Novus Ordo anti-Catholicism

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...

Chessehead Doland does what he does best, making a fool out of himself and mocking the Church yet again - Sunday 6th of May to Saturday 12th of May

This week's entry will be quite brief, as I have fallen far behind my blogging schedule.

It would be tempting to begin with political matters given that there were some momentous ones this week, but I'll choose to highlight the Met Gala disgrace officiated by Cheesehead Doland with a lot of help from the Vatican.

For anyone who may have missed it, there was a charity gala in New York. This year it was termed "Heavenly Bodies", with a sub-title too long for me to remember and too ridiculous for me to look up. In any case, the Vatican lent some garments and items to the exhibition. The museum itself had some scandalous garments on display, some portraying priestesses' clothes inspired by real priests' attire. The biggest scandal, however, was reserved for the red carpet, when the celebrities paraded in scandalous Catholic-related garments, each more ridiculous than the last, each more blasphemous than the last.

Many were outraged and righly so. Cheesehead Dolan, however, informed us that he saw nothing offensive and nobody out to mock the Church. His sodomitical Jesuit priest buddy Martin followed suit, ecstatic about the blasphemies which the world had witnessed. Cardinal Ravasi represented the Vatican in this horror show. He's head of some pontifical something in charge or culture or some stuff.

Some were keen to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt, insisting that it was not certain that the Vatican was informed of the scandal that the world was about to see, proving yet again that those who defend the NOChurch hierarchy are even more cruel towards the hierarchy than those who attack them. We think they are simply weak, populist, vain and possibly evil, whereas these folks think they are simply mind-numbingly stupid. When the best excuse someone can come up with is that you're a total moron, chances are that they are fooling themselves into that defence.

In any case, Cheesehead Cardinal Dolan soon put paid to that notion with his insistence that he saw nothing blasphemous or mocking. In other words, what he was saying, and the Vatican with him, was that they would have done the very same thing had they had the opportunity. After all, why not, if they saw nothing offensive? They even got to rub shoulders and cleavage with some of the most glamorous women in the entertainment industry, an offer too good for them to refuse for sure.

Many were quick to say: "Imagine if this had been Islam!", "Would they ever do that with Islam?" To that I must once again reply that if the ayatollah of Iran, or indeed any ayatollah, granted me the permission to mock Islam as freely as Cheesehead Dolan and the Vatican did, I would do it to no end. However, they don't, nor should they. They at least pretend to respect the religion they claim to follow at the very least, which is more than we can say about our evidently mainly apostate hierarchy.

The blame cannot and must not fall on the atheist Christianity-hating entertainment industry, which we all know detests Christianity anyway; it has to fall firmly on the shoulders of the Vatican and cheesehead himself for allowing this to happen and allowing themselves to be seen promoting it. If they are invited to a large and prominent mock-fest of Holy Mother Church, you can be sure they will join in, either out of stupidity or out of malice. I cannot, however, accept the notion that the bishops do these kinds of things out of sheer stupidity, unless you can convince me that they are so stupid that somebody dresses them in their robes because they are incapable (the few who still wear robes, let's not forget).

Let us at least give them the benefit of having chosen to betray Christ, instead of assuming that they were suckered into it by liposuctioned over-proportioned barely-clad heavily-cleavaged women!...Although at least in that scenario, these effeminate types would at least be drawn to women, so perhaps there is some charity there after all. I don't buy it in any case.

On the political front, Donald Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. It's hard to see who benefits from this, apart from the warmongers, of whom he is now very prominently a part, it has to be said. Tearing out agreements simply because your predecessor signed them, however incompetent, sodomitical and evil he may have been, is simply no way to behave if you want to make your country 'great again'. The Europeans have insisted that they will resist Trump, although I very much doubt it. After about 70 years of not having a spine, it is difficult to see the Europeans suddenly growing one, especially when they are led by pretty-much the most bought-and-sold unqualified political class to ever see the light of day.

I very much hope to be proved wrong on that.

Donald Trump then has the gall to say that he wants another deal. Who would sign another deal with him? Even if Trump was to keep it, his successor would probably come and rip it up anyway, judging from recent American precedent. Furthermore, which self-respecting country would want to join an agreement whose sole purpose seems to be its humiliation?

In the meantime, Donald Trump continues his warmongering against Iran, to the wild applause of the zionists in Palestine and Islamists in Saudi Arabia. The zionlist-Islamist alliance is strong indeed and Trump seems to be its figurehead.

One of many sad things about this is that as soon as Trump is no longer useful to whomever-he-has-sold-himself-out-to-serve, he will be discarded like a wet rag, given that there is no shortage of material to pin on him. That day may be coming sooner than anyone of us realise, because as useful as Trump has been to the congressional-military-industrial complex, they will never trust him because he is simply too unpredictable. At the first sign of...

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...

Pages

Subscribe to Novus Ordo anti-Catholicism