Christopher A. Ferrara

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...

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...

Fidelity to the Church, and not to perverted shepherds - Sunday 31st of December, 2017 to Saturday 6th of January, 2018

This entry covers the last day of last year and the first few days of this year. It is indeed fitting that it covers the last day of last year because an event took place on that day that could well set the tone for the year in the Church.

Over in Kazakhstan, 3 bishops issued a profession of fidelity towards the teaching of the Church and against Bergoglio's heresies in Amoris Laeitia. It was a very direct attack on Bergoglio's teaching, and although it did not attack Bergoglio by name, everyone took it as a direct attack on Bergoglio himself.

Those 3 bishops have now been joined by 4 other retired ones, including 1 cardinal, from Latvia. It is sad that no other active bishops have joined in the profession, but I suppose we would not have expected anything else really, given the sad state of NOChurch. Truth be told, if the number rises to about 100 bishops then it won't matter whether none of the other signatories are in activey ministry.

There are some who feel that the profession should have called out Bergoglio for his heresies directly, and I am not inclined to disagree. However, it is a good step, and far more than the dubia cardinals have been doing. If nothing else it will be one more large nail into the coffin of Bergoglio, in the condemnation which will surely come once the Church regains her sanity.

Speaking of dubia cardinals: Not content with Bergoglio having stayed silent on the dubia presented to him, Cardinal Brandmüller has now answered his own dubia! Good grief, just when you thought the dubia circus couldn't get any more comical!

Look, there is not a single even half-decently informed Catholic who was in any doubt as to what the faithful answers to those dubia were. If this is the cardinal's attempt to draw a line under the whole dubia episode then he really will come out of it looking like a clown.

We were informed that the dubia cardinals would issue a formal correction, an event which is still a coming attraction. If the dubia cardinals were trying to bluff Bergoglio then it is one of history's greatest failures, because unless they issue a formal correction, now that Bergoglio has been very forthright in what his intentions are, they will in history be known as not the dubia cardinals but the duped cardinals, or the cardinals who huffed and puffed but couldn't do anything when it counted. At worst, they could come to be known as false opposition.

As I have written before, whatever their intentions, they have been acting as the false opposition already. Perhaps finally tired of the dubia cardinal's formal non-opposition, the Kazakhstan bishops felt they had to do something on their own. Right now the dubia cardinals are looking like attention-seeking clowns; cowardly failures of the highest degree. If they don't want that to continue they need to either keep quiet or issue a formal correction. Nothing else will do at this point in time.

Of course, the path towards the disastrous Bergoglio pontificate started a long time ago, and the most sutitable starting point is with Vatican II, started as it was by an popularity-seeking pope and ended by a very strange pope in the figure of Paul VI. It is this strange pope that is the subject of the newest NOChurch canonisations, as it is rumoured he will be canonised soon. Many wonder what this will mean for the Novus Ordo Missae and over at Novus Motus Liturgicus, it is argued that it will not mean much since many popes who have been canonised have had their legislation pulled back at a later date. I think he is too optimistic, and we can count on the Novus Ordites to constantly sing the praises of the Novus Ordo since they will now have a 'saint' as its promulgator. Louie Verrechio argues that his canonisation cannot come soon enough, for reasons he is better off elucidating than I. Hint: He is no fan of the man.

On the topic of Paul VI, I stumbled upon a very interesting article on akaCatholic which discussed the Church's stance on homosexuality and how this changed under this pope; I had not been aware that it had changed. It was rumoured at the time he was living, from many socialites, that he himself was a sodomite. I only became aware of these allegations by reading the article and I must admit that I had never heard such stories before. The claims are substantiated though so it would seem as though a lot of people in Rome and beyond thought he had a homosexual past at the very least. This does not seem as though it can be put down to the sodomites trying to claim every one as their own, given the diversity of the claimants.

If this man is canonised, this is one which is likely to be used further on to show that NOChurch canonisations were dubious, defective and done for the wrong reasons. I suspect it is more than likely that it will be one more bullet in the arsenal against NOChurch, once the Catholic Church regains her sanity, and I have no doubt the she will, and that NOChurch will come to be condemned and the appropriate lessons learned from it's reign.

Let's face it: Bergoglio is not the only sub-standard NOChurch pope. I stumbled upon a story in which the former Gahanian President Kufour states that he received a pontifical knighthood from Pope John Paul II himself, despite having explained that he was a freemason. I am the last person who defends Bergoglio as I think the man is exactly as evil as he seems, but it is injust to lay the blame of NOChurch apostasy all, or even principally, on that Argentinian pervert. There is plenty of blame to go...

Pages

Subscribe to Christopher A. Ferrara