false opposition

The Tridentine Mass once ruled the world; It will do so again! - Sunday 5th to Saturday 11th of August

It was a relatively slow news week, with now new theme dominating. Furthermore, many of the articles I read seemed to have been written the week before, further underlining my claim.

There were developments and fallouts of the McCarrick scandal, but sadly that is not new in NOChurch as hardly a week goes by without yet another homosexual scandal. It turns out that even in a relatively(by NOChurch standards) good diocese - the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska - there was homosexual harassment in the seminary.

The  Diocese of Harrisburg released the names of over 70 priests accused of sexual abuse, some of it dating from the 1940s. None of them are in active ministry, and the average comes out at about 1 priest per year over 70 years, which is certainly far from an overwhelming number. However, it is still sickening that these priests seem not to have undergone disciplinary measures, and perhaps worse still that it took the McCarrick scandal for this to come out. I am also split regarding the wisdom of releasing names from people accused of sexual abuse, when the men involved are dead and cannot defend themselves. Something about it rings entirely hollow and insincere.

Not tired of current homosexual scandals,  Bergoglio decided to appoint a high-ranking Vatican official who is suspected of being a sodomite himself . As I have mentioned before, we are well within ourselves to ask whether Bergoglio is not himself a sodomite. In fact, I would argue that at this point we are almost duty-bound to assume that he is. Normal decent folks do not surround themselves with sodomites unless they are partial to their lifestype. One of his closest aides, Maradiaga, had to defend himself from accusations of misconduct after it transpired that one of his closest aides had been sexually harassing seminarians. This is the man often referred to as the 'vice pope', on account of being so close to Bergoglio.

In The Moment Before the Storm, Steve Skojec tells us that there is an eerie feeling about the Church, as if something big is about to burst out, and the hierarchy seems utterly oblivious to the anger bubbling up amongst the faithful. There have been indications of this anger coming to the surface, but as I do not hang out with people in the Novus Ordo, I dare not comment on whether he has his finger on the pulse regarding that.

A Bergoglian appointee in  Argentina forbade the faithful in his diocese from receiving Holy Communion kneeling. You see, NOChurch bishops have no qualms stamping their authority upon the faithful when it comes to things which destroy the faith. They just have trouble being authoritative when it comes to protecting the faith.

The Bergoglian attempt to teach that the death penalty is "inadmissible" continued to attract attention. It is difficult to make sense of the piece written by Fr. Allan McDonald, who argued that by stating that there are no exceptions allowed with regards to the death penalty, it will be easier to make the case that there are no exceptions allowed for abortion. He is against the change, and naturally against the killing of unborn children. However, his statement does not seem to me to make much sense, since most of those people care not about what the pope says anyway. Furthermore, he misrepresents the teaching on capital punishment: The Church's teaching is not that the death penalty is an exception to the absolute prohibition of murder, but rather that it is a fulfillment of the command that we should protect life. Mundabor had no problem calling Bergoglio's attempt "formal heresy", or making a coherent case as to why this is necessarily so.

Social media censorship continues to gather pace. I am not on social media, so I care not for what they do. I do remember over 10 years ago saying that the West is much more likely to end up like China than China is likely to end up like 'the West' - whatever 'West' means - and I have largely been proven correct. We now have NATO through the Atlantic Council deciding what is acceptable on facebook, and who deserves censure.

This week the censoring agents came for   Alex Jones, the US's premier conspiracy theorist . I have watched a lot of his stuff, and I like that he is mostly anti-war, although I must admit that he was much better before Trump was president, as he could focus on completely opposing U.S. imperialist murderous policies, as opposed to defending his man against legitimate criticism, or deflecting that criticism to others. After they were done with Alex Jones, they decided to ban a Venezuelan news site. Expect this kind of censorship to continue and widen in scope!

On Alex Jones, I must admit that I still have not figured out whether he is a legitimate opposition figure or false opposition. If he is legitimate, then it is likely that he sold out a while back, as he now never mentions Israel as being the problem in the Middle East, and especially in the Syrian conflict. This he did do earlier in his career. He is very much onboard with the anti-Iraninan propaganda, presumably because Trump spouts it. I can only presume that when he uses the word "globalist" he means "zionist" and that the man is smart enough to know that there are people you are not allowed to criticise, which is why he cannot criticise the zionists head-on. Either way, the man is insincere in not pointing out Israel's complicity in the creation of Islamist groups in the region, and in launching war after war after war. He seems to have no trouble mentioning Saudi Arabia, so at least we can conclude that it's not the Saudis who he fears, and therefore that it's not the Saudis...

Beware of NOChurch cardinals, especially when they come saying the Tridentine Mass - Sunday 10th to Saturday 16th of June

In a week which contained a lot of major news from the secular world, it might seem odd that my highlights are to do with an event that didn't even take this week - the Chartres pilgrimage. My primary concern is for the Church, for only the Church can save the world, and with that in mind I shall go on to address some of the events on the Chartes pilgrimage.

It is rather significant that the Chartres pilgrimage has become so famous. I had not even heard of it until som 4 years ago or so, but I shall have to agree with Michael Matt that it is one of the most significant events taking place in the Church today, although in his case he plainly states that it is the most significant, with which I do not quite agree. Along with its increasing profile, the mass has attracted higher profiles of celebrants. Last year it was Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is probably the closest thing we have right now to a champion of the faith. When Cardinal Burke celebrated though, it was without a position in the Curia, having been unceremoniously kicked out of his position as the head of the Apostolic Signatura (the Church's highest court) so that Bergoglio could railroad his full-throttled assault on marriage through easy annulments and sacreligious Communion.

This year's celebrant, therefore, would have to count as the most high-profile yet. In Cardinal Sarah, we had the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, the man in charge of not only the Mass but the administration of all sacraments. Yes, there are bureaucratically speaking other higher-profiled cardinals - the secreatary of state comes to mind - and even with regards to Catholicity the prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith ranks higher. However, in his capacity as head of worship, he ranks second only to the pope, so one is entitled to say that they don't come much higher than Cardinal Sarah. Also in terms of standing up for the faith, Cardinal Sarah is one of only 2 cardinals under the age of 80 - the other being Cardinal Burke - who have consistently stood up against efforts to water down the faith, or to outright corrupt the faith (however tepidly).

It was therefore with great sadness that I read a piece written by Peter Kwasniewski titled Traditional Clergy: Please Stop Making “Pastoral Adaptations”. It quickly became clear that the piece was about the final High Mass at the Chartres pilgrimage, of which Cardinal Sarah had been the main celebrant. Among the 'pastoral adaptations' on show was reading both the Epistle and the Gospel in French, instead of Latin, and not bothering with having the proper orientations when reading Sacred Scripture, instead turning towards the people, and not even bothering to chant but rather speaking it out instead. These were grave liturgical abuses. It is unclear who was in charge of these abuses - the master of ceremony, the local bishop, or the cardinal are all potential agents. What cannot be denied, however, was that in perhaps the most prominent Tridentine Mass in the world today, we were being confronted with a very well-orchestrated Novusordoisation, and that ought to trouble us all.

If there is anything that the Novus Ordo has taught us, it is that slippery slopes are real, and once embarked upon one will quickly find oneself close to the bottom. It is therefore inexcusable that at the most prominent Tridentine Mass the celebrants would embark upon the same slippery slope which led us to where we are in NOChurch today, i.e., little if any reverence at Mass, with priests who treat the Mass as if it is their plaything, and laity who froth in anger at hearing that there are authentic Catholic alternatives. Another point that Dr. Kwasniewski made which is worth repeating is that Latin is the language of the Church, and the Chartres pilgrimage is the most international pilgrimage that we have today. It therefore makes little sense to have the readings in French when many of the attendees will be non-French. They could, if they so wished, read out in Latin according to the rubrics and then afterwards read in French (which is allowed by Ecclesia Dei, it turns out, although even that is a slippery slope) but that's not what they did. In other words, I am quite certain that whoever made the decision did it knowing full well that it was against the liturgical laws and against the spirit of the Tridentine Mass, yet did it anyway, perhaps to force the point that the Tridentine Mass has to get along with the Novus Ordo mass.

This being NOChurch times, of course, not everyone was upset. As I have previously mentioned, Catholics as a whole have lost the ability to get angry at anything directed against the faith. In "WHEREIN ROBERT CARDINAL SARAH GETS IT RIGHT AND FATHER Z DOESN'T " (I've no idea why he insists on capital letters for his headlines), a response to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's Why we Say The Black and Do The Red, which was in turn a commentary on what Dr. Kwasniewski had wrriten , Fr. Allan McDonald chimed in that Cardinal Sarah was right to make adaptations in order to get people to feel at home, once again showing that the Novus Ordo has poisoned the minds of even many of those who say the Tridentine Mass occasionally. We don't adapt the Mass to ourselves; rather we adapt ourselves to the Mass, and the arguments he was making were well-adressed in Dr. Kwasniewski's original piece, which it seems blew completely over his head.

The best commentary on Fr. McDonald's piece came from Henry , who wrote:

A single instance of vernacular abuse, as at Chartres, is not a big deal. No doubt God will survive the desacralization of a couple of moments in this one Mass, and the

...

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...

Was it all about Roy Moore? In other news: At least perversion is still considered a bad thing - Sunday 12th-Saturday 18th of November

A short entry this week, hopefuly.

From the most judgemental non-judgemental pope in history we have yet another condemnation. This time it is that we are perverse if we do not believe the scientism on climate change. The only thing that caught my eye regarding this is that Bergoglio still considers perversion to be a bad thing - judging from the way he phrased his rant. Given his many utterances promoting all sorts of perverted acts, I had almost come to suspect that he sees perversion as something virtuous. This is, after all, the same man who has said that people who act uprightly often have something dark in their closet.

Something tells me Bergoglio knows a thing or two about closets....

More allegations of sexual misconduct have come forth from all and sundry, also in Sweden funnily enought. It has indeed become the new fashion. I must admit that when this thing first broke I didn't get why it had broken out over Harvey Weinstein, of all people, someone who was not exactly known as a prude, and in Hollywood of all places, which seems to be some sort of vice capital. It was, after all, an open secret that he was as promiscuous as a bee is to flowers, if not outright predatory. Others were dragged in subsequently but even before it had left that particular pervert I thought it was going all over the top. The allegations got all the more fuzzy and it soon became the fad to accuse him of sexual harassment. Given that Hollywood is a place given to fads, I stopped taking any of the accusations seriously, especially since they got just quite nutty. We have one, for example, of a woman who says that she invited him to her house twice and he raped her, twice!

We do know that there is some sort of coordination in the news media so if a story gathers more pace that it deserves at first hand there is often a reason for it. It occured to me that perhaps the whole reason why Harvey Weinstein had been thrown into the mix was because they wanted to create a firestorm of hysteria regarding sexual assault allegations, so that they could suck up Roy Moore into it. It seems far-fetched but one has to understand that Roy Moore is quite a lightning-bolt into the political establishment in the United States. This is a man who says that the "United States cannot be great before it is good", so he is far from a neo-conservative. He is exactly the sort of person they absolutely would not want on the Senate floor, debating one immoral act over another.

If you thought Trump was a shock to the system, then imagine how hazardous Roy Moore would be! With Trump and Roy Moore all of a sudden we are not dealing with an isolated incident, but rather a proper movement with proper momentum. This has to be stopped!

For that reason whoever pulls the strings in the media and political establishments decided that it was enough to whip up a storm regarding sexual accusations, even if it included sucking in a few of their most high-profile agents. The prize was too valuable and it could come at a high price. Enter the Hollywerid perverts then! They had to be sacrificed to create the initial storm, and on top of that, the accusations had to get more and more diffuse to such an extent that any man was going to be considered guilty just by having an accusation levelled towards him. This then created the proper feeding ground for accusations against Roy Moore, which true or false - and some of them are fanciful at best -, would probably not have gained this much traction had not the Hollywood perverts been caught up in the media storm. After all, the case now is such that there is a presumption of guilt for anyone accused, and a presumption of victimhood for any woman who comes forward with an accusation.

It is a good old-fashioned witch-hunt. There are probably more people who have been caught up in this mess than the power brokers were counting on, but the prize is too valuable and it can cost what it may. I predict that this hysteria will die down after the Alabama elections, at least if Roy Moore loses. Expect it to go on for a while further if he wins!

Regarding the Harvey Weinstein issue, there is an interview with E. Michael Jones in which he brings up the issue that in Talmudic Judaism, perverting the morals of non-Jews - gentiles - is seen as a virtuous thing. I do not know enough of Talmudic Judaism to falsify or confirm this claim, but it does not seel all that far-fetched. His theory is that this particular Hollywood pervert has fallen victim to the old Jewish custom of scape-goating, indeed a Biblical concept.

Another Vatican conference brings yet more anti-life speakers and more immorality promotion from Bergoglio's anti-Catholic fraternity. Population experts and abortion activist abound.

Some news stories from Russia, the most noteworthy being that Patriach Kirill informed/claimed that the Russian Orthodox Church has built over 5,000 new churches and ordained 10,000 new clergymen in just 6 years. I am skeptical to the claims, but if I take the patriach at his word, the statistics are completely staggering. They are beuilding new churches at an even faster rate than the Novus Ordo is destroying them! The same website from which I read that also informed its readers that its youtube channel is being censored - actually has been removed. One would think that such news would warrant attention, but our new Christophobic tech masters simply do not want to have such good news spread. It might interfere with their anti-Russian propaganda.

Speaking of which, the OSCE finally spoke about against labelling media...

Pages

Subscribe to false opposition