ChurchMilitant.tv

More dubious canonisations: Heads decency loses, tails perversion wins - Sunday 7th to Saturday 27th of October

We had yet another dubious NOChurch canonisation, as Pope Paul VI was canonised by Bergoglio, the man who seems to want to attack Humanae Vitae - pretty much the only thing Pope Paul VI did somewhat right, just about. The miracles attributed to Paul VI are as dubious as his character, but that didn't stop NOChurch from counting them as genuine, and using them as proof for his sanctity; these people are nothing if not relentless in their quest to destory all things Catholic.

Needless to say, real Catholics did not take this lightly. The SSPX issued a statement issued questioning it. Peter Kwasnieski went even further, and explained Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint’. Louie Verrechio, in his own particular way, had his take on this queer man being raised to the altars. I have no idea what NOChurch media wrote about this, but I am quite certain it was entirely uncritical.

With so many canonisations, and so many dubious, people have begun to wonder: What exactly are we to think of canonisations? Does it mean the same thing? Are we bound to accept these things? How come there are so many of them nowadays and every pope seems to get a halo as his retirement present. Well, Canonization: Old vs. New Comparison in Unam Sanctam Catholicam attempted to show us what has changed and it shows clearly that whereas the old process was concerned with the integrit of the process, the integrity of the faith, the new one seems to be more interested in expediting the process, and not so concerned with anything which might slow or halt a canonistaion.

Part of the problem with the McCanonisations, is that we often do not get to evaluate objectively what was done, as much of the information is still hidden. The McCarrick scandal, for instance, has done much to cloud John Paul II's legacy, since it has come to light that there were warnings about McCarrick long before he got made cardinal, and that he was promoted in spite of these warnings. We were informed by ChurchMilitant.tv that the Vatican is gigging the McCarrick Investigation so as to place the blame on Pope John Paul II, now sainted by NOChurch's saint factory, and deflect attention away from Bergoglio - soon-to-be-sainted by said factory. Mundabor saw in this proof that Bergoglio is clearly an atheist, arguing that no true Catholic would canonise someone and then question the man's virtues after he had been canonised. I shall not waste your time in pointing out that Bergoglio is not Catholic at all, since that much should be obvious from what I have written many times on this blog, but I agree with Mundabor that this can count as proof.

My take on that is the following: This is a classic case of Bergoglian intrigue. It's a case of "heads, I win; tails, you lose". By this I mean that Bergoglio wins his greater plan to destroy the Catholic faith no matter how it turns out if he implicates Pope John Paul II in the McCarrick scandal, and the stronger the implication, the stronger his victory, and there is a connection to Pope Paul VI here as well. Let me explain...

It is no secret that Bergoglio is partial to sodomy. There are strong reports that Pope Paul VI at least before he became pope was involved in sodomitical relationships of the homosexual nature. If it turns out that Pope Paul VI is definitely proved to have done this, then now that he is a 'saint', what Bergoglio will have done is to create the space for him to claim that homosexuality is no big deal, since even some saints were homosexual. If, however, it turns out that the blowback is so large, then he can tar all canonisations by saying that canonisations are not infallible, are not trustworthy, and therefore the Catholic faiith has no certainties. It is the same with McCarrick: If you pin the blame on Pope John Paul II, then you  say thatt McCarrick's perversions either were not that grave, or failinng that, that Pope John Paul II was a flawed pope, who still managed to become a saint, and therefore we can be as flawed as we like and still manage to become saints. One can expect him too caption it "canonisation is  medicine for a fall world, not a prize for the perfect", just as he does with Holy Communion.

So what are we to do, given all these canonisations, a large chunck of tthem highly dubious? Well, a piece on either Rorate Caeli or Novus Motus Liturgicus tackled this issue head on. The conclusion was that perhaps we do not need to take an all-or-nothing approach. Although the Church does not define canonisations as infallible, certainly not within the scope of the dogma of infallibility, we can still maintain that pre-Vatican II canonisations are infallible, while those after the process was changed are not infallible. If the intention and the matter of canonisation has changed, then surely this cannot be without consequence for how we approach them.

The zionists in occupied Palestine continued their aggression. It was in many ways inevitable, as not having Syria as a playground for their airforce, they were bound to find other victims for Etheir murderous appetites . Donald Trump withdrew from yet another treaty, this time the INF Treaty, yet again proving that he will stop at nothing to placate the war party, contrary to his many statements on the campaign trail speaking of a responsible foreign policy. There were reports that the U.S. helped coordinate the drone attack on Russia's aribase in Syria earlier this year , really to the surprise of nobody since the U.S. has admitted to helping the Islamists ever since the start of the Syrian war, which they themselves helped to...

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...

Pages

Subscribe to ChurchMilitant.tv