Vatican II

You don't need God; You have me! Sunday 14th to Saturday 20th of January

There is a lot of ground to cover this week so I shall try to be brief on each topic.

We begin with some good news in the form of a series of articles by the always-unpredictable Fr. Allan J. McDonald. I refer to him as unpredictable because one never knows what he is going to write. One day he could be attacking the latest destructive Novus Ordo novelty and the next day he could be attacking not only an analogous novelty, but the very Novus Ordo mentality that brought the novelty into being in the first place.

This time he published 3 posts on Vatican II, the sum total of which was geared towards defending the Catholic Church pre-dating before Vatican II. He linked to a series on interviews from people who lived before Vatican II, and only one of 6 was negative, and that 6th one turned out to be a bitter feminist who was a toddler at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, so her opinion can be dismissed out of hand. What we have is a snapshot into the life of a Church which was caring, loved and vibrant; a Church which was the centre of the lives of many of her sons and daughters. It was a loving Church which inspired those under her care to aspire to be the best they could be.

In a follow-up post, he responded to a comment from the original piece, in which the notion that the pre-Vatican II Church could not have been that good given that it collapsed virtually overnight once NOChurch went into high gear was advanced. He finished off with citing a study which shows that only 24% of Catholic women in the U.S. go to Church nowadays. This number was naturally much higher before the Novus Ordo. In other words, in spite of - or perhaps, due to - the mass effeminisation programme undertaken by NOChurch authorities, even women find NOChurch unappealing.

On Rorate Caeli, Peter Kwasniewski outlined the Church's traditional wisdom in having post-Christmas and pre-Lented periods, to slow us down from the highs of Christmas before we enter the gloom of Lent. It was a piece well-worth reading.

We were also informed that at least 20% of non-religious people pray, often in times of trouble. I would have thought the figure was higher. So perhaps the old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes should be updated, but I would think that even 80% of the rest have some kind of notion of God, only they let their anger get in the way of their humility. You find it commonly expressed in the "God doesn't exist, because if he did then so-and-so would not have died" and so on.

In the U.K., we had Bishop Egan visiting a foreign diocece and to his dismay and horror most Catholic churches were locked. He did not appreciate that, and neither do I since I have also attempted to go to many churches which I found locked. That this diocese seemed to be in England precludes the possibility that he could have paid a visit during siesta hours. Churches being locked is yet another fruit of Vatican II, and a bitter one at that.

We then get to the bad news, and not entirely unpredictably, these are headed by our very own Bergoglio.

The world's favourite attention-whore was up to his old tricks again, although this time he outdid even himself. On another of his scandalous trips - this time to Chile and Peru to do nobody-knows-what-good, he 'wedded' a couple on the plane, after joking that it is witchcraft which gives him all his wrecking-ball energy. The couple both worked as air stewards, and the story they gave was that Bergoglio by chance inquired as to their marriage status, and finding out that they were not sacramentally married - only civilly -, volunteered to wed them on the plane. I must admit that I never bought the story for a second, because more or less everything Bergoglio does is a stunt. Furthermore, we are talking about a man who says that most couples who are married are not married and many couples who are not married are actually married. It is an unlikely candidate for an inquisition into whether the steward serving him is in a sacramental marriage.

It reminded me of a scene from an X-Men movie, in which the grandfather mutant tells Charles that he doesn't need Cerebro (the machine he uses to reach into far-away minds) in order to reach out to all the world, because he can do with his powers instead, saying "You don't need a machine to amplify your powers. You have me!". Bergoglio was simply stating "You don't need to call on God for marital blessings; You have me!". The mutant seems to have been correct, as he had the power; Bergoglio, not quite so, as he doesn't.

Now, at a wedding Mass, we call down God's blessings on the new couple and pray that they will have a fruitful marriage. Bergoglio obviously seem that a wave of his hand can replace the blessings that are brought down from Heaven upon a newly-wed validly and sacramentally married in the House of God.

It never seemed likely that Bergoglio would warmly speak to flight attendants anyway, as insider portrayals of Bergoglio paint him out as a rather unfriendly man. It seemed even less fanciful that a man who has launched a fully-fledged assaunt on the institution of marriage would care whether a couple was canonically and sacramentally married.

To nobody's surprise, therefore, the whole stunt turned out to have been pre-planned but that didn't stop Bergoglio continuing to lie about the whole event and sticking to the original story.  What id did, however, was show just how irreverent and narcissistic all involved were. No longer could...

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...


Subscribe to Vatican II