The hounds attack converts, and Bergoglio discovers his magisterialism card, but nobody can really figure out what he said or meant - Sunday 20th of August to Saturday 27th of August

Apart from isolated terrorist-related activity in Barcelona in Spain, Turku in Finland and somewhere in Russia, it was a rather slow newsweek in Europe, I would argue. I certainly didn't pick up in anything. The leftists continued destroying statues and the North Korea vs. U.S. ensured that the media didn't have to look very far for stories, but on the secular front there was little different to set the week apart. In fact, terrorist attacks in Europe are not really newsworthy any more, if we are to be honest.

What did make some news on the Catholic front was one of Bergoglio's lay attack hounds attacking prominent converts and reverts to the faith. It turns out that many of the more prominent anti-Bergoglians are Catholics so a Bergoglio fan decided to make that a point of attack. Perhaps it is a surprise to him that people who actually take the trouble of converting to the Catholic faith - often at great social cost - do it because they take Catholicism seriously. Several prominent Catholics were attacked by name, showing that the Bergoglians really are starting to feel the heat.

Getting insulted by the Bergoglians is now a mark of honour, so I don't think any of them will lose sleep over it.

The really big news though was how Bergoglio attempted to shore up the failing Novus Ordo by telling us that he can say with magisterial authority that the liturgical reforms are now "irreversible". Nobody knows what he meant, although we all took it as an attack on the Roman Rite and an attempt to prop up the Novus Ordo innovations.

Fr. Hunwicke and Novus Ordo Watch (sedevacantists) both had pretty good analyses on it, but it was  Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman who has probably the best analysis, and he also provided a summary from others who had a go at one of Bergoglio's more delusional statements. His basic contention was that this is not such big news because first of all nobody can really figure out what Bergoglio meant. The good priest did, however, manage to shed light on the fact that Bergoglio had quoted mainly himself (as is par for the course) while also spicing his verbiage with references to other popes, except most tellingly Pope Benedict XVI - his immediate predecessor and one who has probably written more on the liturgy than any of the others - who famously issued Summorum Pontificum.

The contention of Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman was that if the liturgical reforms are irreversible (whatever that means) then they would obviously have to include Summorum Pontificum.

A take I saw on one of the comment boards, made an interesting observation, worth quoting in full:

 

Our beloved Holy Father is a Jesuit, and can make good use of mental reservations, and other techniques of communication and diversion. He did *not* say, “I affirm that the post-concilar liturgical reform is irreversible,” rather he said “I can affirm that, etc.”

“Possiamo affermare con sicurezza e con autorità magisteriale che la riforma liturgica è irreversibile”

In a somewhat similar way, I could say: “I can affirm that I am from Mars” but if I did so I would be fibbing.

 

That's good plain old Jesuitism, and I would not be surprised if Bergoglio actually put it that way in order to be able to deny that he actually was trying to impose the Novus Ordo mess on posterity, something he has no authority to do in any case and simply proves his delusion is getting the better of him.

Although we cannot actually pin down what Bergoglio said or meant, we all pretty much know what he intended to convey: Big bad old Church must go, new NOChurch must take its place, but to prop up it's sinking hull we shall pretend that sinking is the new floating.

It is noteworthy that Bergoglio only pulls out his magisterial authority card when he wants to suppress authentic Catholic expression, and not say, when trying to clear up confusion, of which he himself is often the cause.

Then we had another anti-Russian propaganda piece on the Catholic Herald, an action which is becoming sadly predictable. Their trustworthiness has fallen very much, and I shall never forget, God-willing, the amount of propaganda they put into the whole Libya affair, urging the invasion of Libya by the Western forces.

It is difficult to discern who or what exactly the Catholic Herald serves, but truth is definitely not the master over there. Since they took away the commenting ability, they can pretty much print anything without concerning themselves with being corrected by people who either know better or are more honest, so I definitely do not  turn to them unless I have little choice.