Cardinal Kasper Making Noise About the Next Pope

An important article at OnePeterFive. He's saying the next conclave will elect another pope like Francis.

No, because this one has about destroyed the Vatican II Church, so what's a new "Francis" going to do? Sow salt?

The next pope? Honestly. We have no idea how Bergoglio is going to leave the office: A, whether the Catholic Church will be on fire, split up into factions, collapsed into multi-language chaos, or just under indictment by district attorneys around the world. Or maybe "dead" of utter boredom. B, Nor do we know what the "terrain" in the world will be by those days in terms of organized ecclesiastical rebellion against the Lavender Mafia currently in control of the Church's center. C, If they do try another "Francis", look for a split in the conclave; a "minority report". The main factions of cardinals will themselves be divided into language-church blocks -- leaving a rather tight minority to "opt out". Also a strong possibility, now that the 'Lavenders' have shown the world how they 'elect' a pope, the Conservatives and Trads (if any are left) will know just who they're planning to put in place and will be prepared with arguments why they won't support him.

Kasper may sound rational, but he – and the Progressive/Modernist 'Catholics' in general – have been running on high-octane emotion for too long to notice the "game" is over. They think they've got it all in the bag, and that their long-running "long march" through the Catholic institutions has put them in the cat-bird driver's seat. Forever.

Unfortunately, they've revealed for all the world just what and who they are and what their 'Catholicism' is. It is, in a word: unappealing. It's not attractive or worthy of devotion by the poor souls who actually support the church with their pennies, prayers, and penance: in other words, the "Catholic base". And a 'Church' like the German one, a simoniac abomination before the Lord, is materially wealthy but empty of believers, and the same will be true of the "American Church" whenever the U.S. Federalis stop giving it tens of millions for "refugees".

I pray I live long enough to see it. But that is a minor aspiration of mine. As in all things, all I can truly say is "Deus vult!"

An Préachán

The Left Is Tenacious, But Also Both Insane and Incompetant

Amici,

Chesterton wrote somewhere, perhaps in Orthodoxy, that Economic Determinism (the materialist philsophy of economics of the Left) was like saying, "Because I have feet, I only walk around on them to find shoes for them."

The "Left" is much in the news as they continue, feverishly, to take down President Donald J. Trump. 

They are tenancious, of course. But isn't that all they are? I mean, isn't that their only good quality? Other than that, they are insane.

Honestly, they are insane, don't you think? Their Old Testament prophet, Karl Marx, was disproved in his own lifetime as the incredible progress of technology mated to free market economics resulted in ever increased wealth, and now, today, it has resulted in a "First World" were even the "poor" have TVs and a material level few have ever had in mankind's history. (Had it not been for World War I, Marxism/Communism would have conquered nothing.) But here's the Left today, still acting like we're in a Charles Dickens-world of Blake's "Dark, satanic mills." The world they think exists is so NOT the world that does appear before us, that surely we must necessarily conclude they gone mad.

I've talked at length to a middle-aged Leftist, a woman who had a good life after her parents escaped Communism -- but she just seems to be fixated on the idea that private property, corporations, and all that, are E.V.I.L., yet somehow, "government" is good, pure, utterly unselfish and absolutely altruistic. It amazes me. She just seems incapable of any other "computing". And of course, Trump to her is a buffoon, an ogre, etc etc.

My point is that such utter disconnect with reality is unsustainable (to use a favorite word of the Left). The Left neither spins nor reaps, as Our Lord said, but how long with God feed them (as it were) when they are BOTH useless in themselves, and of such a nuisance to competent, working, achieving people? 

Perhaps they suspect this in some unconscious way, and realize this is their last chance -- either get rid of Donald J. Trump or he will, in eight years, reveal all of them to be -- from Obama to this acquaintance of mine -- to be complete twits. Incompetent scolds. Puritanical lechers. Envy-dominated mannequins.

No wonder they hate Trump so. 

AnP

Original Sin, Catholic vs. Protestant

I came across an Israeli blogger who wrote: 

" Original sin "? We view it as a heinous doctrine that distorts human relations and has no basis in the original Bible.

I blogged back:

Whoa, now. There's Original Sin and there's Original Sin. You mean old-fashioned Protestant Original Sin or the Catholic definition. They're quite different. This is important to understand.

Many Christian denominations are, I guess, "light" on it today, but then that's because Protestant Christianity distorted it "back in the day" of Luther and Calvin (i.e., Calvin's "Total Depravity"). They insisted Man is absolutely fallen, a pile of junk, that anything and everything we do or think or are or be is putrid; or as Luther had it, a pile of manure, and salvation was only possible by God covering the putrid individual with His Grace, like a snow fall over the manure -- and thus one was never changed in one's nature, but remained a manure pile covered with snow into Eternity -- for example, being that way in Heaven itself -- forever. This is a belief 20th century Protestant "Mere Christian" C.S. Lewis politely discounted and successfully criticized in his 10th Letter to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer.

Roman Catholicism had nothing like that in mind in its Original Sin doctrine. The idea is that Adam and Eve's fall disconnected our natures from the way God had made us, in which we could run directly on His Grace, whole and one with Him, perfectly at peace with our different desires, controlling our appetites as we could control our thoughts, perfectly. But because of the Fall, we lost that perfect control and at oneness with God while we kept (this is important) our human dignity as being His servants made in the image and likeness of God, as well as our intellectual, rational being abilities. (The only time in the Old Testament that "imagine" is used positively, I believe -- that God made us in His image.)

In any event, we lost that ability to conform ourselves directly and fully -- in will as well as body -- with God. So therefore we need that proper nature restored, a life-long process starting with Baptism, an individual's passage through the Red Sea of sin to the Promised Land beyond, wherein we than can indeed do God's will, as He intended.

This following metaphor is good: A (classical, hard-core) Protestant says we're a car wreck that can't be repaired, but can still enter Heaven as a piece of rusting junk; a Catholic says God can and will repair the car, BETTER than new, through the sacraments.

Hope this gives you a fuller understanding of various ideas on Original Sin, of which different versions exist. G.K. Chesterton (sometimes accused of antisemitism, but I understand some scholars have debunked that), said, "Original Sin is the only Church doctrine you can prove by merely opening the daily newspaper." If anyone ever said anything that was true, that was it.

• 
  

How Trump is handling Iran

I don't go into politics here as much as I might like, just as I don't do enough traditional Irish prayer, language, or culture as I'd like. But one "thing political" that really irks me is people saying Trump is Stupid.

The Iranians recently, through their terrorist vassals (well, really, it was the Iranians; their Houthis vassals couldn't manage such an attack), launched an audacious attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields. Many commentators whom I respect, and I don't mean John Bolton-types, not remotely, were saying President Trump had to act militarily.

But instead, the President is sending a few military people to Saudi Arabia to bolster them a bit. He's letting the Shia Twelvers who run Iran -- in effect -- sit in their stink holes and "act out" till the foam out of their mouths reaches their knees, dripping off their scraggly beards. He's embarrassing them by showing that their temper tantrum isn't going to provoke him. This is exceedingly important because all their terror associates, best buds, and esp their enemies, will see them for the cretins they are. Nothing embarrasses a Muslim like showing the world he's both impotent and infantile. (Allah is supposed -- and this is formal Muslim doctrine -- to give each Muslim man a far greater libido than any non-Muslim man. Therefore, any hint of impotency -- in this case, political and military -- has religious ramifications.)

Or look at it from another angle: Remember when the president moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem? All the Muslim terror threats beforehand, and the damp squib of a Muslim response afterward. Idiot children throwing a tantrum looked more dignified. And effective! (What's the point of throwing a tantrum if the parent walks away?) That showed Muslims everywhere that they had nothing, nothing at all, with which to influence or even terrorize Trump with.

When the Shia Twelver Cult that runs Iran finds out -- as they are finding out -- that they can't provoke Trump the way they could the Bushes or the Democrats, they only realize they've shot their wad. They have nothing left. Their dreams of restoring Persian Empire glory is bat guano. They can't tweak the Bald Eagle's tailfeathers. And all their terror buddies know it. They're losing "face" as would be said in the Far East.

What's more important, their Russian quasi-ally, will see they're useless for what the Russians want to use them for. 

Here, in this Saudi attack, they did something that was really outrageous -- of serious international import, and Trump dismisses them haughtily, then goes on merrily about his business cracking apart the Chicoms' glory dreams in his tariff vise. So, the Iranians sit there and look utterly stupid, which they are, before not only the whole world, but their important terrorist clients, allies, and foes. They've shot their wad. And everyone knows it. 

They can make an ever bigger, more obvious attack.

But were they to do so, even the most hapless, feckless Euros, then, would have to shun them utterly. The Iranians have achieved exactly nothing -- but look like what they are: thugs. And inept, Key Stone Kop thugs, at that.

AnP

The Gifts of Prince Bergoglio

Some points to reflect on:

Bergoglio may "teach" heresy in various ways, but the more he does so, the more he "teaches" Truth, because the plainer his attempt to change Catholic dogma becomes, the more that Truth stands out against his heresy.

In short: The more Modernism assaults Catholic dogma, the more that dogma stands out. Consider this a moment. Catholic Truth had gotten lost during and after the Vat2 Council. Just as the TLM was. (Notice that? Interesting? It is, indeed!) Now we're getting both back.

It ain't easy, of course. It is all: Inch by inch. Hand over hand. Crawling both under and over the barbed wire, but we're getting it back – the Faith and the Mass, and we won't be letting it go. Not ever. 

Also, this: The more any "Progressive" Modernist pushes, the greater the reaction they will eventually create. It's been said before, and it is true, that we couldn't withstand another JP2-type of papacy. Wojtyla was "killing us with a thousand cuts." 

Poor Pope JP2 was like the Bushes, father and son, were to the Republican Party. Wojtyla was also like McCain and Bob Doyle and even Nixon – another "Republican" like that lot and the Repub party would have been dead.

Or have you not considered that Paul 6, JP2 and Bene16 were possibly greater failures than Bergi? Think about it, and throw Pius 12 in there, too. Yes, in he goes. If nothing else, Pacelli should have been appointing excellent – and youngish – men to the Cardinalate. He didn't. We got Tío Roncalli.

Why? Why were these mean not good for the Church? 

For one reason, an institution in a time of Crisis needs the best. Not the Mediocre. The American Army at the Battle of the Bulge needed Patton, not Bradley. 

Second, we had a run of great popes (Pius 9, Leo 13, Pius 10 & 11, mixed in with a couple of mediocre ones (Bene 15 and Pius 12), then a run of failures – in one degree or another, until God sent us Bergi – who in himself is so smashing up the China shop, so chaotic and crazy, throwing everything to the floor, as it were, that he is a one-man wrecking crew of MODERNISM itself – he can't destroy Holy Church, whose Soul is the Holy Ghost and whose Body is Christ's!

But he can sure separate the wheat from the tares. Perhaps that is why Our Most Blessed Lord sent him to us for?

Finally:
Our Argentine Caudillo is certainly "sorting us out" – some of us are throwing up our hands and walking out; some are doing the ostrich imitation, and some are actually fighting back. Some are fighting for the Faith of their Fathers' and of The Father. 

Through the ridiculous figure of Tío Jorge, we're finding out who we really are.

Interesting, isn't it?

An P

The Heresy of Modernism, and Catholic Progressivism, Explained

As the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church slides ever deeper into chaos, and Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider enjoin us to fast, it might be helpful to review just what "Modernism" (in theology) is and why it is so deadly to the Christian Faith.

Christianity, as with Judaism and Islam, the three monotheistic "Abrahamic Faiths, are "revealed religions". With sundry variations, all three believe God has revealed them – their truths, form, worship, etc. – from on high. God has reached down to us, as it were, dumping in our laps the totality of His Revelation for us. We can accept it and "deal with it", struggle with it, be like Job or Israel (God renamed Jacob "Israel" or "He Who Wrestles with God) or we can reject it and go elsewhere, but the one thing we can't do is modify it, change it around, develop and "evolve" it. 

Revelation teaches us that God is Eternal, indeed, totally outside of time. He's complete in Himself, pure Act. No Potential exists in God. He's the Absolute Being God of the great philosophers and that God of Aristotle and Co. is clearly the God of ancient Semitic Revelation. "Jesus Christ yesterday, today, and for ever," as it says in Hebrews 13:8). And long before that, from Psalm 90: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God!" And of course the all-time great: 'God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:14) [It is often said that that verse is the most astounding line ever penned; but the second is like it: "Before Abraham was, I am." (St. John 8:48-49)]

Now, Modernism, ginned up by German Protestants back in the mid-19th century, when Charlie Darwin was scribbling away, is all based on the idea of Evolution. When Darwin was writing up his theory of Natural Selection (an oxymoron, since unless "nature" is a deity of some kind, it can't possibly "select" or "chose" or filter, or decide, or judge anything), he wasn't some lonely genius who came up with Evolution all on his own, like Athena from the forehead of Zeus: his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (what a name!) worked up, I've read, an Evolution theory similar to his grandson's. "Evolution", as it were, was just in the air, sort of like the American Chestnut blight.

Evolution was an idea the 18th century Age of Reason / Enlightenment "Philosophes" (like Erasmus Darwin) promoted to explain existence. And thus when Darwin rushed his Origin of Species into print (to beat publication of Alfred Russel Wallace's evolution book), many Materialists of all stripes were "waiting to pounce" as it were, and defend the theory against thick and thin. Darwin was going to provide their "kill shot" to religion, their "white plague". Therefore, it is no surprise that grumpy, grim, dour, depressed and depressing German theologians, direct descendants of Martin Luther, were only too ready to apply Evolution to God.

Thus, the basic, underlying idea of Modernism, and therefore of Progressive Protestantism and Progressive Catholicism, is Evolution, specifically that our understanding of God evolves, and so the Bible isn't Revelation revealed to the Sacred Authors (who wrote in their own words in their own style what God inspired them to inerrantly write), but instead it is something we've conjured up on our own, something we "evolved" over the centuries. So, too, the Church "evolves" not under the infallible, inerrant guide of the Most Holy Ghost, directing the popes and the bishops in Communion with him to guard and preseve the Doctrine of Faith, but rather the Church is in constant evolution itself. (It's sort of like taking the Church doctrine that it is in perpetual need of moral and spiritual renewal and reformation – small r's to both of those, of course – and applying it to its basic doctrines and most fundatmental dogmas.

And finally, Modernism – not in so many words, not up front and in 72-type, not until it is ready to pounce – teaches that God Himself evolves! That is, of course, if He even exists Himself, which many Modernist mavens doubt. But then, an evolving God is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, nor is He the God of Exodus 3:14.

And that right there is the entire enchillada. These two fundamental ideas, that God is Absolute Being, who reveals Himself through Divinely given Revelation, Who is "everlasting unto everlasting", or contrary, that God, and our understanding of Him, and we ourselves, naturally, are continually evolving – these are absolute opposites and utterly incompatible. 

Oil and water don't mix. These two foundational ideas about God (and us) are mutually antagonistic, like matter and anti-matter would be. They cannot exist in a single individual, let alone a Church. And of course this is what we see happening. As Modernism took over – and is taking over – Protestant demoninations, groups break off of the mainline denominations, desperate to cling to what they understand Revelation to be; meanwhile, the Modernists continually advance, just like the Chestnut Blight. Unstoppable. Remorseless. Murderous. 

In the Catholic Church, then, we're facing the same problem Protestants are. Our "mainline" Church is being eaten alive from within, as with maggots or termites, and those who reject Modernism find themselves ever the more curtailed, the more restricted, the more hounded. 

Now, also, Modernism as evolution explains the perverted sex abuse scandals. That's because if our understanding of God evolves, etc., then most certainly our morality evolves as well. And so it is that grotesque parodies of healthy, spiritual courtship and marriage fall to pieces because each individual who is tempted to carnal sins says at some point to himself (even if he's a priest, after all, because he's a Modernist), "Well, maybe prohibitions against physical intimacy were upheld in the past, but that was then; this is today!" Or "Maybe homosexuality was forbidden ages ago but we've advanced so far in our understanding, that now we realize the importance of "love" and its manifestation in this manner." 

And so on and so forth. It is no great space from the acceptance of that sort of thinking – mere rationalization, of course – to the most obscene, bizarre, and perveted acts.

Modernism. Absolutely deadly to Revealed Religion. Oh, it may seem interesting the those of weak faith; it may seem even to be dynamic, bold, imaginative. THAT'S HOW IT ATTRACTS SO MANY! A theologian no longer needs to wrestle with the Deposit of Faith in Modernism, but he can actually reinvent it! How dynamic! How challenging! How worthy of an otherwise pointless academic make-work job!

And of course the Laity: they, too, no longer need to be "Israel", "He Who Wrestles with God", as God renamed Jacob. Oh, no. No need for Job, either! Job just didn't understand. His understanding didn't evolve enough. Now none of us has to be either Israel OR Job! 

Modernism. It is absolute σκύβαλα. (See Philippians 3:8.) Absolute. And it is spiritual Cryphonectria parasitica, Chestnut tree blight. If you believe nothing else I ever write, trust me in this: if you are naturally inclined, or are somehow persuaded to think, the following: "Yeah, we are evolving with religion, and it does make religion more dynamic and attractive!" or "Unless we change with the times, keep up, keep abreast, embrace Aggiornamento to evolve to meet the current needs of the 'Pilgrim (in this usage: Evolving) People of God'..." – If you ever go that route, it won't be long before your Faith has wilted and fled and you are an atheist, even if consciously you suppose yourself to still be a believer. 

Modernism. Revealed religion's kryptonite. Absolute Cryphonectria parasitica-laden σκύβαλα. 

And it is the most dominating idea in Jorge Bergoglio's mind, and the mind of all "Progs" everywhere. 

(If nothing else, after all, it at least offers the excuse they stand on as they pull the Church down on their – and our – heads.)

An P

How the New Mass Beats a River into Submission

In the 2016 movie Dr. Strange, the Ancient One, Strange's mentor in "the mystical arts", told him, "You cannot beat a river into submission; you have to surrender to its current, and use its power as your own."

It has dawned on me that the Novus Ordo Mass does, indeed, ceaselessly try to "beat a river into submission", the River of Prayer that is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This is closely related to the revelation I received after I began to attend High Masses, but which first suggested itself to me when I first had begun to attend Eastern liturgies in Churches in Communion with Rome. The revelation took a while to bud and flower. Partly that's because the Eastern liturgies were so "exotic" in comparison to what I was used to. They were so culturally "alien" to me, who, though about ten-years-old in 1968, never really could remember attending a TLM as a child.

When I then received the blessing of being able to attend a TLM (in an old, un"Modernized" re: not "Wreckovated" church), the full force of the essential difference between the TLM and the NO Masses bore upon me: but even then, I struggled for the words to describe it. The way I phrased it then was, "The TLM gives you more spiritual elbow-room." One noticed that in the Eastern liturgies, or at least I did, that what with various things going on, and the choir continuously producing sacred song, that the congregation wasn't forced into rote responses everyone had to make in lock-step; instead, one could let one's mind wander, as it were, and really of course – in the holy context of Christ's Calvary Sacrifice being re-enacted, with the veil between Heaven and Earth being parted – the Spirit was present, and He it was who led your spirit into all sorts of contemplations.

Thanks to the old pagan Ancient One, though, now I get it. The Novus Ordo Mass beats the River of Sacred Liturgical Prayer into submission. It breaks up not only your train of thought but your prayer. In fact, it renders your prayer impossible. The Holy Spirit can't speak to you nor you to Him because you're too busy watching the orchestra conductor, the officiating priest, waiting for the "next thing to happen", producing your responses when required – and everyone doing so all together, like soldiers on a parade ground practicing drill.

It's not that one doesn't pray at all at the N.O. Mass, no; one does pray, but one prays the group prayers, in unison, supposedly with gusto, i.e., as Protestants do – or as certain ignorant, highly educated Catholic "liturgical experts" thought Protestants did. It reminds me of Ward Bond, the priest in John Ford's The Quiet Man, crying out, "Let's cheer like Protestants!"

My wife, a melancholy, introverted type, quiet, unassuming, does really NOT like any sort of boisterous, extrovert sort of "get-together" and she definitely cannot stand the NO Mass, which of course stresses an extroverted boisterousness as its esprit de corps. The notorious handshake "kiss of peace" fiasco, in the middle of the most sacred segment of the liturgy, is only the most notorious example of this. The whole of the horizontal, congregation-focused-on-the-priest's-facial-expressions N.O. Mass is one long flailing against the River of Sacred Prayer.

So with that insight, we can see a simple, basic reason tens of millions of Catholics left that Mass. They couldn't pray it; they couldn't contemplate anything – whether Spirit-led or self-led. For a Me Decade birthed liturgy, created by old codger bureaucrats who had grown up listening to endless chatty radio – no silences there! – it is amazing how "un-Me" the N.O. Mass is! YOU, the individual, never get a chance to "surrender" to the current of liturgical prayer that floods down through the TLM from Mt. Calvary; YOU never get a chance to "use its power as your own." Instead of that, you're a cog in a machine, or more like a performer, actually, in a liturgical engine chugging away boisterously, a machine whose engineer constantly is in eye-contact with your reflections, as it were: your conscious distracted, and duty-bound to pay ceaseless attention, dropping any and all trains of thought at your conductor's steam-whistling summons.

And of course bellowing out (with gusto) some pretty hackneyed (at best) music.

The Novus Ordo tries to beat our liturgical prayer – two thousand years of it now – into submission, and the result it has beaten many of us into submission, into the miserable condition of our current state of mainstream Church worship: unsolitary in its boisterous regimentation, spiritually poor, rather nastily so, certainly too often brutish, and never short enough, (if I maybe mutilate Thomas Hobbes' famous line).

An Préachán

Bishop Walker Nickless attends "ordination" of Lutheran woman "bishop" causing scandal to Faithful

In one of the Austen Powers movies, Dr. Evil tells his son Scott that, "You just don't get it, do you?" 

So it is with America's bishops. The Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, Walker Nickless (that's the spelling), went to the "ordination" of a Lutheran "bishop" (Evangelical Lutheran Church USA), who is a woman. Then he proudly posted his antics on his FB page, or wherever. The Vortex has a piece on it. 

This Bishop Nickless did speak out against Obama's visit to Notre Dame, and against state-run healthcare, which, as Michael Voris notes, most of his fellow bishops haven't done. Yet Voris explains how Nickless' presence at fake ordination of a false bishop causes scandal -- but the bishop is clueless. "A bishop scandalizing the Faithful." Indeed. "This phony (Lutheran) bishop rejects," Voris says, "as an article of her faith, the authority of the Catholic Church, she denies transubstantiation, she rejects the doctrine of Purgatory, refuses to acknowledge all seven sacraments. The list goes on and on. No Catholic bishop should ever been seen in these kinds of circumstances."

But they are seen, they do attend, and they're utterly clueless -- yet these guys are our ecclesiastical leaders. Voris goes on with the point that were the bishops just to do their jobs that they're supposed to do, there would be no need for Voris and Church Militant, or any other of the Lay Catholic organizations trying to uphold the Traditional Catholic Faith.

Of course, the bishop of the Diocese of Orange, California, approved Satanic/Freemason artwork (absurdly, insanely expensive Satanic iconography, too) for his rebuild of old Robert Schuller's "Crystal Cathedral". (Remember Schuller? His "Hour of Power!"?) See the OnePeterFive article here for details.

What some of these bishops need is a visit from none other than Sterculius, seen here taking revenge when a Monster Truck Rally squashes a number of PortaJohns.

AnP

Can the Vatican II Church Be Saved? Returned to being the True Church?

These two questions are serious ones. But how do I mean them?

I'm no Sedevacantist, because were Pius XII the last actual pope, then there are no bishops and priests today, certainly not those coined by Sedevacantists! Who's been around to ordain them, after all, in the sense that if t'is true a bishop has to be in Communion with Rome to be Catholic, and there's in effect "no Rome" since 1958, then no bishop is Catholic – we're not talking about a bishop or a priest being validly ordained before a particular papal interregnum occurs; we're talking about there being no pope over a biblical lifetime, something that is a sin of unbelief against Matthew 16:18 and following – and that's not counting the endlessly impossible mess of a committed Sede trying to figure out which priest (or bishop) today is validly ordained. That's a fun-house hall of mirrors, if ever there were one.

So, the Church is the Church, but it manifests in the different ages slightly differently, such as the Bourbon Church (1648 to 1789) was the same Church but different than the Counter-Reformation Church (1540 to 1648), which was in tern different from the High Middle Ages Church (1054 to 1300). All were in a sense quite different, but all had the Traditional Latin Mass and all that goes with it (theology and practice); however, the Vatican II Church doesn't even have those! Of course, they had never been truly stopped, but wherever they are coming back today, there the Church "feels" different than the mainstream one, and no doubt a new Church avatar is a-borning: let's pray it is a Reconquista Church! Vivo Christo Rey!

The Vatican II Church began in effect even before Pius XII died, but we can take his death in October, 1958, as the birthing of the new Vatican II Church avatar, even if its behind-the-scenes conception was back in Pius X's day.

So, the Vatican II Church? Saved? Collectively? Returned to the Catholic Stable? 

Nope, ain't gonna happen.

The Vatican II Church, the N.O. Vatican Church, is down by the bow to the point the propellers are outta the water and the only thing happening is the captain is shooting the sailors who know how to man the lifeboats.

Trust me. These clowns will "ride 'er down" outta sight, as demonstrated by this recent OnePeterFive article. Whatever else the Vat 2 honchos may or may not believe, the ONE thing they're certain of is THEY ARE RIGHT. They won't back up, reconsider, rethink, give up on or jump off of the wreck they've made. This article linked to above shows how "in your face" they are about it, too.

The only possible solution (speaking in human terms, sans any divine Deus Ex Machina) is for someone -- or some few -- to make this 60-year-long de facto schism de jure, while getting the Modernists seen as the Schismatics, not the Trad-orthodox. How that could be done I don't know, aside from getting a very 'conservative' or Trad pope elected; that'd do it, all right. The Vat2 crowd then couldn't wait to go into formal Schism. Other than that, I dunno.

But Bergoglio is not taking any chances. This coming October, he's creating 13 new cardinals, and they're Bergi Mini-Me's. "Ten of the new Cardinals are younger than 80. Francis has now named 53% of the body that will elect his successor. The ten new cardinals are pro-mass-immigration and pro-gay advocates."

If these past 60-70+ years have taught us anything, they've taught us that Modernism has no "group" cure. Individuals may – purely by the grace of the Holy Ghost – "convert" out of Modernism/Progressivism, but even that is rare. Collectively, Modernism/Progressivism is a self-reinforcing thanatos pact, Faith-draining all who become entwined in its clutches.

An Préachán