybody baptised into the Catholic Church by either baptism or blood. That allows us to use a more theological than cultural definition, while also allowing us to rule out as Catholics such as Martin Luther, Adolf Hitler, Arius and the like, who in a strict application of the term are simply bad Catholics and not non-Catholics.

The basic premise is this: The Church is a communion of faith, and those who deviate or reject even a portion of the faith find themselves outside this communion. Our heretic-in-chief has rejected a large chunk of the faith. Truth be told, it would be difficult to point to any aspect of the Catholic faith that he actually accepts. The only thing he seems to embrace papal authority, albeit with a totally faulty conception of it and its duties, because he really only seems to...