Pope Benedict XVI

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...

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...

Pages

Subscribe to Pope Benedict XVI