dubia cardinals

A problem so urgent it can be put off for 5 months, and making the Chinese military great again - Sunday 9th of September to Saturday 6th of October

This has been another Bergoglian month, full of scandals and distasteful accusations and insults against the few remaining faithful Catholics.

Much can be written about Bergoglio's implication in the McCarrick scandal, but I feel no need to engage that topic much more. We already know what we need to know: Bergoglio is a pervert, almost certainly a sodomite, who surrounds himself with sodomites and who promotes sodomy at virtually every given opportunity. He has already said that one can make up one's own idea of right and wrong, and he seems to pick people whose moral deviancy is beyond dispute. Anything else is just details, and I feel no desire to soil my blog with more of Bergoglio's sordid affairs.

This does not mean that we still can't cover his many other scandals, and indeed we ought, lest we lose sight of the sustained assault in which Bergoglio has engaged against the faith. In the secular world too, things are not looking good, and Bergoglio's assault on the Church from within has strengthened the Church's enemies on the outside.

By far the most thought-provoking pieces  I have read over the past month were on the Remnant. In a series of articles titled A Wilderness of Mirrors, columnist Jesse Russell laid out "as to why the media, after all this time of knowing about both Bergoglio's and McCarrick's perversions, seems to have decided to turn against them by highlighting stuff they could very easily have done previously, and much earlier, as I summarised them on the 4th of October. His general contention is that, just as news of the Boston clerical scandal was used to undermine Pope John Paul II's opposition to the Iraq war as it was in its planning phase, so too the revelations of Bergoglio's involvement in the McCarrick scandal have been brought up to undermine Bergoglio's assumed opposition to any America-led war on Iran.

I too have wondered "why now?" It turns out that the information about the Boston sexual abuse cases was pretty much well-known in the Boston area at least, and an inquisitive mind ought to at least wonder in that case why the scandal blew up in 2000, just as the American political establishment was making its case for a war in Iraq. So too, information about Bergoglio's perversions has been all-too-easy to find, yet we are supposed to believe that the media has only now got wind of it. The question I have had all along is why the media has not been following up leads on Bergoglio's many scandals, given how much the media likes to drag up dirt on the Church, but it did not take me long to conclude that whoever controls the media sees Bergoglio as their man, and does not wish to see his demolition of the Church come off course by airing his dirty linens in public.

That brings us to the question of why the media now is tentatively covering this scandal, and the only explanation I can come up with is that they simply could not igore it outright, given how hard they have worked to undermine the Church on its handling of sexual abuse, a problem which is not worse in the Catholic Church than it is in other organisations both secular and religious. That is, of course, no excuse, and I do not mind this exposure, because the Church is supposed to be held to a higher standard. It is, in fact, supposed to set the standard. Still, the media coverage of what for any other pope would be a witch-hunt is very half-hearted at best. For this, Bergoglio probably has to thank the media's general homosexualist stance, since any digging into this scandal would reveal its homosexual roots, but that hardly explains everything.

For that reason, Jesse Russell's contribution was an eye-opener in that it allowed one to step back and look at the whole situation from a larger perspective, to see the whole chess board as it were.

I have often maintained that it is important to give Bergoglio credit for what little good he has done, and as far as I am concerned he has done only one good thing since becoming pope, and that is opposing what seemed to be a certain U.S. attack on Syria in 2013 on account of one of the many false/hoax flag events we have seen during that proxy war. Not only did he oppose it, but he called for worldwide prayer for a peaceful solution, which allowed my main man Vladimir Putin to come in and steal the U.S.'s excuse from war from under its nose when he declared that a deal had been reached with the Syrian government to transfer all chemical weapons out of the country. This was later verified by the OPCW and has been re-verified on multiple counts since, not that it has stopped Donald Trump and his neo-cons from attacking Syria on further false/hoax flags.

The main goal for Trump and the American kleptocracy has always been Iran, and so we should not be surprised that the lies against Iran have been ramped up. Iran being what it is - a rather powerful nation - the groundwork for an attack has to be planned out long in advance and opposition to a war has to be snuffed out considerably more methodically than was done against Iraq. Witness false flags against Russia in the U.K., Ukraine and Syria, and Trumps obsession with demonising Iran's presumed allies in Turkey and China, trying to put economic pressure on them, presumably so they can cave in to his war plans in return for an allevation of the economic pressures.

If you ask me, Jesse Russell's conspiracy theory is a bit too clean for my liking. It's too neat, and explains too much too well. I don't see particularly much methodology in the Trump administration, although I must admit that confusion and madness may well be its...

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...

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 dubia cardinals