U.S. lap dogs

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...

As far as scandals in the Church go, this was a normal week by NOChurch standards.

We had  Carlo Capella, a former Vatican diplomat, being arrested on child pornography charges in the Vatican - well overdue, one might add.We had Cardinal Schönborn intimating that we could have priestesses in the Catholic Church.

Bergoglio issued yet another apostolic exhortation, this time called "Gaudete et Exsultate" - 'Rejoice and be Glad', which, let not the title deceive you, was yet another big rant against those who hold to the Catholic faith. We also had Bergoglio seeming to aplogise for his handling of the Barros sexual abuse affiliation scandal in Chile, and I write "seeming" because he found a way to say that he was not actually to blame and that he only acted wrongly because of the information he had received.

The fallout from Bergoglio's denial of heresy continuted, with one of the most prominent American neo-Catholics, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, finally publicly turning on him. The Remnant was quick to draw attention to the fact that Bergoglio is losing support from those who have defended him all along.

The big news were of course that the U.S. and its NATO lap dogs launched strikes against Syria. This time at least it took them almost a week before launching strikes against Syria, which is more than the 2-3 days it took them at roughly the same time last year.

Much of the week - by anyone honest - was spent actually exposing the absurdity of the alleged chemical attacks which were used as the justification for this NATO attack to have been carried out by Assad. A rather large chunk went to actually showing that the alleged events never actually took place, and that the whole narrative had been a hoax. That did not matter for Donald Trump and co. , however, as they launched their airstrikes on the very same day that the OPCW inspectors were supposed to visit the site of the alleged incident.

Most of the media covered itself in shame yet again, with Tucker Carlson the one notable and admirable dissenter in the U.S. In a series of episodes he showed just how much the U.S. has lied about this stuff before, that the U.S. defence minister had just 2 months prior come out and said that the chemical attack which was alleged to have taken place last year and which was used as the justification for airstrikes then was never actually proved . He also pointed out that there seems to be a pattern in which as soon as it seems as though the U.S. might be pulling out or drawing down its involvement in helping the Islamists in Syria, a 'chemical attack' takes place, which is used to drum up support for some sort of U.S. intervention in Syria.

The Russians, are, of course, in Syria and helping the Syrian government strike back against the head-chopping heart-eating Islamists who the U.S. and its Western allies - not to mention Turkey - have been hell-bent on unleashing in Syria. Russia had warned that it would shoot down any missiles which threatened its forces in Syria, and not only that, but that they would also target any launch platforms which were used. Fortunately, that did not come to fruition as the NATO strikes were cosmetic at best. Nobody died, which is the most important thing, and the equipment that was destroyed does not seem to have been irreplaceable.

Still, we are talking about an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country founded on a very lazy lie which was easily disproved and we should all be concerned that the NATO gang feel they can attack any country for any reason, or no reason at all. It should also be a cause of embarassment for all Americans that the president of the U.S. has more latitude in attacking countries for no reason than he has to put a stop to spurious money-sucking investigations directed towards him, or even building the wall which was the cornerstone of his presidential campaign.

A petition was launched by prominent Catholics in an attempt to impress on Trump the importance of the just war doctrine, not that it did much help.

I have already had occasion to write once on "The greatest fantasy in the Western rogue states' latest attack on Syria" and I intend to follow this story because it deserves to be followed, and also because of the disgraceful actions I have seen from both Catholics and non-Catholics regardin this latest Western aggression against yet another sovereign state. The mainstream media was predictably extremely vociferous in its support and encouragement for military action against Syria, relying on lies and disinformation based upon previous lies and disinformation to make its case.

Some of the most prominent traditionalist Catholics were very vocal in their opposition to these strikes, as was the Christian community in Syria. The Remnant and OnePeterFive deserve honourable mentions as well as contrast. At The Remnant, nobody commenting on the story believed the U.S. government story. At OnePeterFive, the publishers did not believe it, but since the quality of Catholicism is lower there  - it is not exclusively or even primarily traditionalist in nature - the quality of the responses towards the official Western narrative was also noticeably worse.

One more important thing to take home from this is that Donald Trump missed a golden chance to assure his re-election. If he had turned to the people who elected him and told him that this is just another fake news media ploy, I have little doubt that he would have stood out as a giant among (granted, mediocre) men. Instead, he missed the oppostunity to look smart for once and now looks just like another stooge of the deep state and the American war machine. As far as I am concerned, the U.S. would be better off if Donald Trump was to be impeached because at least that would pull...