torture

As hubristical as he was wrong-headed: new transcripts shed light on the father of NOChurch - Sunday 13th to Saturday 19th of May

One of the saddest things about Novusordoism's destruction of Catholicism, is that Pope Paul VI was warned about it both before, during and after the council, and before, during and after the many modifications made to Church documents, Church law , Church practice and even the Church's own liturgy.

In what must seem to us like infinite hubris, Paul VI brushed it all off , insisting that everyone should follow him since he is pope, and more concerned that people dared to question him than that the changes made were causing actual harm. That is the take-away from the release of a transcripts from a meeting between Pope Paul VI and the honourable Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre some time in the 1970s.

The honourable archbishop pointed out why he had to resist. He pointed out just how far people had wandered off from the faith. He pointed out how his resistance was done out of love for Holy Mother Church than out of a spirit of rebellion. Pope Paul VI, on the other hand, seemed to be more concerned that Archishop Lefebvre did not accept everything from his mouth as binding, and that he had pinpointed him as the source of many problems, than he was about the souls being lost.

That in a nutshell, is what Novusordoism is all about. It is more important that one never utters a word against the many harmful novelties, than that the souls who are harmed as a result of these novelties be brought back to the faith. Then, of course, if you defend NOChurch enough, there is a dubious canonisation at the end of it for you.

One who will not go quietly down into the bad night is Bishop Gracida, who at 94, is now retired. This week he wrote about how a conclave should be held to depose Bergoglio. I would agree with him , were it not for the fact that I cannot see what authority a council of cardinals has to depose Bergoglio. By all means, Bergoglio should be condemned, but there is no Earthly power to depose a pope, short of  killing the man, and I don't see how that can be done licitly, given that no cardinal can stand in judgement over Bergoglio to issue him with a death sentence, even if they were so inclined.

In the Korean Peninsula, North Korea announced that it would dismantle its nuclear test site in ahead of the Kim-Trump summit. Then they threatened to withdraw from the summit given that the U.S. and South Korea were holding drills outside its shores. It's hard to know what to make of this whole scenario, because I think a lot of details are lost in the headlines, and without these details, the timelines are often off, and we cannot appropriately apportion blame.

The same cannot be said of the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of the week before. Iran has been compliant, but Trump decided to pull out, no doubt egged on by his zionist and wahhabist handlers. In anticipation of what everybody excepts will be the cave-in of the spineless Europeans, China announced that it would enter Iran should Total - the oil company - pull out as a result of the sanctions.

In other Trump-roguery news, the U.S. opened its new embassy to zionism in Jerusalem. Among those in attendance were some of the most vile warmongering zionist televangelists around, most notably Haggee.  Those Catholics who blindly defend Trump would do well to learn what a man such Haggee teaches. He almost makes John McCain look like a peacemaker, such is his love for war in favour of zionism.

Peter Hitchens asked "What moral standing do we have after this outrage? And are we about to join *another* idiotic war, like feeble minions? " The war part was about Iran, I suppose, but the moral standing bit was in retaliation to news of British torture and kidnap victims. That answer to his question is simple, and it is that the U.K. has never had moral standing. What it has had though, is the appearance of morally upright behaviour. I associate the U.K. with the murder and torture of Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries, barbarous colonisation of Africa in the 19th and 20th, and endless poodleship in American wars in te 21st century. I don't have much on the U.K. in the 18th century, but I doubt they were up to any good then either.

The German president - a protestant - was out in the press saying that the Catholic Church should allow intercommunion. His wife is supposedly Catholic and she pays tax, so he wants a stale waffer on Sundays as well, I suppose. You know what, I don't blame him, because he is only parroting what the German bishops and Bergoglio have been saying for years. I do, however, have to ask whether he cannot afford tastier bread than the one offered on Sundays in Catholic churches, because I cannot for the life of me entertain the notion that he believes in the Real Presence, so I have to wonder why he doesn't instead visit a buffet on Sunday mornings instead of attending Catholic church services. Surely he can afford it.

Finally, the Vatican released a document on the economy, or finance, or some such. I honestly couldn't care less!

If they cannot be trusted with clarity on that which ought to be their speciality, and their bread-and-butter - i.e., the faith - , and they can't, then we ought not to pay attention to anything they say about anything else.

This week's Bergoglio victim of the week has to be Vatican documents. Given the mess in which we find ourselves, the Vatican finds itself with nothing better to do than to write a document on the economy. Some have written that the document is actually quite good, and it may well be, but we ought to insist that...

There is none that calleth upon justice, neither is there any one that judgeth truly...

The full verse of Isaiah 59:4 reads:

There is none that calleth upon justince, neither is there any one that judgeth truly - but they trust in a mere nothing, and speak vanities: they have conceived labour, and brought forth iniquity.

I was tempted to go with Psalm 93:16, which reads:

Who shall rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who shall stand with me against the workers of iniquity?

That would have allowed me to lead with "certainly not the bishops of the U.S. or the neo-Catholics"! As it is, I chose to stick with Isaiah.

The topic for today is the U.S. election, which takes place tomorrow. So at least soon we shall be out of our misery with regards to that soap opera. Specifically, I wish to write about the disgraceful silence of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy, their even more disgraceful interventions where those have been present, and the scandalous acts of the neo-Catholic establishment, specifically with regards to Donald Trump's bid to assume the presidency. There will be time for a dishonourable mention of Bergoglio's attempts to interfere.

On the day before the election, I finally took time to glance at the Donald Trump's campaign policies from his own website. They didn't bring much insight as I already knew much of it. The most noteworthy were left out, these being his pledge to fight the abortion industry and his resolve to make peace with Mother Russia instead of inciting conflict.

One might have thougth that Donald Trump's Catholic detractors would at least base their criticism of him on his policies, but no, it has been anything but. From bishops to neo-Catholics, the tone has been that Donald Trump is ungentlemanly, all the while creating a false equivalence between the boorishness of Donald Trump and the sheer evil of Hillary Clinton, whose campain promises read like a what's-what of intrinsic evils. From killing the unborn in their millions in her country and abroad, to forcing the Church and her members to participate in it, to promoting sodomy and wanting to punish those opposed to it, to starting unjust wars abroad, arming Islamists, picking fights with world powers, this woman seems to he some kind of arch-agent of death.

To compare the policies of these two individuals would be akin to comparing the actions of  St. Peter St. Paul with the Emperor Nero - so big is the difference between the positions. Yet one  would never know it from listening to the myriad of bishops who have commented on this, and even worse from the many neo-Catholics who have come out openly against him from the very beginning. On which grounds is Donald Trump so odious? Apart from the myriad of personal attacks on the man's boorish character, we never get a response to that. Some have claimed that he is against immigrants (which is not true given he was married to the daugher of one), while some have cited that he has spoken derogatively on women. I am not the man's etiquette coach so I shall not delve into that debate, but I would expect any half-grown-up human being to realise that Donald Trump is no saint and is not running as one, so any critique we make of the man would have to be based on what he puts forth as his policies, and not who he was as a person say, 10 years ago (when, I should add, he was a member of the party he is now running against, a party which stakes its political claim on demeaning womanhood).

A few of the bishops have acquitted themselves satisfactorily, but they are few and far between. Some have been disgraceful, and there are no guesses that Cardinal Dolan is a shoe-in for that list, as is par-for-the-course by now. The actions and inactions of these bishops just serve to emphasise how much damage the Novus Ordo has done to the Church and how complicit the Church has been in much of the evil we see in the Western world today. The choices could not be clearer - one promises to attack the Church, another to defend it - yet the bishops are satisfied with "no candidate is perfect", as though there has ever been such a thing as a perfect candidate! One wonders whether these people are stupid or evil, or both, or whether they simply like to play the role of useful idiot when they have time left over for non-evangelisation!

The Remnant has done a good job of pointing out why Catholics at the very least have a duty to vote against the wicked woman - a woman who appears more satanical by the day - and made a convicing case why one would more or less have an obligation to vote for Trump. It is not a case of lesser evils (which Trump definitely is not), but one of double-effect. ChurchMilitant.tv has also done a good job, as have many traditionalist sites. The neo-Catholic sites though, on the whole, have not been as clear in their opposition and have often muddied the waters.

There are only 2 things (of which I know) for which I can fault Trump - and I write this as someone who has been following his campaign almost from the start. One of them is his position on torture, an intrinsic evil. No Catholic can support that. On this point, it is difficult to imagine Hillary Clinton thinking otherwise since she has expressed a will to bomb pretty much anybody anywhere, and is in favour of killing the unborn till the point of birth, and almost certainly afterwards; in other words, torture and death for the most innocent. The second position of Trump which worries me is that on Iran, where he has been outrageously aggresive in his rhetoric. Again, this can be compared to that wicked woman, who in 2008 said that if elected president she would attack...

Pages

Subscribe to torture