Pope Paul VI

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...

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...

We dare to question, and we dare to join the dots - Sunday 11th to Saturday 17th of February

If one was to write extensively about all the public evils going on in the Church right now one would hardly have time for anything else. For that reason I'll save those for last and attempt to be brief in my coverage of them. It's same old really - Bergoglio's sodomites and apostates are pushing apostasy and sodomy, in different guises and with a different cast of characters every week.

We start with a very curious story regarding Syria, one which confirms what anybody with half a brain already knew but which is nonetheless intriguing. We had the French defence minister admitting that they have never had any reliable evidence of chlorine use in Syria by the government. If I am not mistaken, this came not long after the U.S. defence minister also stated that they have no evidence that the government of Syria has used chemical or biological agents against anti-government Islamists. The question of whether it is any of their business what the Syrian government does in its own country's fight for survival against Jihadis - armed and trained by the West and its allies - is one which I shall not address now. We must assume that none of them have ever had any evidence of the Syrian government ever committing atrocities of the likes against its citizens, or even the non-citizens killing its people in an effort to turn it into an Islamic state.

This should have made news, but predictably did not.

Le Creep did not waste any time stating that if they do find evidence they will strike against Syria - in contravention of international law, of course, but which of these globalists cares about that?

The important thing to take home is that for some reason, the narrative from the NATO aggressors has started to shift. I cannot help but wonder why this is, given that the U.S. has dug its heels in Syria by attacking the Syrian government forces and its allies multiple times. It's almost as though Syria is the battleground for different factions of the Western establishment, the major cost being Syrian blood.

A similar theme, this time limited not to general NATO roguery but only to U.S. roguery, is "If America Wasn’t America, the United States Would Be Bombing It", which I read on the website of the Ron Paul Institute.  The piece was specifically about the multiple war crimes the U.S. has perpetrated since the end of the Second World War, with a special emphasis on crimes only over this past decade. It is difficult to disagree with the claim of the piece, and truth be told, if the U.S. had an embassy in Washington, then they would have found a way of taking out Donald Trump militarily by now. I would much rather think that the U.S. would not be bombing America, had America been a different country, but rather supplying it with weapons and propaganda aid.

The only group of people who largely get the U.S. straight are traditionalists, and even here I would argue that at least within the U.S. it is not a majority which is opposed to U.S. aggression. A lot of American traditionalists, however, are honest enough to recognise the U.S. as the threat to world peace and morals that it really is, and are ashamed of the U.S. for that reason.

If you think I am exaggerating ask yourself this: Since the end of the Cold War, what is the body count of non-U.S. aligned Islamists compared to that of the U.S.?  This is a particularly good mental exercise for those who do nothing but fret about the threat of Islamist violence. I don't have the numbers, but I would be extremely surprised if the numbers were not in the region of 100:1, with the U.S. having the larger number. It is also worth pointing out that the only country in which the U.S. and al Qaeda have been on opposite ends of the battle ground has been Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Iraq (although that's questionable). In Libya, Syria and Yemen, the U.S. and al Qaeda have not only fought side-by-side, but the U.S. has provided air support for al-Qaeda, the very organisation over which the U.S. claims to have started the Afghan war.

For the longest time I resisted the notion that al-Qaeda was a CIA-front, but now I have grudgingly come to accept that it must be the case, given that in most conflicts they fight on the same side, and in the only conflict in which they had direct combat, the U.S. had been responsible for their creation in the first place, having supported Islamists in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet Union.

That war has destroyed a country and destabilised a region. Instead of showing contrition, Americans are now led into welcoming the tune of war drums against North Korea, Venezuela and Iran - and those are only the countries that make it to the news. I am sure there are many other threats made against smaller states but which are not found newsworthy or propaganda-worthy enough for the U.S. to make a big show about.

If we count the dead unborn, and the rising number of dead elderly, killed for no other reason other than for being inconvenient, then the body count of the West versus the Islamic world is in the region of 1,000:1 at least. As Michael Matt from the Remnant asks , why should any American think they have the moral high ground over Islam, or Islamists, or even communists? Well, at this rate the U.S. will be communist before long and large chunks of Europe will be Islamist, so we shall soon be able to see if the body count will increase or decrease.

On the topic of body counts, we were informed that there was a school shooting in the U.S., with 17 people being killed as a formerly-expelled student shot up at his...

Pages

Subscribe to Pope Paul VI