Novus Ordo priorities

The grinch who stole Holy Week, or more honestly put, the attention whore who tried to upstage it - Sunday 25th to Saturday 31st of March - Holy Week

As we all should be aware, but most are not, the Holy Week reforms of the 1950s were quite sweeping. Berfore Holy Week, Rorate Caeli once again re-posted an article on " The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956". It is well-worth reading, especially in connection with the news recently that some traditional orders had been allowed to celebrate the pre-1950s Holy Week on a 3-year experimental basis starting this year.

Traditionalists are nothing if not resourceful and it didn't take long before there was a resource for the pre-1950 Holy Week with English translations, aptly called Pre-1955 Holy Week (although I grant that it may well have been present before the announcement). Rorate Caeli also provided us with a clarification on who exactly may chant the Passion. These two interventions by Rorate Caeli were quite helpful to me personally, as I finally came to realise taht the Passion is not actually the Gospel reading for Good Friday, but that we actually have a Passion reading followed by a Gospel reading, at least in the traditinal liturgy, pre-1950s edition in any case. Rorate Caeli was also kind enough to provide us with pictures of Palm Sunday from the pre-1955 Holy Week celebration.

Anybody who knows anything about Christianity knows that Easter is the biggest event of the Church year (yet it seems that professional journalists writing for major state-sponsored publications don't have a clue about what Easter is all about, to nobody's surprise, and they are probably even proud about it). We shall also know that Holy Week is the most august week of the year. It is for this reason that the secular anti-Catholic world generally steps up its attacks on the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. It is also the week that the world's most popular attention-whore gets up to his usual attention-seeking antics in order to seemingly steal attention away from the Church's commemorations and celebrations.

This year was no exception, but having noticed that his Maundy Thursday foot fetish doesn't get the attention it used to , Bergoglio decided to get a little help from his now 93-year old atheist friend Euginio Scalfari. Every time he speaks to that an he can be guaranteed a few scandalous headlines and this time was no different. Just in time for the Holy Week Celebrations, in which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist and died to save us from the fires of hell and allow us too spend eternity with God, Bergoglio told his friend that there is no hell, and that those who die in sin simply vanish, while those who repent before end up spending eternity in the presence of God. This interview was timed to coincide with Maundy Thursday, and naturally overshadowed his feet-washing ceremony, which was once more carried out in prison and against the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, rubrics which he himself amended, it has to be mentioned.

The reactions were not long in coming, and predictably, much of the Catholic press tied itself up in knots, blaming the poor atheist fool Scalfari, instead of pointing to Bergoglio as the culprit. The Vatican issued a non-denial denial, informing us, as we all know, that Scalfari does not record his interviews so it cannot be ascertained whether what was reported was the exact phrasing that Bergoglio used. In other words, they were saying loudly and clearly that Bergoglio is a heretic, as we all know, but we can use the he-doesn't-record-interviews card to get us out of a very serious doctrinal situation. They could really have done little else, for had they said that Bergoglio had actually admitted that he doesn't believe in hell, then they would efffectively have been confirming what we all know, that the man is not Catholic. Had they come out and denied that Bergoglio said that, then they would have had to explain how it is that a man who, as far as I know, hasn't faced many accusations of total misrepresenation in his work before - save for when he speaks to Bergoglio - could get such a fundamental thing so wrong.

Bergoglio himself did not come out and deny it, so we can rest safely in the knowledge that Bergoglio told his atheist friend that. It must be noted that this is not the first time that Bergoglio has denied that souls end up in hell, as Scalfari has reported on this before, and even in Church documents Bergoglio has written something to the tune of everything been on its way to Heaven. His defenders have pointed out that Bergoglio mentions the devil quite a lot, and so he must be misquoted if he has said that the devil does not exist. That is a logical fallacy if ever there was one, as it is entirely possible to believe that the devil exists and yet believe that nobody ends up in hell; that the devil would spend eternity in hell with his demons. In any case it was dishonest of them as they could easily have found multiple instances of Bergoglio telling us that those who die in mortal sin never end up in hell, assuming that anybody can even die in mortal sin, which Bergoglio does not seem to believe - save for traditional Catholics who use doctrine as stones to throw at people while sitting in the judgment seat of Moses. That's his phrasing, not mine, of course.

On the topic of attacking the Church's doctrines, Bergoglio could not resist taking a barb at the notion of truth, insisting that priests ought not to make "idols of certain abstract truths". This was in a separate speech, mind you, proving beyond doubt, if anyone is still not convinced, that the man is in constant heresy mode, and not just when speaking to his atheist anti-Catholic friends who, if you are to believe his enablers, have nothing better to do than...

It turns out NOChurch is actually good at something, and Bergoglio's heresies are of his own free choice - Sunday 11th to Saturday 17th of March

We can really only start in one place, and that's with what has become known as 'Lettergate'. I tagged it as "Vigano lettergate" because I can only assume that there will be more scandals involving falsified letters from this dreadful pontificate and I therefore need to prefix 'lettergate'.

The basic story, as I have understood it is as follows. Vigano, who acts as some sort of communications director, asked Pope Benedict XVI to write a letter in promotion of a series of theological papers due to be released in 'honour' of Bergoglio's 5-year anniversary as pope. The Vatican released an image of 2 pages of the letter, only the first of which could be seen, with the signature on the second page.

It soon became known that they had blurred out the last paragraph on the first page. In this section, Pope Benedict wrote that he had not read the books and had no  intention of reading them. What seemed to be a mild endorsement had transformed into a complete non-endorsement of the books, and a less than complimentary take on Bergoglio's pontificate thus far.

In stage 3 of Vigano lettergate, it became known through Sandro Magister that the Vatican communications department had omitted virtually all the text on the second page, barring the signature. This part made it clear that Pope Benedict had refused to touch these papers on account of sections of the bundle being written by 2 theologians who had become known during his pontificate and that of Pope John Paul II for all manner of heresies. In other words, the non-endorsement had turned into a condemnation. If one was to read between the lines, one could see that what Benedict was saying was that people who have had all sorts of problems with the Church's teaching are now being used to endorse Bergoglio's theology, which can only mean that Bergoglio is more or less a heretic himself, and this coming from a 'pope emeritus'.

A lot of people wondered why Bergoglio's handlers had to go to such great lengths to turn a non-endorsement into an endorsement, and in such a bad way in which they were bound to be found out. Perhaps their incompetence simply doesn't allow them to know any better. Perhaps they do actually want Bergoglio exposed as the true fraud that he is. It's anybody's guess at this time. What is claimed to be the full text was then finally released, and Edward Pentin has done a good job covering the timeline of this scandal.

In any case, people realised what we have long suspected: Bergoglio's pontificate is burning itself to the ground to such an extent that they require some sort of endorsement from Pope Benedict XVI, whose reforms have been dismantled by Bergoglio virtually from the top down.

There is one thing which Pope Benedict wrote which is worth drawing attention to and in my opinion this is the take-away. These most important words of Pope Benedict XVI's letter are the following:

I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today. 

What Pope Benedict XVI is telling us here is that Bergoglio's heresies and idiocies are of his own making and nobody else can be blamed for them.

It has become very common to excuse Bergoglio by saying that he had a bad formation, as a South American Jesuit in the 1960s. In other words, what these people are implying is that everybody is to blame for Bergoglio's stupidity than Bergoglio himself. The list of these people can indeed be made long, and would have to start with his parents, then his school teachers, his seminary directors, his bishop, his Jesuit superiors, and probably a whole big cast, not least of which is the case which surrounds Bergoglio today and is said to offer him bad advice.

Pope Benedict XVI utterly rejects this view and points out that Bergodlio did have a good formation and that his heretical ways are entirely of his own choosing.

This brings us to our next point...

One of the most dreadful individuals on the face of the Earth, Cardinal Kasper, came out with his usual tripe about Bergoglio and  contraception. This time though, Kasper is right on the money. It cannot be denied that Bergoglio has subtly endorsed contraception on multiple occasions, and while not endorsing it he has minimised its moral gravity. Kasper argues that Bergoglio's "silence" on the issue shows that he approves of it, and I could not agree more. As I commented on the day:

It creeps me out to agree with Kasper on anything, but I would have to agree with him that Bergoglio's silence on contraception reveals that Bergoglio is in favour of it.

However, even in that statement Kasper cannot help but be true to himself and lie.

It is far from accurate to tell us that Bergoglio has not spoken about contraception. It would be like saying that Theresa May of U.K.-poodleship fame has not accused Vladimir Putin of acts of aggression simply because she does not mention his name when making all kinds of anti-Russian statements implicating the Russian government.

Bergoglio has indeed spoken out multiple times against the Church's stance on contraception. In at least one instance he insisted that the Church "must not obsess" about "contraception, homosexuality and abortion". In another he said that Pope Paul VI changed his mind on contraception, allowing it for certain cases; a blatant lie and one of many.

Anyone who claims that Bergoglio has not attacked the Church's teaching on contraception ought to be ashamed that on this issue even Kasper the terrible cardinal is more truthful.

As if to accentuate the Novus Ordo's chronic ability...

Proof, if anyone needed it, that NOChurch is the devil's creation, from the mouths of Novus Ordites themselves - Sunday 4th to Saturday 10th of March

They say that polls can be used to tell us just about anything, and it's true that the way questions are posed does make a big difference. If the questions are posed in the same way year after year, however, then the polls must tells us something of value, if it is the case that there are variations year on year, of even if there are no variations, to the very same questions asked in much the same way.

This, I assume, is the way that the Pew Research Center has been conducting its various surveys aimed at Catholics on various issues. The latest survey is quite telling in may ways and some will indeed choose to focus on the fact that Bergoglio has lost a lot of trust among most Catholics. Mind you, by 'Catholics' the researchers mean people who self-identify as Catholics. Had the term 'Catholic' been defined to mean people who actually believe in everything that the Catholic Church teaches there is little doubt that the figures would have looked much worse for Bergoglio, but then again, there might not have been a big enough sample to go by, given that believing Catholics are virtually an endangered species after almost 60 years of NovusOrdoism.

I could go on and ask this and that question, such as "how can an overwhelming majority of Catholics still maintain  positive opinion about this man?", or "how can a majority think he is a force for good?". That really wouldn't get us anywhere because the point that traditionalists have been making for a long time is that 'Catholics' for the most part nowadays are practitioners of a religion that would have been deemed abominable by virtually any practising Catholic before 1950.  I'll not dwell much on Bergoglio except to point out that Bergoglio has only accelerated  a loss of identity and virtue that began even before the Second Vatican Council, probably since they re-made the Holy Week liturgy in 1950, and it is not hard to see why because the psychological effect of these changes must have led to the conclusion that Christianity is a man-made religion.

If you don't believe me then simply ponder what I wrote on the day I read the survey:

In other NOChurch apostasy news, we have a poll measuring attitudes of Catholics in the U.S. to various topics, althouth most of the piece focuses on Bergoglio. A lot of people will focus on Bergoglio but I thought the most telling point was the following:

The share of U.S. Catholics who favor allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry has grown from 54% in 2012 to 67% in 2017.

In other words, the mass apostasy within NOChurch began long before Bergoglio began homosexualising and anti-evangelising through his voluminous seemingly-never-ending rantings.

In a discussion that I had some while back, it was mentioned that Vladimir Putin does not give full freedom to the Catholic Church in Russia. I am unsure what that means, as the Catholic Church in Russia seems to be under less oppression than in say, the U.K.. In any case,  my response was simple:

If I was in charge of Russia I wouldn't allow the Catholic Church to operate either. This is a country coming out of 80 years of communist propaganda, with a president trying to rebuild the moral fabric of the nation. On the other side we have the Catholic Church, which in its NOChurch guise seems to do nothing other than promote homosexuality and feminism.

The survey of American Catholics confirms pretty much what I said then. Whatever NOChurch touches is worse off for it.

Many will say that one needs to make a distinction between people who self-identify as Catholics and those who actually go to Mass every single Sunday. I agree that the distinction is not irrelevant, but I have always argued that the greatest argument against the Novus Ordo is not the vast number of Catholics who never bother going to Church on Sundays, but rather a good conversation with a large number of those who do. I have had many of these discussions, and I can disabuse anybody of the notion that the statistics for Sunday Mass-going Catholics would be anything other than horrifying.

I really do not want to spend too much time on other news of the week, because nothing out to detract from the frightening news contained in that survey, which I urge everyone to read.

In other weeks, I might have spent more time on a new homosexual priest scandal, this time in Italy, on account of the news that a homosexual prostitute made a list of 40 sodomitical clerics with whom he has been involved and this list has now been presented to the Vatican. As I wrote last week, we seem to have sodomy news from clerics almost every week and it is utterly depressing, yet it explains so much of what is going on in the Church today.

I could mention that an African cardinal, a certain Cardinal John Onaiyekan, is bemused at why the Catholic Church in Europe is attempting to tackle the 'isolation' of homosexuals, instead of tackling its empty Churches.

In another week, I might have written extensively about the Italian elections, in which anti-immigration and anti-EU forces won the majority of the votes, very much in oppsition to Bergoglio's and the Italian bishops' conference's prodding.

We might have been able to tackle comments by Cardinal Brandmüller taking issue at the German bishops' conference promoting and authorising protestants to receive 'Holy Communion' on Sundays if they are married to Catholics, a move based on "utterly dishonest" premises. After all, these would be protestants who long so much to receive the Eucharist that they couldn't be bothered to enter the Catholic Church in order tod o it.

Also of mention is the fact the truth regarding the...

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 event 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 that 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 plenty of blame to go...

Pages

Subscribe to Novus Ordo priorities