neo-Catholics

Bergoglio goes for low-hanging theological fruit, and neo-Catholics largely let him get away with it - Sunday 29th of July to Saturday 4th of August

There is really only one place to start this week and that is with the news that Bergoglio has altered the John Paul II Catechism to read that the death penalty is now  "inadmissible" in all circumstances because it violates "human dignity" . That God Himself in the Bible did not realise this, or the various Church fathers, or Doctors of the Church, or all the popes up until Bergoglio ought to get us suspicious.

I cannot do justice to the arguments against this latest heresy by Bergoglio so I shall simply leave it to you to have a look at the links below, one of which is from OnePeter5 and is titled "Pope Francis Is Wrong about the Death Penalty. Here’s Why." Rorate Caeli ran one under the title "What was black is now white".

The one thing I shall note is that the argument that Bergoglio uses is one that is expressly condemned by the Catechism of Trent. Bergoglio argues that using the death penalty deprives the convict of the chance of conversion. The Catechism of Trent tells us, in rather common-sensical terms, that he who knows that his life will end and is granted the grace of knowing when will scarcely convert at a later time if he cannot do it while at the point of oncoming death. So Bergoglio's argument is not even original, and is one which has been put down before as nonsensical.

It is interesting to note that the only person Bergoglio can quote to rationalise his new posture is himself, continuing his now-growing list of novelties by self-quotation.

As usual, the neo-Catholics were mostly out in force proving that they are part of the problem. To watch EWTN reporting that "the pope has changed the Church's teaching on the death penalty" or the "pope has strengthened the Church's opposition to the death penalty" would have  been to come away with the conclusion that a pope can change the Church's teaching. The Papal Pose was misex, with Fr. Murray arguing that it was a break, and Robert Royal at his usual neo-Catholic best when responding that canonists will have to determine whether it is 'de fide', when asked that by Arroyo. It's striking that these people are there to respond as experts and they do not even know that catechisms are not in and of themselves infallible, not even the venerable Catechism of Trent. They ought, however, to contain infallible truths.

Some of the Novus Ordites argued that it is a case of the pope implanting his prudential judgement and that we should take it seriously, having been offered this opinion. Excuse me, but the Catechism is there to tell us what the Church teaches explicitly, not to argue for selective enforcement of prudential judgements, regardless of where they hail!

This is nothing short of heresy because the Church has taught definitively about this issue from her beginning, and God has made it clear that the death penalty can be justifiably imposed by legitimate authority. To argue otherwise is to do nothing short of lying, and to pass it off to others it to shirk responsibility.

What is clear is that Bergoglio has gone after low-hanging theological fruit. He knows that even among those who argue for the licitness of the death penalty, many are opposed to it in practice. The death penalty is only available in a few countries and even in these it is rarely used. He knows that people will not die on 'death penalty hill', so to speak, protesting "thus far but no farther!" We can, however, be sure that if Bergoglio gets away with this he will not stop there.

The arguments he puts forward for it, namely that people nowadays have a realisation that the death penalty is opposed to human dignity, can be used to rationalise pretty much every heresy and Church teaching which is not popular with the modernists. It is pretty much what he has attempted to do with divorce and remarriage and you can be sure that he is testing waters by formally changing the Catechism on the death penalty. Next up on the line might just be your favourite teaching.

Some have argued that Bergoglio only did this to divert attention from the McCarrick scandal - given that it involves one of his closest aides - while others have argued that even with Bergoglio being an idiot, using heresy as deflection is a move too dumb even for him. I am not sure there is anything so dumb that Bergoglio will not do it, so I'll not dismiss the theory entirely.  I too was initially drawn to the theory that he used it as a distraction from the McCarrick scandal. However, I do pride myself in thinking outside the box, and I have wondered: What if the reverse is true?

What if Bergoglio used the McCarrick scandal to introduce formal heresy into the teaching of the Church? What if the McCarrick scandal was itself the distraction? Most of the Catholic and secular media is pre-occupied with other stuff anyway, and there is no better time to poison  the Church's  already-sub-standard Catechism . If he pulls it back on account of major opposition (yeah, as if Bergoglio listens to anyone!) then it will hardly be headline news. If it sticks, then he can use it as reference for even further heresy, knowing that EWTN and the rest of  the neo-Catholic establishment has his back arguing as dishonestly as ever that we need to try and take onboard something which is obviously a heresy simply because the pope has put his weight behind it.

I have often maintained that neo-Catholics, or 'conservative Catholics', will reject every heresy unless it comes from the pope. This incident proves me right, yet again!

All I can say is that I am in total agreement with Christopher Ferrara that The Reversible Magisterium...

Bergoglio hits yet another low; now using grieving children as props - Sunday 15th to Saturday 21st of April

In one of the more amusing-yet-informative stories you will read in a while, Steve Skojec decided to make an admission in "Coming Clean About My Latin Problem". It deals with how Latin is used to enhance worship even among those who do not understand it, and how even children appreciate the Mass much more than they do those in their mother tongue. He was as much surprised by it as anyone else, it would seem.

The ramifications of NATO's aggression on Syria continued this week. It is clear already, if it wasn't before, that the whole chemical attack incident which was used as the excuse for this aggression was a complete hoax.

The OPCW finally reached Douma. I have little hope that the OPCW will issue a clear verdict confirming the hoax. It is quite clear that part of the reason for the bombardment was to put pressure on the OPCW to not declare the whole thing as fake. Had the OPCW arrived before the bombardment the onus would have been on them to declare it a hoax so as to avoid military confrontation. Now that military confrontation has taken place, the onus on them is to save face for the aggressors, yet they cannot come out and flatly rebuke the Western rogue agents.

Expect therefore a document which in its title leaves the question unresolved but in its details more or less concludes that there was nothing! The credibility of the OPCW is very much at stake here, but its agents have livelihoods in the countries which carried out these attacks and have much to lose by coming out against these NATO aggressors.

The Christian leaders of Syria came out and denouced the millitary operations, condemning it fully.

A Novus Ordite made an attempt at defending the operation by this-and-that faulty logic, lies and misrepresentations, even bringing out the old Hitler mention, in attempting to argue just war cause and failed miserably; only succeeded in showing just how far the Novus Ordo has taken people away from authentic Catholic thought. What we witnessed in the piece is an attempt at claiming Catholicity which only proves that what counts as Catholic in many American Catholics minds is an americanist neo-con neo-Catholicism, which doesn't even look out for the Christians it purports to care for. Case in point: The Christian leaders are unanimous in their support of Assad, whereas an American neo-Catholic thinks she knows more about the situation than the very Christians who have died under the assault of Western-backed Islamists, and yes, that includes support even under the Trump regime.

It is my sincere intention to write more about this whole Syrian bombing scheme, since there is much that remains untouched and I definitely aim to return to the afore-mentioned piece in the event of that article. I really take no pleasure in critiquing a piece by someone who by all means is well-intentioned, and who I enjoy reading much of the time, but I must use that piece to point out how easy it is to fall into deceptions when one has been lulled into an alternative universe by being drip-fed lies. That the author also seems to despise the SSPX and is an ardent defender of the Novus Ordo, I am sure is not entirely unrelated. As of now I simply wish to urge anyone who does not believe me to look up "just war" in the Catechism - the new one will do since it has a much more elaborate treatment of this topic than the old - and tell me if anything of what she wrote is even remotely in accordance with a proper Catholic understanding of "just wars". It just seems as though many neo-Catholics are neo-cons first (waaay first), and Catholics second, when convenient.

The Skripal poisoning story refuses to go away, with Lavrom telling us that a Swiss lab involved in the investigation had told the Russian government that 'BZ toxin' - which turns out to be some kind of incapacitating, but not lethal, agent - was found in the Skripals.

The journalist Sandro Magister tried to make the case that Paul VI, despite approving the Novus Ordo reforms, actually disliked them. He made use of soem memoirs from one who was involved. Rorate Caeli warned us not to fall into this whitewas of history, reminding us that Paul VI was front and center the creator of the New Mass of Paul VI.It is difficult to argue otherwise given that Paul VI was celebrating versus populum and in the vernacular long before the Novus Ordo Missae was published.

This leaves us with Bergoglio, and his attention-whoring antics once again hit rock-bottom when he employed a child who had recently lost his father to once again undermine the Church's teaching on salvation and The 4 Last Things. In fact, what he did was tantamount to no less than spiritual abuse.

A boy came over to him - if we are to believe the story - and mentioned that his father had died. He spent some time with Bergoglio so I'll give Bergoglio the benefit of the doubt and assume that he asked the boy some follow-up questions - if not, we are left with the rather unlikely scenario of the boy trotting out his father's life story in less than 2 minutes, while having the clarity of mind to ask very theologically-pointed questions. It transpired that the father was an atheist who had nonetheless accepted to have the children baptised.

Bergoglio, true to form in undermining everything Catholic, proceeded to tell us that God smiled upon this atheist because his effort in having his children baptised even while remaining an atheist was greater than that of a believer who has his children baptised. He assured the little boy that he could pray to his father, and that he is almost certainly in Heaven.

In other words, Bergoglio rejected the very words of Christ who tells us that...

Pages

Subscribe to neo-Catholics