In Rome, Bergoglio was up to his usual annual Christmas insults to the Roman Curia. This is what Novus Ordo Watch, the sedevacantist website, called the "annual spanking".
It is hard to imagine that there is any other organisation in the world which would tolerate a leader who does not believe in its mission statement and spends most of his time demoralising his subordinates all-the-while praising the competitors. Yet that is what we have in Bergoglio. In a sense, I suppose this serves to prove that the Church is not of human hands, for had it been, it would have collapsed into oblivion ages ago. Perhaps Bergoglio serves a positive purpose then, after all.
It is good nonetheless to see opposition towards Bergoglio spreading over much of the Church, and while it is true that it has not become entirely mainstream yet, we have a lot of people feeling emboldened enough to poke fun of Bergoglio assuming a context which would only have been knowable by a small group of faithful some 2 months ago. The satire I have particularly in mind is a cartoon version of Raymond Arroyo interviewing Bergoglio. It's hit-count is not astronomical at this time of writing, but I would expect it to grow. The youtube channel itself seems set up specifically to combat modernists and it is telling that the 2 first videos feature Bergoglio.
There is also no hint of the creators being traditionalists, so we can assume that criticism of Bergoglio, disregard for his false humility and realisation of his hubris has spread far and wide. As I often say, it is only neo-Catholics who don't seem to see it, as both modernists and the secular world clearly are of the opinion that Bergoglio is one of them.
Some kind of good news, of sorts, in Egypt, also was brought to my attention. These have to do with a pop singer who was sentenced to jail over lewd acts in a music video, which included sucking a banana in a sexually suggestive way, presumably - I could only get through a section of the music video, and this was the non-banana part. Her director was also sentenced to prison. She got 2 years. I highly doubt that she will spend that much time in prison, but it's important to note the was sentenced to prison for corrupting public morals. Many will point to this and see nothing but Islamic subjugation but the fact of the matter is that public decency is a cause worth fighting for and if the Muslims are doing it then we should applaud them for it. If the Western world had punished celebrities who corrupted public morality we would hardly be in the mess in which we currently find ourselves.
Over at the U.N., Trump and the U.S. were reprimanded by both the U.N. Security Council - which the U.S. naturally vetoed as the only member voting against - and then at the U.N. General Assembly after the U.S. had vetoed as the sole dissenter. The issue was condemning Trump for recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and proclaiming that the U.S. embassy would be moved there, in direct contravention of international law, which I have been led to believe, considers Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory. It's interesting that despite all their overt threats, the U.S. only managed to get 8 states on its side - most of them "micro-states" , including the occupying country, of course - in a vote it lost 128-9, with 34 abstentions, if memory serves me right.
We had Nikki Haley, a woman with a Ph. D in hillbilly studies according to Russia Today's show host Peter Lavelle, threatening that she would be taking notes and reporting who voted against them, with Donald Trump chiming in that the U.S. would stop sending aid money to countries which voted against them, and Haley again saying that since the U.S. pays most of the money they deserve respect. I shall briefly point out here that the U.S. gets more money from the U.S. than any other nation on account of all the diplomatic missions stationed in New Yor, as well as the fact that if all you have is "I'll kick you in the courtyard later" and "I pay more than you so I am always right", you really do prove that you have no leg to stand on. I very much applaud the members of the U.N. which took the U.S. to task on this.
Some felt that Britain betrayed America in voting against them in the U.N. Security Council. This should alert any Brit as to how Americans see the U.K. - as nothing more than a poodle to whatever policy the U.S. laps up.
One man who got a filip from this was Erdogan, who is desperately trying to position himself as the leader of the Muslim world. He warned Muslims that "Muslims may lose Mecca if they fail to hold on to Jerusalem". Frankly, I doubt that much will come of t his move, as Trump must well know. The Arab countries are far too tied down to American policy and far too duplicitous to make any demands against the U.S. on this. Although the decision bodes badly for Trump's morality, as a political decision it was quite shrewd - no tangible downside and many upsides, domestically at least. At least it ends the facade that the U.S. was an impartial mediator in the Middle-Eastern conflicts.
Truth be told, Donald Trump's foreign policy to date has been nothing short of disastrous. It would be much better if he only stuck to domestic policy - where he has an almost flawless score, a 95% rate by my count - and withdrew from international meddling altogether. In fact, that is the very platform on which he ran!
It turns out that the Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis was released at exactly midnight of September 24th, and not on September 23rd as I had previously written. What confused me was the fact that I went to Rorate Caeli shortly after midnight and found it there, and naturally assumed that it had been posted somewhat earlier. If we check their timestamp though it seemed to have been set for publication at exactly midnight. I had caught wind of something being released from reading Fr. John Hunwicke's post from the day before, in which he claimed that something big was expected on the Sunday. For that reason I was surprised to learn that it had been released before, or so I thought, and it didn't help that so many blogs I read put the 23rd on it.
Time zones help explain that confusion, because many of the blogs I follow are from the Western hemisphere, where it was still the 23rd on the day of publication. I would much rather use the Rome time since the document was meant for Rome, and since it was released on the 24th my time as well, so I'll henceforth refer to the 24th as the release date, but I digress, although...Distinctions Matter!
The phrase "an irresistible force meets an immovable object" is I believe quite common in weather-speak and I believe it is used when a weather front meets a mountain area or some such thing. In my particulary context, it obviously refers to Bergoglio and while he has been immovable in his obstinacy against Catholic doctrine and practice, in this particular analogy he predictably plays the part of "a terrible force of destruction" with the signatoris of Correction Filialis acting as representatives of the immovable object that is the deposit of faith.
For my part I acquired it from "The Dark Knight" - one of the best movies ever made, by the way, and unquestionably one of the most well-made, if not the ouright winner of that particular category. In the final confrontation with the Joker, Batman saves him from an untimely death out of moral principle, despite spending most of the movie actually trying to stop him, at great danger to his own life and that of others. In that particular scene, the Joker says "this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object".
My memory tweaked it a bit to read "terrible force of destruction" but I'll stick to that terminology since Bergoglio is unstoppable only on account of the timidity of the hierarchy of the Church, along with the complicity of many modernists in the Catholic establishment at large. He is by no means unstoppable, but that he is a terribe force of destruction I deem indisputable.
The more I think about it, the more I realise just how numerous are the similarities between Bergoglio and the Joker as portrayed in that film. Some time, I might get around to writing about that.
In any case, the correction was an attempt to stop Bergoglio's seemingly unstoppable march towards the destruction of what remains of the Catholic edifice. For what it's worth I don't think he will succeed with or without the correction, but the correction is a huge stumbling block. This has been proved very clearly as Bergoglio's enablers and attack hounds have had no other course but to attack the signatories in defence of Amoris Laetitia, and not the content of the correction itself.
Some have pointed out that there is nothing in the correction which shows that Amoris Laetitia actually teaches heresy, completely bypassing, it seems, the main charge of the signatories, which is that in his words and his deeds since the publication of Amoris Laeitia, Bergoglio has encouraged heretical readings of it (an already dubious text at best), in turn propagating heresies. If you're going to critique a document, the least you can do is read it and attack what the document actually asserts.
Others have pointed out that the number of signatories is small, the hypocrisy of which one writer, I believe on Rorate Caeli, took exception. He notes that the Bergoglio party has spent the better part of 5 years (and 5 long long years, I hasten to add) intimidating those who disagree with the dangerous direction this horrendous pontificate has taken us, only to point to the number of his opponents being small as proof that the majority is not with the opposition. We remember, by the way, that Bergoglio speaks constantly of dialogue and parrhesia, all the while either threatening or ignoring those who actually attempt to dialogue with him. It seeems hypocrisy is his only mode.
The most ingenious and at the same time non-sensical defence of Amoris Laetitia is that it is all due to a mistranslation! They claim that the whole furore was due to a mistranlation of the Latin. You couldn't make this stuff up!
Christopher Ferrara took dissected this ridiculous claim at the Remnant. I suppose their implicit claim is that Bergoglio is somehow a Latinist who wrote the whole thing up in Latin, no doubt in their mind consulting the great treasure of Latin writings that the Church possesses. This is a staggering claim, in defending a man whose grasp of Italian evidently is as incompetent as his grasp of Spanish. No matter which language he speaks hardly anybody can figure out what he actually said. I suppose Latin being his primary language might explain why nobody understands him when he speaks any other language, but we are left with the small issue that the official Latin version of Amoris Laetitia was only published in July of this year, well more than a year after the original publication of Amoris Laetitia, and that the document itself was probably written in Spanish, given the large input of Tucho 'art of kissing' Fernandez, the ghostwrite and brains -...
There was great apprehension about what was going to happen on the 23rd of September, 2017. This was on account of an astrological constellation which only appears about once every 7,000 years, something about 12 stars being aligned in a particular way, with possibly a planet or a 12th star above them. This alluded to the scriptural passage in Revelation, which is taken to refer to the Virgin Mary having the stars under her feet.
The day came and I did not notice anything. The world did not end and life went on as normal, or so it would seem...
What transpired was that a group of established Catholic scholars released a filial correction of Bergoglio, urging him to denouce the heresies which have spread like wildfire on account of Amoris Laetitia. It was titled "Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis". Since I first read it on the 24th of September and much of the fallout has come since them, I intend to cover this document and surrounding events as part of the analysis of the following week.
I would like, however, to point out that the truth is out: Bergoglio is an unrepentant heretic and the whole world knows that prominent Catholics are onto him.
Over on the other side of the pond we had the whole hoopla about kneeling. It evidently began on Friday in a speech held by Trump in Alabama in which he called the kneeling players "son of a bitch", "sons of bitches" or both. Here was a point at which the media could have acted as a uniting force, criticising Donald Trump for his choice of words while villifying the players for their actions. Instead, the media chose to make Donald Trump out as some kind of nutcase who wanting his country's flag respected.
At best, this whole kneeling thing is a distraction from real issues, so I'll not waste too much time on it. Suffice it to write that Donald Trump is right on the substance.
I have always found it ridiculous that in the U.S. they play the national anthem before sporting events. It has a very Orwellian feel about it: "Fun, brought to you by the state". I would much rather see that kind of nonsense abolished altogether. There is also a deeply unhealthy and psychotic association of the flag of the U.S. with the military, which is just another of the many absurd tenets of the americanist religion.
Nonetheless, it is good decorum to stand up for one's national anthem, and frankly, even those of other nations. It is a simple mark of respect , shallow as it may be. It shows a lack of class to show disrespect to one's country if one chooses the singing of the national anthem as the moment of personal protest.
I would remiss if I did not take this opportunity to take a shot at the Novus Ordo. No doubt many of those upset at this kind of behaviour are Catholics of the Novus Ordo persuasion. Many of them will be church-goers. I submit that it is far more disrespectful to fail to observe basic Christian dress codes in church than to kneel when the national anthem is being sung and anybody who fails to observe the former has no right whatsoever to criticise those who fail to observe the latter.
This is specifically aimed at women who refuse to cover their heads, as I have never seen a non-Muslim man in a Catholic church with head-covering, not even in clown masses - and any Muslim man invited into a Catholic Church for feel-good purposes has every right to disrespect those who invite him. The rules are apostolic and very clear and very simple: Women, head-covering; men, no head-cover. There is no 5-year old of ordinary capacity who would not be able to understand and apply those rules if so required, so I am at a loss to understand why Catholic women nowadays find it so impossible to grasp or apply.
It would certainly seem as though divinely-inspired apostolic commands such as those deserve far more respect than standing before a national anthem, whether it is being played in or out of place, as the case may be when national anthems are played before domestic sporting contests.
Speaking of distractions, although more positively-charged ones, we had note that the awful Lady Gaga was going through somewhat of a spritual/mental crisis and had even postponed her tour. I only mention this because a while back I had mentioned that she was Catholic after having read it. My statemet was something akin to "you wouldn't know she is Catholic and she even goes to Church, sometimes". I had seen a picture of her with her parish priest, in which the parish priest was defending her from what he thought was uncharitable accusations. The point of this story is that I had almost started to wonder whether I had imagined the whole thing, until she posted a picture of herself holding a Rosary as she goes through trying times.
She wrote that she had sold her soul to the illuminati and that her fibromyalgia was the price she was now paying for it. I am sure I am joined by many fellow Catholics in hoping that this wretched woman who nonetheless still seems to cling to some notion of God and some notion of the Catholic faith finds the peace which only God can provide. We should all pray that she can turn her back on all her wicked and blasphemous ways because it would seem as though deep under all that filth there is a sensitive soul crying towards the LORD, and honestly wishing to find Him.
It is a mark of the Novus Ordo that we have so many crypto-Catholics, which is to say, people who one would never assume were Catholic at all until they all of a sudden claimed to be. NOChurch seems intent on promoting the notion that...
