Jerusalem

As hubristical as he was wrong-headed: new transcripts shed light on the father of NOChurch - Sunday 13th to Saturday 19th of May

One of the saddest things about Novusordoism's destruction of Catholicism, is that Pope Paul VI was warned about it both before, during and after the council, and before, during and after the many modifications made to Church documents, Church law , Church practice and even the Church's own liturgy.

In what must seem to us like infinite hubris, Paul VI brushed it all off , insisting that everyone should follow him since he is pope, and more concerned that people dared to question him than that the changes made were causing actual harm. That is the take-away from the release of a transcripts from a meeting between Pope Paul VI and the honourable Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre some time in the 1970s.

The honourable archbishop pointed out why he had to resist. He pointed out just how far people had wandered off from the faith. He pointed out how his resistance was done out of love for Holy Mother Church than out of a spirit of rebellion. Pope Paul VI, on the other hand, seemed to be more concerned that Archishop Lefebvre did not accept everything from his mouth as binding, and that he had pinpointed him as the source of many problems, than he was about the souls being lost.

That in a nutshell, is what Novusordoism is all about. It is more important that one never utters a word against the many harmful novelties, than that the souls who are harmed as a result of these novelties be brought back to the faith. Then, of course, if you defend NOChurch enough, there is a dubious canonisation at the end of it for you.

One who will not go quietly down into the bad night is Bishop Gracida, who at 94, is now retired. This week he wrote about how a conclave should be held to depose Bergoglio. I would agree with him , were it not for the fact that I cannot see what authority a council of cardinals has to depose Bergoglio. By all means, Bergoglio should be condemned, but there is no Earthly power to depose a pope, short of  killing the man, and I don't see how that can be done licitly, given that no cardinal can stand in judgement over Bergoglio to issue him with a death sentence, even if they were so inclined.

In the Korean Peninsula, North Korea announced that it would dismantle its nuclear test site in ahead of the Kim-Trump summit. Then they threatened to withdraw from the summit given that the U.S. and South Korea were holding drills outside its shores. It's hard to know what to make of this whole scenario, because I think a lot of details are lost in the headlines, and without these details, the timelines are often off, and we cannot appropriately apportion blame.

The same cannot be said of the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of the week before. Iran has been compliant, but Trump decided to pull out, no doubt egged on by his zionist and wahhabist handlers. In anticipation of what everybody excepts will be the cave-in of the spineless Europeans, China announced that it would enter Iran should Total - the oil company - pull out as a result of the sanctions.

In other Trump-roguery news, the U.S. opened its new embassy to zionism in Jerusalem. Among those in attendance were some of the most vile warmongering zionist televangelists around, most notably Haggee.  Those Catholics who blindly defend Trump would do well to learn what a man such Haggee teaches. He almost makes John McCain look like a peacemaker, such is his love for war in favour of zionism.

Peter Hitchens asked "What moral standing do we have after this outrage? And are we about to join *another* idiotic war, like feeble minions? " The war part was about Iran, I suppose, but the moral standing bit was in retaliation to news of British torture and kidnap victims. That answer to his question is simple, and it is that the U.K. has never had moral standing. What it has had though, is the appearance of morally upright behaviour. I associate the U.K. with the murder and torture of Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries, barbarous colonisation of Africa in the 19th and 20th, and endless poodleship in American wars in te 21st century. I don't have much on the U.K. in the 18th century, but I doubt they were up to any good then either.

The German president - a protestant - was out in the press saying that the Catholic Church should allow intercommunion. His wife is supposedly Catholic and she pays tax, so he wants a stale waffer on Sundays as well, I suppose. You know what, I don't blame him, because he is only parroting what the German bishops and Bergoglio have been saying for years. I do, however, have to ask whether he cannot afford tastier bread than the one offered on Sundays in Catholic churches, because I cannot for the life of me entertain the notion that he believes in the Real Presence, so I have to wonder why he doesn't instead visit a buffet on Sunday mornings instead of attending Catholic church services. Surely he can afford it.

Finally, the Vatican released a document on the economy, or finance, or some such. I honestly couldn't care less!

If they cannot be trusted with clarity on that which ought to be their speciality, and their bread-and-butter - i.e., the faith - , and they can't, then we ought not to pay attention to anything they say about anything else.

This week's Bergoglio victim of the week has to be Vatican documents. Given the mess in which we find ourselves, the Vatican finds itself with nothing better to do than to write a document on the economy. Some have written that the document is actually quite good, and it may well be, but we ought to insist that the Catholic Church do first and foremost what it was meant to do, which was to give us Heavenly Bread, and not to put bread on our tables.

Bergoglio gets his annual Christmas spank on, and sucking a banana in public may not be all it's cracked up to be - Sunday 17th to Saturday 23rd of December

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!

One good bright spot from the U.S. was the head of their ministry of defence rejecting war against Iran, at least in the take that the Ron Paul Institue had on his statements. Over in Russia, the spokesman for the Kremlin reminded the U.S. that it has had no military success in this century, so it should be very wary of claiming success in Syria when it is the Russian air force and the Syrian government which has done all the heavy lifting, with the U.S. previously and even now, still doing much to support the Islamist forces.

Over in Novus Ordo Land, Cardinal Müeller is still trying to see how many times he can contradict himself in the same interview, it would seem. We also had Roberto de Mattei writing in opposition to Edward Peters and his notion that we should not make too much of bergoglio officially endorsing the Buenos Aires statement allowing unrepentant adulterers to receive Holy Communion since canon law has remained untouched.

In Italy, some claim that the path to euthanasia has been cleared. I have not read much ocf this so it will remain uncommented, but it is nonetheless to see that the agent of death who Bergoglio labels one of Italy's "forgotten greats" was seen rejoicing while everyone around her seemed to be sobbing. In other words, things cannot be any good with that legislation, and what's telling is that Bergoglio received credit from both sides - those who are in favour of euthanasia, and those who oppose it - for this bill going through.

In Spain, there was an election in Catalonia, and the pro-independence forces won the election. It's amazing that people thought that elections would solve this issue. At least Angela Merkel is smart enough to realise that a new election will not solve the impasse in Germany at present.

On the topic of Germany, an AfdD politician told us that the Church plays the same inglorious role it dows noe as in Nazi Germany. The context of his words is important, but I thi meant was that a church which just goes along with anything and aids and abets a disaster will come to be seen as inglorious in the future. In fact, I would go further and state categorically that what the Church is doing now in Germany is far worse than what it did during Nazi times. Back then, one could understand that the threat of an autocrat kept the Church quiet, and the Church has many martyrs from Germany during the Nazi period.  In the de-Christianisation of Germany due to aggressive secularism and Muslim immigration, the Church has not only been a slient witness but actually a cheerleader. The Church in Germany will deserve all the condemnation which comes its way when the world finally wakes up from the madness of multiculturalism.

The city of London, hot of the heels of being blessed with a Muslim leftist mayor, now has the inglorius distinction of having a bishopette. So much for the U.K. being a 'conservative country'. The only thing they seem to be able to conserve is their anti-Catholicism.

I did not know this beforehand, but according to Fr. Hunwicke and Fr. Ed Tomlinson, London was seen as somewhat of a bastion in the U.K. for Anglo-Catholics who did not want female 'clergy'. Tough luck for them now, and well deserved at that! The Catholic Herald had its usual neo-Catholic take on it, and Cardinal Nichols once again did his best to prove to everyone just how high up the apostasy in the Catholic Church has got when he congratulated the bishopette on her new job.

In the feminist Mecca that is Sweden, we also had news that men may be "charged with rape unless they get ‘explicit’ sexual consent" , whatever that means. I am curious as to how this changes anything in practical terms as it will still be one word against another. Perhaps this would be a good time to create an app calld SexID which can be used by all the promiscuous who would like to whore themselves for the night, with an electronic signature to verify that every stage of one's sexual exploits have been granted mutual consent. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous, and the end product of calling everything rape will be to give the impression that rape is an invention of women's post-constructions instead of the serious crime against morality that genuine rape really is. The truth is that the word "rape" actually means something and we ought to resist a government's attempt to pervert the language simply because it wants to win feminist brownie points.

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Jerusalem