Holy Communion for lechers

Even converts show us yet again why nobody likes NOChurch, and for good measure, Bergoglian scandals abound as well - Sunday 18th to Saturday 24th of February

It is quite often to hear people saying that the Church needed to change because it was not effective in evangelisation, or was losing members, or whatever other tripe the ill-informed or ill-intentioned will give us about the pre-Vatican II Church. They say this to rationalise or justify the rapture which took place at Vatican II, whose negative effects are growing by the day.

In this context, and given that we are approaching the 'canonisation' of Paul VI, it is timely to have a look at how the Church actually was, statistically, at the death of Pope Pius XII. Indeed, Rorate Caeli never gets tired of reminding us of how booming the Church was, and even though the figures are for the U.S., I am quite certain that the trend holds world-wide. In a piece titled "The Canonization of Vatican II: The case for Pacelli, revisited", they did just that.

Long story short, if the Church today was to have even 1/4 of the numbers that the Church was pulling in 1958, it would be seen as almost miraculous, given how bad things are today.

These are only the positive numbers. For a complete picture we would have to also find out the number of apostates every year, how many priests became laicised, how many monks and nuns left religious life and the number of divorces and annulments. With regards to annulments, I know for a fact that there were less than 1,000 in the whole world in the reign of Pope Pius XII, compared to more than 60,000 in the U.S. alone just some 10 years later and today probably. I suspect the other negative numbers from the reign of Pope Pius XII would put NOChurch to shame.

'Shame' and NOChurch are never far apart, and this week was no different. From Rome we had a high-ranking member of the Apostolic Signatura sentenced to 18 months probation for child pornography possession. This particular pervert was revealed as he groped a man at a market and was then run down by the young man, only for the police to intervene. Upon looking him up they noticed he had prior convictions for indecent exposure and this led to a search on his apartment wherein the perverted material was found.

In the U.S., we had one of Bergoglio's most popular sodomy-pushers, Cardinal Tobin - a Bergoglio appointment - tweeting out "goodnight baby" before promptly erasing the tweet. He claimed that it was to his sister, but I am not sure how many people believe that, as I certainly don't. The best we can hope for is that he was writing to his mistress, although it doesn't take much of an imagination to suspect that he was sending to someone with not quite so squishy parts...

In Germany, they have gone full-blown apostaste, with news that protestants will be allowed to receive Holy Communion, if they are married to Catholics. I'll not spend much time on this, but it is amusing to note that Catholics who do not pay the Church tax are barred from all sacraments, whereas protestants who share the same bed with Catholics are welcome, even though they do not believe any of the Chuch's imporntant doctrines. That's NOChurch logic if ever we had it. Gloria.tv wondered when Muslims will be up for some Sunday bread.

The Remnant wrote a piece on sacrilegious Communion by protestants and traced the rot all the way back to the documents of Vatican II, in 1965. It is very fashionable by many who dislike Bergoglio to pin all the blame on him, but the fact of the matter is that Bergoglio is only a very virulent strain of the Novus Ordo virus. The rot began a long time ago and there are very many people to blame, and no Novus Ordo pope gets off lightly, with the exception of Pope John Paul I whose reign was too short and not excluding even Pope Benedict XVI, however much good he did. These are the same popes, by the way, who are automatically canonised at death, with Bergoglio even blasphemously joking that Benedict and he are on the waiting list.

We are supposed to believe that the greatest crisis and apostasy in the Church's history has been overseen by a series of holy popes not seen since the early centuries, when many of them died to save the faith.

One of these supposed 'heroically holy' popes, Bergoglio the terrible, has this past week been implicated in a financial corruption scandal. It involved the transfer of money to a scandal-ridden hospital on Bergoglio's behest, to the tune of $25 million from an organisation which normally limits itself to donations of $100,000 and in exceptional cases to $200,000. The cardinals in the U.S. voted for the money to go to the hospital because Bergoglio urged them to do so. We would all like to know how much of that money has gone to its proper use and how much went off to pay off people for their silence.

In " Peronism and Corruption" , Fr. Ray Blake attempted to explain why Bergoglio surrounds himself with so many perverts. He puts it down to Peronism, in which people are promoted not due to competence or virtue, but out of loyalty to the head honcho. Hilary White picked up on this and pointed out that part of the reason why Bergoglio wants perverts around him is because they are easier to control since he has more dirt on them. That he is one of them did not get a mention, but perverts of a feather perve together.

The now rather famous Jordan Peterson revealed in an interview to former Catholic Answers host Patrick Coffin that he needs 3 more years before he can give his position on the "historical Jesus". I remember getting into a discussion regarding whether the man was a Christian or...

The Real Benedict option in these desperate NOChurch times

The term "Benedict option" is normarlly used to refer to a course of action which leads people away from the midst of a messy society and into seclusion, from where they can regroup and re-introduce sanity into the society. It refers to St. Benedict, the founder of Western monasticism, who did just that and whose monastic communities would go on to save the cultural inheritance of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire.

There was a book published not too long ago titled "The Benedict Option" in which an apostate - to Orthodoxy and who is said to be a self-promoter so I'll not mention his name or link to his articles- argues for much the same thing. The fact that St. Benedict strove to secure and promote the Catholic faith does not seem to faze the author, and some reviewers of the book have noted that without the authority of the Church, we would still end up with the same situation since a secluded society, even of moralists, would soon run into disputes about what was moral and what was not. Some would counter that by pointing to the fact that the Catholic Church - at least its earthly hierarchy - has been largely responsible for the destruction of morality in much of the world, a charge I do not dispute. Of course, NOChurch does by no means share the soul of the Catholic Church, but that's a topic for another day.

The biggest fallacy of the author seems to be the presupposition that a secluded society which insists on moral grounds would be left alone by the decadent world around it. There seems to be little grounds for that presupposition given that the modern state does not recognise any sphere in human affairs in which it is not entitled to not only interfere but actually dictate. In the future though, after this particularly self-destructive phase of Western civilisation (or what's left of it anyway) has crumbled, out of the ashes we might well end up having a Benedict option similar to the origial one, which rebuilds what's left of former Christendom.

However, I would like to argue that there does exist in these dark times of the Bergoglian papacy a real Benedict option which we cannot simply dismiss. It requires a re-definition of what is commonly known as the "Benedict option" and it refers rather to a pope, and not a monk, not withstanding the fact that this particular pope told us he would like the life of a monk, though he only manages to make a half-decent impression of one.

The pope in question, of course, is Pope Benedict XVI, and the real "Benedict option" is the notion that Bergoglio is not really the pope, but that Pope Benedict XVI is still the rightful pope.

This notion was popularised by Ann Barnhardt, who pursued it with the "tenacity of of a psychopath", to quote a very good moving which uses the those words to describe  a detective who pursues a very far-fetched theory in attempting to solve a murder of one of his colleagues, and manages to find the murderer in doing so,

As Bergoglio's manners have deteriorated towards total open depravity, more and more have bought into the notion that he is not pope. After all, isn't a Pope supposed to be Catholic? How can a Catholic poke fun at the Holy Trinity? How can a Catholic  insult the mother of God  - multiple times? How can a Catholic insult those who attempt to convert others to the one true faith, while praising some of the most immoral apostates in history in the process? How can a decent priest surround himself with sodomites and paedophile-enablers? How can a pope attack the sacred institution of marriage? How can a pope promote sodomy? How can an even half-decent Catholic shower praise at mass murderers and mass abortionists? How can an even moderately sub-intelligent human being advance the notion that youth unemployment is root cause of evil in the world today? How can a pope state that communists are the real Christians? I could go on and on and on, and on...

The simple answer to that is that Bergoglio is not Catholic, and more or less the only people who believe that Bergoglio is Catholic are the neo-Catholics of the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-or-pretend-it-is-good-if-the-pope-does-it Novus Ordite variety. Most traditionalists, I would argue, have realised that Bergoglio is not pope, and most non-Catholics who follow the man realise that he also is not Catholic, which is why it is popular among modernists and leftists to openly state that Bergoglio is attempting to completely revamp the Church but is being held back by conservatives and resisters (i.e., that he is not Catholic). In fact, Bergoglio has used much the same words, as have a few of his closest collaborators.

In claiming that Bergoglio is not Catholic, I am naturally counting as Catholic someone who actually believes in the Catholic faith, in Holy Mother Church as the Church divinely instituted by Christ, and one who desires to further her divinely-commissioned purpose: the salvation of souls. Strictly speaking, of course, a Catholic is anybody baptised into the Catholic Church by either baptism or blood. That allows us to use a more theological than cultural definition, while also allowing us to rule out as Catholics such as Martin Luther, Adolf Hitler, Arius and the like, who in a strict application of the term are simply bad Catholics and not non-Catholics.

The basic premise is this: The Church is a communion of faith, and those who deviate or reject even a portion of the faith find themselves outside this communion. Our heretic-in-chief has rejected a large chunk of the faith. Truth be told, it would be difficult to point to any aspect of the Catholic faith that he actually accepts. The only thing he seems to embrace papal authority, albeit with a totally faulty conception of it and its duties, because he really only seems to...

Pages

Subscribe to Holy Communion for lechers