We’ve a bit of a news roundup here, again reinforcing our claim that the Novus Ordo must needs be sacrilegious in itself, and that its acceptance necessarily implies the abandonment of every moral principle bearing upon “right reverence.” (See the longer treatment here.)

So…

Question: Why would the Successors of the Apostles in the United States deem it necessary to have a specific new instruction forbidding the inclusion of fish in a baptismal font? Wouldn’t this be a valid expression of our “ecological conversion“?

Better yet – what if the USCCB reneges and approves the practice next year? Would it then cease being “totally inappropriate,” and instead become an expression of right reverence?

Bring on the biting fish creek baptisms…

Now, watch here the Australian Plenary Synod’s opening Mass, which begins with a procession of wailing didgeridoos, ritual smoking herbs, and a local pagan asking “the ancestral male and female spirits” for their “permission to be here in ceremony this afternoon,” affirming the “sacredness of the land” and “first nations spirituality.”

Observe sundry ladyfolk leading the faithful in a ritual touching and breathing exercise — affirming the “spirit of our ancestors,” acclaiming “Mother Earth,” “Grandfather Sun,” the “fires above,” the ancestor-spirit-infused “Sister Rain,” “Brother Air,” etc. etc.

See an ostensibly Catholic bishop wafting some cleansing herb smoke onto himself during the entrance procession – defended as “liturgical inculturation” (duh) in a later interview: “If we use some of their [pagan] symbols for cleansing, what’s wrong with that?”

Superliturgicologists like Bishop Shane Mackinlay sometimes try explaining that certain pagan ritual elements may be included “within” per se Catholic liturgy, and others (more pagan per se) may occur “in conjunction to” the per se Catholic liturgy. For instance, an “aboriginal Our Father” or “penitential rite,” or the use of a pectoral cross made by pagans and “decorated with their symbols” would be an example of the first category, whereas a smoking ceremony or ritual earth-touching would fall into the second category.

Even so, one can be forgiven for not quite grasping the distinction (if it is one), since both have been practiced by Catholic clergy over the last half century, contrary to the unbroken practice of every Catholic on the planet for the previous nineteen-and-one-half centuries.

In fact, since the Second Vatican Council, a new moral law has been promulgated: One in which offenses against the First Commandment are morally permissible – even laudable as “cultural expressions” and whatnot.

As an Aussie Synod panelist recently pointed out: “There’s no doubt about it, something is dying in the Catholic Church.” One can scarcely argue with him. That “something” is in fact Catholicism as it was professed and lived in the majority of the Church’s institutions.

Archbishop Coleridge admits as much here, pointing out that Pope Francis is in fact leading a “development” that is “a bit tectonic,” where the power of Church governance is joined “not to ordination, but to baptism” – which is the essence of Protestantism’s rejection of sacred Orders.

And now, Francis the Scourge is subjecting the world to the spectacle of a Jesuit in the New World, wearing the papal white to attend the same pagan rites that the Jesuits first came here to save us from, five centuries ago.

Those heroes paid dearly – in blood, fire, and torments that can hardly be described (seriously, have you read this? or this or this?) – to deliver us from the darkness of superstition and false worship on this continent.

Now, Francis welcomes this same darkness. He celebrates it. He disavows the legacy of his forebears and insults them instead, daring to call them misguided, “colonizers,” and more.

He has no fear of God. He has no respect for the sacred. He has no honor.

Can any Catholic endure him?

Libera nos, Domine.