12 October 2015

"What we Old Narnians must do after that, what it will be possible for us to do, remains to be seen."

Why I gave up news reporting

By Hilary White


TLMer said...

I would like to start my comments by inserting a long quote by Ms. White:

"I have believed for a long time that however it was done – the details are at this stage not so important – Vatican II was used by the enemies of Christ to inject an entirely new, false religion into the existing structures of the Church. They injected this poison, this antireligion, that then began to spread like a virus, infecting the entire body one cell at a time. It rewrote the spiritual DNA of religious orders and academia first, then spread to the diocesan structures, the national bishops organisations and international charitable agencies. And finally, in March 2013, the enemy took the citadel.

 Now we know quite concretely what the next phase will be and we’ve got a pretty good idea of the timeline. Danneels and his friends, including Bergoglio, believe that the war was over that night and it is clear they are moving forward with the plan for the final liquidation of the Catholic Church’s doctrinal foundations – starting with sexual morality – to transform her into a vehicle for secular humanist, Freemasonic ideologies, like a colossal spiritual syringe full of “merciful” poison to be administered to the whole world.

In the last weeks and months, the only really new information are the details of what exactly it will look like, coming mainly from interviews with Pope Bergoglio’s closest collaborators. What will happen next month at the Synod and after is nothing more than the formal installation and recognition of the new religion, and the final expulsion of the old religion of Christ. We will be introduced to the religion of Kasperism, of Bergoglianism, of Neomodernism, in short. Or as it was described elsewhere, the “abomination of desolation in the sanctuary.” What we Old Narnians must do after that, what it will be possible for us to do, remains to be seen."

> http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2074-why-i-gave-up-news-reporting

Timman, et. al., is this your perspective also? Is this also representative of trads in general?

Her long, though interesting diatribe seems to hold to what Pope Francis referred to as the "Hermeneutic of Conspiracy." It seems like a rewarmed version of Gnosticism, coupled with good old Lutheran distrust/suspicion toward our church leaders. She lists not one objective, verfiable fact, but rather describes conclusions she deems as obvious to any thinking Catholic, as if her inferences were somehow divinely inspired.

This is truly troubling. Not just the worldview she describes, which is bad enough with the Pope being Sauron, but her complete faith in this fundamentalist and apocalyptic perspective of the Catholic Church.

Again, I freely admit I may be missing something. I look forward to some clarifiction.

thetimman said...

Her point of view is her own. She covered Vatican affairs and had access to sources and information that I could never approach. So, maybe, the opposite of Gnosticism.

Her tone aside, and she is strident, I don't think that her statements, rightly understood, are provably incorrect. Of course time will tell.

Ascribing certain motives to the Holy Father based upon his own public utterances and actions doesn't see, unfair-- in fact, it gives him credit for honesty. Certain conservative apologists, undoubtedly for noble reasons, take a position that requires him to be either a liar or a great fool. I consider him as neither.

The child who sounds the fire alarm when there is a fire that threatens lives is not "negative" or on a diatribe, even if her audience hasn't seen the fire yet. Quite the opposite.

TLMer said...

I understand your point, Timman, though I believe you grant the child too much credit for all her alarm pulling. First, we can't prove a negative. It's her responsibility to prove her assertions, not ours to prove them wrong, agreed? Second, she never states facts, just opinions about what she heard or saw. There is no, "The Pope stated he disagreed with the Church's teachings on matter X on this date and time," or anythjng like that. It's as if we the readers have to be already complicit in her assertions, so we would automatically agree with what she says. In fact, how does her piece not constitute sheer gossip? Lastly, the tone of her piece sounds judgmental to me, as in she is sitting in judgment on the Annointed of God, like she has the authority to make the accusations, as if she knew the truth, hence, my feeling that her diatribe sounds Gnostic. The secret knowledge here would be the decoder rings she and others apparently have that enable them to rightly discern things about Church leaders based on incomplete reports, out of context quotes, and media-selected AV footage.

Is there some collusion of suspicion that is being implied by this piece by Ms. White, without which it only sounds like a bunch of hasty generalizations coupled with much inference multiplied by a deep-seated mistrust of any Church leaders she deems as somehow unorthodox?

Again, how is her piece in any way anything other than op-ed, at best, or malicious gossip at worst, even if she was a journalist before? How is her writing journalistic at all, in fact?

What am I missing? It's like I am either blind to some really obvious things, or I don't understand what I am seeing, and it frustrates me. I respect your opinion, and those of many other older brothers in Christ, for it was partly through yours and other trads' writings that I became aware of the TLM and became a tradvert, and there seems to be this prevailing attitude that the Catholic Church is the haunt of thieves and liars, or worse. I am not seeing objective questioning, but flat-out condemnation, like it's 1939 in Berlin and many others around are saying the National Socialists are a really bad bunch of guys, but I don't see it, and I am getting nervous while eating a bowl of chicken soup at the deli. That kind of obvious.

So, again, what gives?