NOChurch

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 even 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 taht 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 plent of blame to go around.

No one entity epitomises NOChurch more than the Church in Germany - what...

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...

Bergoglio cracks down: No fags for your orgies! - Sunday 5th-Saturday 11th of November

Like him or loathe him, one has to admit that were Bergoglio's pontificate not so tragic, it would be hilariously comedic. One of the most amusing things about the man has to be his gift for mis-prioritisation, was was on full display this past week. Another tragically amusing thing about him is taking narcicissm to whole new levels. That too was on display this week.

First Bergoglio whined about how people take pictures at Mass, reminding pilgrims - although I would rather use the term victims for anybody who gets exposed to one of Bergoglio's audiences - that it is not a show. This is strange talk, from a man who has himself had clown Masses and who forced a beach ball to sit firmly on the altar - a beach ball which seemed more pious than Bergoglio at the time since it seemed to realise it was out of place and tried to roll off several times. It is interesting though to note the words that the big hypocrite used:

...And I tell you that it gives me so much sadness when I celebrate here in the Piazza or in the Basilica and I see so many raised mobiles (cell phones), not just of the faithful, but even of some priests and bishops too. But please! The Mass is not a show...”

What is interesting with that is not that Bergoglio often treats the Mass as a show - cue the feet-kissing and the sign of peace which takes him all around the Church at times - but condemns others when they do it. In fact, I am kind of happy to learn from Bergoglio that he doesn't think the Mass is a show, seeing as he often treats it as such. No, what is interesting is the fact that even when he is right - that the Mass is not a show - he manages to make it all about himself: "It gives me so much sadness". It's just more "Me! Me! Me!, I, I , I! Me! Me! Most humble me!" from this narcissist.

My policy has always been that one ought not to take pictures at Mass, and if one does so it should be discreet, and one should not receive Holy Communion at a Mass in which one has been taking pictures as one has not been in total submission to the occasion. However, if it annoys Bergoglio, I am willing to revise my policy.

The most amusing thing, however, was that his chronic mis-prioritisation was in full display during the week as it was announced by Greg Burke that Bergoglio has decided to forbid the sale of cigarettes in the Vatican. I couldn't help but laugh when I realised it was not a spoof, I had to find multiple sources reporting this because at first sight I thought it was a joke.

When you think of all the scandals which have hit the Vatican in just the past few months - from population control advocates giving talks, to adultery promotion, to sodomy promotion, to financial improprieties, and of course, the infamous homosexual orgy monsignor, of whom Bergoglio and the Vatican media apparatus has remained silent - it is remarkable to think that the one thing Bergoglio thought it wise to crack down on was cigarette smoking. If one had read the headline "Pope outlaws fags on Vatican premises", with a Catholic pope one might have tended to think "I didn't even know there were any at the Vatican! Be gone with them!". With Bergoglio though, it is a different fag which is being banned.

The reason is very simple: The Holy See cannot contribute to an activity that clearly damages the health of people.

The message was certainly clear, homosexual orgies I'll not talk about or condemn, but cigarettes are banned. My regime couldn't care less about spiritual death even though Jesus Christ speaks of it as the most dangerous thing, but if the WHO mentions smoking as physically harmful, you can count on me to act on it. The message, I am sure, was clearly received, but I summarise it below in case anybody has missed it.

In other words, no cigarettes after your orgies, or during, or before, or whatever the protocol is at Bergoglio's Vatican. No mercy for smokers, but for adulterers and everyone else; well, unless they count Rosaries or say the Confiteor in Latin. In other words, no fags for your orgies!

Another noteworthy thing is that Bergoglio chose to have his media folks announce this as though it was a momentous event. Look, the Vatican has 1 store of which I know, and possibly 2 if they have a bar at the Domus Santa Marthae. We are talking at most about 3 stores at the Vatican, so there was no good reason to make it out as though this was momentous news. If Bergoglio had considered cigarettes so harmful as to want to ban them at all Vatican stores, all he would have needed to do was to advice his assistant to do it in all the 3 places in person. I am sure it would have taken less than 20 minutes to walk to all the joints which sell cigarettes at the Vatican. Such discretion was not good enough for an attention whore of an apostatate, and once again, his media manager had to make it seems as though the most humble pope in history was doing a great service to mankind by announcing his decision to the whole world.

It could have been worse, I suppose: He might have forbidden the sale of all cigarettes which were not made from organic tobacco. So I suppose in that sense he did not exhaust all the comedic possibilities of this particular absurdity. Maybe he is not finished with this topic then.

That covers most of my reflections this week, and the rest I shall mention only in passing.

In another...

Time for everything but the dubia and more U.S. rogue state madness - Sunday 28th of August to Saturday 2nd of September

So, Bergoglio has a new book out. It comes from a series of interviews he gave to a French sociologist.

In it he reveals a lot of things, and finally puts paid to the idea that psychoananlysis has any value by revealing that he saw one for 6 months in his middle-age. The woman was Jewish and close to death, and true to form, Bergoglio obviously made no attempt to efffect a conversion.

The book itself is classic Bergoglio - scandal interwoven with heresy at every turn. I have not reat it,  but the excerpts are quite revealing. Given how long the interviews must have taken, it is further proof that Bergoglio is willing to take time to do everything apart from answering the dubia which were presented to him.

The week also revealed that not all Argentinian bishops are perverts, with Bishop Pedro Daniel Martínez Perea issuing directives which are completely in contradition to Amoris Laetitia in both letter and spirit. We all wonder what will happen to him. His priorities are very clear for all to see, and first among them is destroying the faith, or so it seems at least.

We also had more proof that the U.S. has become a rogue state, with its closure and raid of a Russian consulate in San Francisco. It is easy to get up in armss about the U.S. not following international laws, but truth be told this is a country that doesn't even follow it's own laws, so we should not surprised when it goes all rogue on other powerful nations.  The Russians, were as usual, composed in their reaction.

In the U.S., we also had Steve Bannon leaving the Donald Trump administration.  Some have taken this as a sign that he will enable to help Trump more from the outside by attacking his enemies than from the inside. We do wonder though, with virtually all the reasonable people in the original Trump administration gone, who is going to advise Trump  properly? He seems to be a hostage of the generals with whom he has surrounded himself, and for that he can blame nobody else but himself. The U.S. has this juvenile fascinattion with army-men, and so it seems with Trump, but this might just prove his undoing.

Then we have Hurricane Harvey hitting Texas. It's actually rather heart-warming seeing that Christian brotherhood has not been completely extinguished, given the lengths to which Americans went to help their countrymen.

Continuing on the theme of Bergoglio having time for everything but the dubia, he and the patriarch of Constantinople issued a joint statement - on the environment, of course.

True to form, Bergoglio also had time to appoint more anti-Catholic and anti-life people to the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Finally, we had news of a 'Catholic' school removing statues from its compound so as not to "intimidate" non-Catholics. Some see it as a logical end of Vatican II, and I do not disagree. The only real question is how come it took so long. In any case, they decided to piggyback on the general iconoclasm and monumental stupidity going on in the U.S., and get in on the act by showing their disdain for the Christian heritage.

All in all, another bad week for NOChurch, and another display of just how far the U.S. decay has come - charity in the face of adversity not withstanding.

The hounds attack converts, and Bergoglio discovers his magisterialism card, but nobody can really figure out what he said or meant - Sunday 20th of August to Saturday 27th of August

Apart from isolated terrorist-related activity in Barcelona in Spain, Turku in Finland and somewhere in Russia, it was a rather slow newsweek in Europe, I would argue. I certainly didn't pick up in anything. The leftists continued destroying statues and the North Korea vs. U.S. ensured that the media didn't have to look very far for stories, but on the secular front there was little different to set the week apart. In fact, terrorist attacks in Europe are not really newsworthy any more, if we are to be honest.

What did make some news on the Catholic front was one of Bergoglio's lay attack hounds attacking prominent converts and reverts to the faith. It turns out that many of the more prominent anti-Bergoglians are Catholics so a Bergoglio fan decided to make that a point of attack. Perhaps it is a surprise to him that people who actually take the trouble of converting to the Catholic faith - often at great social cost - do it because they take Catholicism seriously. Several prominent Catholics were attacked by name, showing that the Bergoglians really are starting to feel the heat.

Getting insulted by the Bergoglians is now a mark of honour, so I don't think any of them will lose sleep over it.

The really big news though was how Bergoglio attempted to shore up the failing Novus Ordo by telling us that he can say with magisterial authority that the liturgical reforms are now "irreversible". Nobody knows what he meant, although we all took it as an attack on the Roman Rite and an attempt to prop up the Novus Ordo innovations.

Fr. Hunwicke and Novus Ordo Watch (sedevacantists) both had pretty good analyses on it, but it was  Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman who has probably the best analysis, and he also provided a summary from others who had a go at one of Bergoglio's more delusional statements. His basic contention was that this is not such big news because first of all nobody can really figure out what Bergoglio meant. The good priest did, however, manage to shed light on the fact that Bergoglio had quoted mainly himself (as is par for the course) while also spicing his verbiage with references to other popes, except most tellingly Pope Benedict XVI - his immediate predecessor and one who has probably written more on the liturgy than any of the others - who famously issued Summorum Pontificum.

The contention of Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman was that if the liturgical reforms are irreversible (whatever that means) then they would obviously have to include Summorum Pontificum.

A take I saw on one of the comment boards, made an interesting observation, worth quoting in full:

 

Our beloved Holy Father is a Jesuit, and can make good use of mental reservations, and other techniques of communication and diversion. He did *not* say, “I affirm that the post-concilar liturgical reform is irreversible,” rather he said “I can affirm that, etc.”

“Possiamo affermare con sicurezza e con autorità magisteriale che la riforma liturgica è irreversibile”

In a somewhat similar way, I could say: “I can affirm that I am from Mars” but if I did so I would be fibbing.

 

That's good plain old Jesuitism, and I would not be surprised if Bergoglio actually put it that way in order to be able to deny that he actually was trying to impose the Novus Ordo mess on posterity, something he has no authority to do in any case and simply proves his delusion is getting the better of him.

Although we cannot actually pin down what Bergoglio said or meant, we all pretty much know what he intended to convey: Big bad old Church must go, new NOChurch must take its place, but to prop up it's sinking hull we shall pretend that sinking is the new floating.

It is noteworthy that Bergoglio only pulls out his magisterial authority card when he wants to suppress authentic Catholic expression, and not say, when trying to clear up confusion, of which he himself is often the cause.

Then we had another anti-Russian propaganda piece on the Catholic Herald, an action which is becoming sadly predictable. Their trustworthiness has fallen very much, and I shall never forget, God-willing, the amount of propaganda they put into the whole Libya affair, urging the invasion of Libya by the Western forces.

It is difficult to discern who or what exactly the Catholic Herald serves, but truth is definitely not the master over there. Since they took away the commenting ability, they can pretty much print anything without concerning themselves with being corrected by people who either know better or are more honest, so I definitely do not  turn to them unless I have little choice.

 

Pages

Subscribe to NOChurch