Pope Francis and the strange case of Marko Rupnik: Francis' undoing?

Amici,

It's hard to keep up with "Pope" Francis and his sado-masochistic destruction of the Vatican II Church. So many scandals. So little time. One could pick just one sordid tale, say the scandal of the attempted "rehabilitation"of the loathsome Theodore (Uncle Teddy) McCarrick, and after due consideration, one would think that were Bergoglio's actions in McCarrick's regard more widely known in the Catholic World, Bergoglio would be out on his ear – regardless of the fact the Church (now, since 1917) has no legal mechanism to remove a misbehaving pontiff.

Maybe. Maybe not. But perhaps this newly erupting scandal involving yet another putrid human being wearing a clerical collar, this time a diabolical artist named Marko Rupnik, becomes more widely known, then, indeed, this might take down Bergoglo. For a detailed article on the subject, read Damian Thompson here at unherd. Blogger Anthony Stine offers his take on it here at his Return to Tradition. Regarding the actual art:

Rupnik's putrid, rancid images are just everywhere now, all over the place. For example, the Saint John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C., Blessed Sacrament chapel in the Almudena Cathedral in Madrid, Spain, Facade of the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary at Lourdes, France, Holy Family Chapel, Knights of Columbus headquarters, New Haven, Connecticut. Check here for a wide collection of this creep's "art". 

Notice how the eyes are ALL black – and dead. Every  single image! Creeps me out! As others have noted, they look like the black, liquid eyes of "aliens" in the movies. This is seriously foul, and yet Rupnik, a rapist, mind you, a rapist of nuns, yet, for decades, has his "art" ALL OVER the Catholic world now. Can anything bespeak the moral, cultural, civilizational putrescence of the Vatican II Church's bigshots, the ones with the money and connections to commission art? It all needs removed and – one would hope, destroyed – as the product of a sick, lecherous mind of a black soulless fiend. 

Do NOT Despair

Being the student of Sun Tzu that I am, I look at it a bit differently. I suspect that another John Paul II-type of pope, a Vatican II Church mega-star, would just continue the "killing us by degrees" that Paul VI and (alas) Benedict XVI ended up doing. The underlying problem obviously isn't Tio Jorge Bergoglio, is it? He could have been tossed ten years ago. He need not have been elected. Benedict need not have run away. Instead, Cardinals Müller, Burke, and Sarah, and the host of craven time-serving bishops in the Church today are the essential part of the problem, and I think the esteemed and excellent Fr. James Mawdsley has the reason why. The ordination rite for bishops was changed! He explains in this 16 minute video titled provocatively: What have the sedevacantists got right? Why we should listen to them. He's not a sede himself, but here he delineates many problems the Church has, and the consecration change for bishops is one of them. They went from servers of Christ and defenders of Tradition (which IS the Deposit of Faith, remember) to rulers, bosses, managers. CEOs. Specifically, the wording of the consecration was changed from "Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy Ministry, and adorned in the ornaments of all glorification sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent" to "So now pour out on this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit of him given to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name." (Just as an aside, note how pronouns referring to God are not capitalized? Modern usage. Ugh!) And isn't that what we see today around the world? Bishops as rulers, bosses, managers? CEOs? They're like corporate branch managers and certainly Bergoglio treats them as hirelings, mere branch managers who can be dismissed at any time, as he did with Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres.

The goddess Athena herself poured "the moisture of the heavenly unguent" over Odysseus (a certain Crow was so envious!) in the Odyssey. It was a gooey, divine gift. Christians used the same word Homer used, χαριτόω/χάρη for the transformation in Christ that is Theosis, and χάρη in Latin is Gratia, Grace. But Fr. Mawdsley explains how the new consecration of bishops tosses all those meanings and replaces them with sheer power. What happened to bishops being the servants of the servants?

God's Use of Imperfect Vessels

Be of good cheer, my friends. God sent Bergoglio and uses him just as God uses the Devil. The Devil cannot do anything to us that God doesn't allow him to do, and He makes sure what the Devil is allowed to do will ultimately enable us to grow in Faith and "earn a crown". Similarly, and I've said this before, Bergoglio is leveling and humiliating the Vatican II Church from the scene. When the smoke clears and the klaxons die down, the True Church, the Church of Tradition, of the Deposit of Faith, will have weathered the chaos. Just as during the farcical Covid lookdowns, when the Traditionalists, such as the SSPX, kept offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass when the everyday Catholics actually began to notice the Traditional Latin Mass was still among them, so it will be after the destruction that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of spiritual delinquents wreak upon the Church runs to its end.

The Chastisement – for this round – will be over.

    An Préachán

Coup d'état in the U.S.A.? Part III American History from 1960

A friend, commenting on who really runs the world, wrote me: "Maybe some day we will find out who is actually running the show."

Well, that's a great question. Who can answer it? I'll give a rough try, FWIW. I cannot help but be sarcastic, however, as world history since 1960 is absurd in the extreme. 

1. Satan and his peeps run the show in the overall scheme of things, of course, even now in the Vatican (people have known this for decades, even Paul VI famously asserted it about the "smoke of Satan..."; he wrote that in 1972; it was formally published in 2018). 
2. But I'm guessing the people on earth pulling the strings are the big bankers, and that would include BlackRock and Vanguard, who basically own most things. 
3. There's some old banking families that still are incredibly powerful, and George Soros (and now his son) probably fits in to that crowd one way or another. 
4. Whether the World Economic Forum is a joke or a serious Fascist-style takeover threat, remains to be seen.

Whatever else is true, the American people are no more sovereign in America than Charles is Sovereign in England. The American people don't want what they're getting. Yet they still get it good and hard. 

• This is a bitter irony because the idea underlying the existence of the U.S.A. is that its people are sovereign; i.e. not a king, nor an aristocracy, nor a plutocracy, nor a bureaucracy, and certainly not God (the U.S. Constitution pointedly does not mention God at all and excludes organized religion from any governmental role), but the people in general. The people are sovereign. This was the idea John Locke had and Jefferson, Madison, et al., promoted. Today, what we seem to have instead is an "Intelligence Service" bureaucracy government with a Potemkin Village "face" made up of the worst people imaginable, a "Kakistocracy"!

Take the following example. The American people proved what they wanted to do about the Vietnam War by voting in Nixon in 1968 and after he showed he was clearly getting us out of that war, they landslided him back in in 1972. His popular vote margin stood at +23.2%. The popular vote margin was 47,168,710 to McGovern's 29,173,222. Nixon carried every state except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. (The District of Columbia is a joke; it's a Democrat Party prison-insane asylum: it should be dissolved or completely "demilitarized" with no "self-government" or vote for those who choose to reside there, and certainly no federal courts of any kind except the Supreme Court – all other lower federal court jurisdictions are created by Congress.)

Same again with Reagan in 1984. Popular vote for Reagan was 54,455,075 votes versus 37,577,185 for Walter Mondale. Reagan carried every state except Mondale's native Minnesota (and D.C. again, of course). In every other presidential election, the Republicans ran their establishment ("GOPe") candidates (Bob Dole, John McCain, the two Bushes) and either lost (first two) or narrowly won (second two). Clearly, the sovereign people rejected those clowns.

But the huge populist wins didn't matter. A Deep State coup d'état sent Nixon packing, and his vice president before him, so we had our first "installed" president, Gerald Ford (whom today we'd call a classic do-nothing GOPe "RINO" who lost his election bid in 1976). They tried to assassinate Reagan in 1981 only two months after he took the oath of office, and in his second term, they left him a total "lame duck" with Iran-Contra and a host of other garbage. As for Nixon, he himself did only a fraction of what Lyndon Johnson did, only Johnson was for more brutal and far-ranging in crime than Nixon. Nixon famously said, when asked about Kennedy's assassination, "I never wanted the office so badly that I'd kill for it." (Paraphrase, but pretty close.)

And that brings up Kennedy's assassination. The CIA hated him (see: Bay of Pigs), so did the Mafia. Nobody hated JFK, though, as LBJ did. JFK was a womanizer and drug addict (originally because of his hurt spine); the only admirable thing about Jack Kennedy next to his Navy service was his anti-Communist stance. LBJ, on the other hand, was a womanizer, thief, liar, personally more corrupt in government, far more corrupt, than the entire Kennedy family. But push came to shove. Jack was about to bunk out of Vietnam for a number of reasons – the British P.M. told him to get out, he didn't want to escalate American involvement – and esp after the South Vietnam's president, Ngô Đình Diệm, was brutally assassinated (a CIA-backed op) on November 2, 1963. A mere 20 days after Ngô Đình Diệm's death, Kennedy himself was killed. It was also about a week before Kennedy was going to accuse Lyndon Johnson of corruption. Gee, what a coincidence! Johnson was the most corrupt and downright evil man ever to be president, and dumber than Bill and Hillary combined; he was definitely in the pocket of the "military-industrial complex". (But you'd never hear that if you only read mainstream news.)

So there you have it. After Eisenhower's warning to the American people about the "Military-Industrial Complex" (now "Deep State") in this farewell address on January 17, 1961, we got an Asian war no one wanted or could explain, especially galling in light of what we ought to have learned in Korea a decade earlier. (Today we're friends with Communist Vietnam and ignore their atrocious human rights/religion violations.) Add to that any number of wars in the Mideast, one of which we left with our tail between our legs and tens of millions of dollars of military equipment behind, and now a war in Europe we seem hell bent on turning nuclear, no less – not to mention two coup d'états, the election of the two Bushes (ham-handed types much of the time, though the older was a naval aviator in WWII and the younger one once owned a baseball team, so there!), the senior Bush, George H.W. Bush, being the son of Nazi financier and WASP scion Prescott Bush, a banker, mind you, who became U.S. senator; replaced in 1992 by Bubba Clinton and his harpy lesbian wife, deadbeats who never worked a day in their lives, then a pot-head homosexual poseur whose father is unknown, and his "man wife" (c'mon; ever see Michelle's "package"?), also deadbeats who never worked a day in their lives – we don't even know what grades they got in college except reading Michelle's dissertation makes one realize 'she-he' has about a fifth-grade education level. And now we got a demented non compos mentis puppet who, back when he was actually alive, was also a deadbeat poseur who never worked a day in his life, and even plagiarized his academic and other writings, molested his own daughter, caresses and "handles" little girls on camera, and who shelters his crackhead porn-whore addicted son, both father and son clearly bought and paid for by the Chinese. The latter, to round this off nicely by returning to where we started, now owning the Vatican. (Smoke of Satan, indeed.)

And I haven't even mentioned abortion, yet. 

I mean, whoever is calling the shots for the U.S.A. must think we're all collective imbeciles for allowing this farcical farrago fatuity to continue five seconds! (The same, the exact same, could be said about the world's bishops in regards to Bergoglio.) Perhaps we are collective imbeciles, or perhaps we just have to be pushed far enough to finally snap and push back. I have no doubt "they" the Powers-that-Be are waiting for that very thing. We'll have to see. 

How much longer can this go on? Financially, these cretins though their mismanagement and endless wars have bankrupted the country. This can't go on forever. And the educational system is a catastrophe. Read this from Ann Barnhardt. Certainly, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." This laconic comment by Herb Stein, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, may well describe our near-future. 

One way, or the other.

 

          AnP

Bishop Strickland's new letter: God does not and cannot bless sin

Amici,

Bishop Strickland has a new pastoral letter out; this one issued on the eve of the infamous and utterly anti-Catholic "Synod on Synodality" that is expected to change Church teaching on a host of carnal-related issues. So Strickland tackles the "same-sex blessing" insanity in his letter. Read it here at LifeSiteNews. "God does not and cannot bless sin." 

Oh, really? Someone please inform the "Pope". 

Making Himself a Target

Bishop Strickland knows this new letter will enrage the "homosexualist" (what's that even mean? Supporter? Advocate?) Bergoglio and the infamous Fr James Martin, (a.k.a. Pope Francis' pinkie finger, Francis' rent boy, and other monikers too disgusting to pass on). It will stir up a lavender hornets' nest. No other American bishop, and apparently few in the world but the African bishops, stand tall for traditional Church teaching against Sodomy.

Bishop Strickland knows the hammer will fall soon, I am afraid; thus, he "goes for broke." For as surely as the insane Argentine (and I mean nutso: he clearly believes à la "Tucho Fernández that he has oracle-prophetical semi-divine powers and can redefine "Catholic" to suit his will, and that we must all obey his every whim: see this article for details.) is especially in favor of homosexuals and sexual predators in general (like that rapist and incompetent, cartoonish "artist" Jesuit Marko Rupnik).

Bishop Strickland wrote: "The truth is, at the core of our existence is Love, and there is no power in Heaven or on Earth that can keep the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from loving us fully and completely." Right, but what does 'love' here mean? "The core of our existence is Love" – as in I guess, from the capital L, God. I don't know why Christian preachers of the Faith can't clearly say, as Fr Ripperger does, that "love" means "will the good." To say "God loves you" sounds maudlin, or squishy, or feel good: but to say "God wills your good" – which is what the phrase means – bears a clear, no nonsense understanding of what is meant. To say "God is love" is to say God is ontologically The Good. Goodness in itself, Good as such. Omnibenevolence (supremely good) is the formal term. It's one of the divine attributes, like Omniscience and Omnipotence. 

God thus wills our good because He is Good Itself, and any so-called "good" we humans pursue – like carnal satisfaction, money, fame, etc. – leads us away from The Good, and therefore into Hell. Thus, Heaven or Hell, no in-between. What's wrong with putting it this way?

Because of course the squishy Vatican II Church would get the vapors. It would pass out and need revived with smelling salts. The Vatican II three-year cycle of Mass readings took out most references to Hell, eternal damnation, all that. No doubt secular Jewish psychologists (very big in the '50s and '60s) told them that such language and imagery would turn off "modern man". Any Vatican II priest who preached "hellfire and damnation" sermons would be assigned to the local lunatic asylum or defrocked. But now a new Pharaoh has arisen, one who did not know John Paul II, etc., and this new Pharaoh is iron-handedly slapping down and defacing the squishy Vatican II Church with a sado-masochistic relish, making its conservatives squeal as he imparts homosexual blessings and the Seven Sacraments on egregious, unrepentant mortal sinners. Bergoglio says priests in the confessional must always forgive even when the "penitents" are not sorry for their sins, as most homosexual and adulterous people are not. 

• Because these "conservatives" (and even many Trads) insist Bergoglio is pope, they just must bend over in awe as he violates everything they thought they believed about Catholicism. I am sure he relishes their pain he is inflicting.

So, we go down our merry way, traipsing along to a general ecclesiastical and secular Armageddon. Be prepared for what's coming, and pray for Bishop Strickland.

    An Préachán

Coup d'état in the U.S.A.? – Part II Civilization and the Traditional Latin Mass

Amici,

After reading my essay Coup d'état in the U.S.A.?, a friend wrote to me, in part:

There is no longer any enforcement of laws in this country. Apparently we are subscribing to the George Soros method of prosecution - I will enforce only those laws that I want to. Uncle Joe continues to break the law at the southern border - surprisingly no one seems to care. Instead he lies that the border is closed, when clearly it is not. Prosecutors in New York, Chicago, San Francisco (all Soros funded), continue to release violent criminals. Illinois just eliminate all of its bail laws. The police are completely demoralized by defunding and lack of support from city governments. Criminals, see no consequences for their crimes - so they keep offending. Shoplifting is becoming the national pastime.

I thought about it and wrote:

They are trying – working assiduously – to turn the country into an insane asylum for unrestrained, berserk criminals. People are frantic! Even in California, where businesses are going on strike: Over 200 Oakland Businesses to Strike on Tuesday Over Crime as City Reports Over 10,000 Stolen Cars So Far This Year. Or how about this, the trial and verdict of those who killed teen Ethan Liming in Ohio. It makes you sick to read it.

And consider this bit of educational news (pun intended) about no children from 13 schools, zero, passing state math exams in Baltimore, Maryland.

A complete breakdown of education exists in the major cities, all Democrat controlled. This is intentional. (Or mostly so; I mean, there do exist the ontologically stupid and they do seem to tend to go into education, don't they?)

Of course, all this is intentional, a program that began running a long time ago, designed by the Frankfurter Schule, the German Communist program from back in the 1920s. When the Nazis put pressure on them, they came over there to the U.S.A. and were given top jobs in the big universities. Brilliant, that. Thanks to them and John Dewey, another Communist, U.S. schools have been teaching Marxism for decades now. Madness.

TLM

And in a larger context, all this has everything to do with the Traditional Latin Mass. Why? Am I just being crazy? No. Because "culture" is founded on "cult". We can't escape that. The Supreme Court can't escape that; the American Constiution can't escape that. A culture founded on the worship of Kali or Badhbh (but I repeat myself; one is the avatar of the other) is going to be quite different from one founded on the Buddha, which is different than one founded on Shinto, which is different from one founded on nothing at all (the U.S.A.), which is different from one founded on Christ. And the central institution of Western Christianity is, and has been since before Constantine, the Traditional Latin Mass. One could say, in all seriousness, that therefore Catholics built up Western Civilization around that Traditional Latin Mass: just as the great Romanesque cathedrals were built to stage it, or the Gothic cathedrals in their varied splendor, the Baroque, all that, were all created for that Mass. (I never thought I liked Baroque till I started attending the TLM in one; now I know why they were built the way they were.) Our civilization is just as much a product of that Mass as those church styles were.

And what the Greeks knew, and what the Medievals knew, and what we seem to have completely forgotten or never understood (thank you John Locke and Adam Smith and consumer culture), is that culture has to be built up, either from scratch or from the ruins of previous cultures – all via some new cult, as Western Civilization was via Christianity or the Middle Eastern was from Islam, or India from Hinduism. And cult remains essential in this, especially if one wants to build a civilization. 

1. A civilization is bequeathed us by our ancestors but we have to reinforce/restore it each generation. We have to train children into it. That's what EDUCATION, the "calling out" exists for. It doesn't exist to make people a lot of money to feed the consumer culture.
   
2. Like a taste for Classical Music or Fine Arts, great literature (epic poetry and high drama) and philosophy, we have to carefully cultivate this civilizational aspect of culture in each generation. It's truly another echo of Adam's task, to "tend and keep" the Garden.
   
3. We can't just "let it slide" and assume people are somehow by an undirected Darwinian osmosis 'civilized' into the civilized culture of their birth. A general culture, a traditional farming or hunting culture can do that, perhaps, indeed, but not a civilization. Civilizations take WORK.
   

I get most of this from reflecting on this excellent article here. An excerpt:

According to this conception, civilization, in its highest form, is made up of components that are the product of a conscious and deliberate effort to reach the highest level of human attainment, and that for the most part substantially succeed in reaching this level. Individual geniuses such as Homer may reach this level of achievement without belonging to a civilization; what makes a civilization is a collective resolve to reach this level as far as is possible, and to preserve what has reached it.

The Greeks knew, and various Romans too, over time, and what the late Medievals learned to their cost, as we ought to be learning now, is that one has to fight not for something abstract like Jeffersonian or French Revolution "Liberty", but for our actual inheritance, and that consists of Western Civilization. Because various forces try to destroy civilization one way or another (as did the French Revolution itself did), either trying to disintegrate it from within or be conquered from without, we must "keep and tend it". As for "Liberty", it seems basically to mean ignoring our civilizational roots, which are (shudder) religious, and allowing Islam to try to conquer us today from both outside and inside. Islam or hedonism, that's the choice. The moral degeneracy engulfing the Western World perhaps comes from Communism of a sort, or from Liberty gone libertine, but moral degeneracy in itself lies at the heart of the human race and Satan easily accesses it, all the time, screeching, "Liberty!" 

• Notice how Islam's civilization, which never separated from its religion, is strong although materially and intellectually weak (i.e. poor and backward), whereas we, who are materially bloated and choking to death on "education", are utterly morally weak and demented. Same with secularized Japan, Communist China, much of Europe, etc.

The Greeks fought off the Persians to preserve their cult/culture while their philosophers fought off moral degeneration from within. In that endeavor, they failed. Christianity came, however, and created a new Eastern Empire, the Byzantine, although, alas, the Muslims finally – after centuries of ceaseless warfare – brought it down. They tried the same in the European heartland. The late Medievals/early Renaissance version of Western Christian Civilization had to fight off the Turk in the East and the Moors in the West, and one day starting in 1519 suddenly they found themselves fighting off a new threat to their civilization, the Protestants, at their backs. Emperor Karl V couldn't deal with the Lutheran princes who supported Luther because the emperor had to fight off the Sultan, as well. Suleiman the Magnificent it was who crushed the Hungarians in August 1526, killing King Louis II of Hungary at the Battle of Mohács, and bounding onward into Austria, besieged Vienna in 1529. for two weeks. Failing this, and after 150 years of constant war (that left much of Central Europe and certainly Hungary a  depopulated wasteland), the Turks tried again in 1683, with a two-month siege of Vienna. (In 1565, the Turks besieged Malta for almost four months.) Obviously, this was a life and death struggle for the West. This was a CIVILIZATIONAL life and death struggle.

• If the Turk was fought off back then, at least until modern Islamic immigration into the West that of itself will destroy Western Civ, Protestantism wrought a destruction of a different type, resulting eventually in a desacralization of the West, secularizing it, removing the cult at its root by privatizing religion. Vatican II is the eventual fruit, a "Protestantization" of the Catholic Church, secularizing it, as we know only too well.
• Benighted Western intellectuals and "opinion makers" consider this secularization of the West a strength to boast about in comparison to Islam, an advance, not the stake through the cultural heart of Western Civilization that it is.
• But without its heart, what organism can survive? 

So, here we are in the Western world today, still besieged by Islam and still fighting off forces within our own civilization that seek to slaughter it. Now, however, the official Church has laid the axe of 'cult-ural' destruction at the root of the Tree of the Faith. "Pope Francis" and Company ceaselessly try to remove the very root, the Traditional Latin Mass that the entire civilization was built up around. That's what the suppression of the TLM truly signifies. If you didn't know that before, now you do. 

This will NOT turn out well, my friends.

           AnP

  

Coup d'état in the U.S.A.?

Friends,

Former CIA Sam Faddis makes a very credible argument that the bad guys in the U.S. government/Deep State are planning a coup d'état in the U.S. before the 2024 election. 

Everything in the country really seems to be heading in this direction. There's just simply unnerving lawlessness in the streets, the morality of the people is in the dumpster, which is itself on fire (abortions since Dobbs have actually increased in number!), and our economic situation is simply horrific. Thirty-three trillion in debt, heading for the stars, and a government, a Congress and executive, that can't even remotely agree on a budget. Besides all that, the utterly ridiculous Global Warming idiocy is about to force a massive famine on all of the world in order to crash the population so the new Fascists at the WEF can rule us all. (All who remain, that is.)

Communism came to America in the latter 19th century, mostly with immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe. A lot of murder and mayhem was going on by the time of Theodore Roosevelt's administration that you don't hear much about (William McKinley, anyone?), but WWI and then the Roaring Twenties tamped down the "Reds" for a while. They surged back into their own with the Great Depression, itself brought on by the Federal Reserve national bank (they turned it from a typical sharp but short-lived economic downturn into a first-class social and cultural disaster). Then the Franklin Roosevelt administrations (including the Truman administration) – endless Big Government giving birth to Deep State government – ensconced the Commies into our government. Joe McCarthy and Nixon tried a push back on all that, but the coup d'état that overthrew the most popularly elected president in history from office (Nixon in 1972), and replaced him with a RINO not elected president at all, showed how powerful they had become.

Newt Gringrich (actually a professional historian), lays much of this out here. He writes:

When you dig into the larger facts behind the stories, it becomes clear we are not faced with a disease that can be eliminated by going after a handful of people. America today is threatened by a culture and system of left-wing hostility to the Constitution, the rule of law, American history, and to the core concept of America.

There are tens of thousands of left-wing radicals in universities, newsrooms, bureaucracies, major law firms, big corporations, and elected offices. They mutually reinforce the fight to destroy the Constitution and replace the rule of law with the rule of power. All the while, they weaponize the government and culture to coerce the American people into their values.

So, we are in a fix. The 2020 election was brazenly stolen, and the 2022 election was as well, in such a way that the Republicans didn't sweep back into power as they did in previous "off-year" elections, such as 1994 or 2010. And most elected Republicans are bought and paid for "RINOs" anyway. The triple elections of Nixon, then Reagan, then Trump (all three re-elected twice) shows that the country at large doesn't want the Left's weltanschauung. They're going to make us take it, though, if they can, even if they have to go Red October on us. Alas for us, Pope Francis/Bergoglio, also a Leftist, is doing the exact same thing to the Catholic Church, stamping down hard on what remains of the pre-Vatican II Church, slapping down the actual, but helpless and unlamented, Vatican II Church, and replacing it with a Socialist-Homosexual carcass already rotting and full of rainbow maggots.

All this has bee a long time coming. The good news, however, is that ever more average Americans see it. The bad news is the bad guys know that and are more desperate than ever to force it on us. For the Communist Democrats, it is pointless to run that imbecile Joe Biden (an imbecile before he went into dementia) or trade him for Gavin Newsom (another feckless, entitled idiot) or Michelle Obama (a she-he who is to lazy too be president) or Hillary Clinton or whoever. Trump is going to win. They're going to try to steal but EVERYONE is watching for that now. Another brazen steal would also lead into true insurrection territory. (They tried to tell us what they'd do to us with that via the "January Sixers", but you can only push people so far before unhinged violence erupts. And I suspect the Covid flimflam has shorted a lot of fuses.) So since things are that bad for the Left and the Deep State, then why not "jump the shark" now, before the election, and "go for broke" and pull their coup d'état now?

Read Faddis if interested, and form your own conclusions. Prepare accordingly.

AnP

Fr. James Altman's Travails Comment the First

Amici,

Fr. James Altman seem to be (I say seems to be as of this writing, and if I find anything else published about it, I will write it here) cancelled from LifeSiteNews. 

I think enough is enough. I support Fr. Altman because he's right. Myself, to put it short and sweet, I find those insisting Bergoglio is pope to be in the wrong for two primary – and concrete – reasons. 

First, because Bergoglio not being pope is self-evident, and I mean as self-evident as the law of non-contradiction or the law of sufficient reason. 

1. It is a self-evident truth, based on ten years of observing the Argentine. Give him his due. One does that by being honest about what Bergoglio is doing.
   
2. He's doing absolutely everything in his power to smash what's left of the pre-Vat II Church, dismiss the Vat II Church itself with the back of his hand, and create an entirely new Church, a construct neither Paul 6, JP2, or Benedict would recognize. 
3. This is, as I insist, self evident.

Second reason involves Cognitive Dissonance. "Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People tend to seek consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict causes unpleasant feelings of unease or discomfort." 

1. Or the loss of faith, as well. 
2. To try to maintain the conscious idea that someone burning down your house is the actual fire chief, i.e. a nice guy whose job is to preserve your house, is just nuts. You'd go cross-eyed believing that.
   
3. A woman maintaining the guy who beats her daily really loves her, she's going to go mad. (Or is mad.) How could she not? 
4. Insisting that "Pope Francis" is pope resembles someone following Denethor's order's to light the pyre upon which he has laid himself and his son Faramir. The few stalwarts who did that – who followed Denethor because he was their liege-lord, after all, and in office as Stewart of the City – finally fled in dismay and horror as Denethor burned alive.

Final thought: The Church arranged for there to be no legal way to remove a bad pope. A canon law to that effect had existed but Church worthies removed it during the promulgating of the new Canon Law of 1917. Think of that. People often say you or I have no standing to say anything about Bergoglio not being pope, but then, consider this: a Cardinal of the Church has no legal standing to do so, either. The greatest living theologian (whoever that might be) doesn't, as well. We've made our own funeral pyre, and now have to lie on it.

Or do we? We're Catholics, not Protestants. We can't just go across the road and start the Second Catholic Church like some Baptists might go across the road and start a Second Baptist Church. But we're not powerless. According to our station in life, as people not in the Church hierarchy, we can, as much as possible, live like Catholics, keeping the Faith and teaching it much like those Catholics in England did after Elizabeth Tudor, Sataness daughter of Anne Boleyn and some lover or other, made Catholicism illegal in England. Had Elizabeth kept her "sister" Mary's Catholicism after Mary's death, the pressure would have been very high for her to give place to an actual blood heir (that being Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, a great-granddaughter of King Henry VII of England). And the upstarts who really ruled England, William Cecil and his son Robert, wouldn't have that. They had Mary executed in 1587. (Elizabeth herself claimed what today is called "plausible deniability".)

So, as with all those poor Catholics martyred for the Faith under Elizabeth and the Cecils, events beyond our control might well engulf us, as well. What we're going through now is a form of martyrdom, on its initial level. Sacrifice for the Faith. Christianity is a religion of sacrifice. It's not a religion of power, of bigshots, but the weak and marginal. 18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." (Gospel of John, 15 chapter)

Look up Traditional Catholic Teaching about "earning a crown" and what "merit" can mean. When was the last time you heard any of this preached from a pulpit?

   An Préachán

September 24 Feast of Our Lady of Walsingham

 Amici,

Today is September 24, the feast day of Our Lady of Walsingham. If you don't know the story, here's a nice video from a couple of years ago that explains the history of this amazing Marian Shrine, founded a thousand years ago in Norfolk, England, before the Norman Conquest, and suppressed completely by that wretched Henry VIII, who died saying, "All is lost – Kingdom, soul, life. Monks. Monks. Monks!"

The Story of Walsingham - Full EWTN Documentary 

If you watch this documentary, you learn the story of how one young Anglican vicar, significantly ecclesiastically named "Hope Patten", beginning in 1921, began to revive the pilgrimage – which sort of started up again on it own when Patten had a replica of the original statue of Our Lady and the Christ Child made. (The original had been burned up, along with the original Holy House, but the general appearance remained on Medieval seals.) His Anglican Bishop made Patten take the replica out of the local Anglican parish, itself a medieval survivor the Protestant Church of England "appropriated", as no "Mary Worship" was allowed in an Anglican Church. So, the enterprising vicar, with the name of "Hope", began building a shrine for it nearby, and the rest is, lo and behold, history. 

But prior to that, and again, profoundly Providently, an English lady named Charlotte Boyd, interested in Medieval ruins, bought an old, tumble-down stone barn standing out in the fields. It turned out to be nothing less than the Church of St. Catherine of Alexandria, Patroness of Pilgrims, otherwise known as the Slipper Chapel, part of the colossal Medieval Shrine Complex. (One huge arch of the Medieval Abbey still stands, which gives one a staggering idea of its gargantuan scale.) She began its restoration as a Church for Mass yet the local Catholic bishops wouldn't let it be used until the 1930s. You see, they told her, "But no Catholic families reside today anywhere near Walsingham." (Henry the VIII had been successful, though two hundred years after his demise, the great Protestant revivalist John Wesley preached that if "There had been a grain of virtue...in Henry VIII, these noble buildings need not have run ruin."

And you will learn to some extent the incredible modern-day popularity of the Catholic Shrine to people from around the world, such as the Charismatics, who are indeed mentioned. This being EWTN, though, Traditional Catholicism is played down or not mentioned (caveat: I suppose I could have missed it).

Whatever.

 

Walsingham had been one of the three greatest Medieval pilgrimages, and for about 400 years absolutely nothing went on there except the normal life of a very small English village. I've never been there, myself, or to Knock in Ireland, for that matter (the architecture there – just looking at photos of it – wallops me with something resembling an epileptic attack/tremens; it is so Modernist, it's Lovecraftian, I swear!). However, I did do the pilgrimage to Loch Derg, a.k.a. St. Patrick's Purgatory (though the cave of that is closed), and spent three nights barefoot in the rain. It was, to be sure, the most "Celtic" thing I've ever experienced.

So, may Our Lady of Walsingham succor for England – an abject, pitiful place ruled by Godless bureaucrats and overrun with Muslim hordes, but once known as "Our Lady's Dowry" – a return to its True Faith. Like her Son, she never gives up on us.

Amen.

AnP

 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider on Pope Francis' Validity, and the Lesson of Humanae Vitae

Friends,

Once an eagle, pierced by the bow-sped shaft, looked

At the feathered device and said, “Thus, not by others,

But by means of our own plumage are we slain”.

- Aeschylus

Adventures in Cognitive Dissonance

I rant and rave about Tio Jorge, a.k.a. Pope Francis, and I know I sound extreme, shrill, unhinged. Not very "Christian" of me, and I apologize for that, but I think the stakes are horrifically high. One of my brothers long ago got involved with a con-artist, and I've had friends in such situations. Another brother was in Vietnam, and the military situation was nuts. Look at our "woke" military today! They lost an F-35 – not at sea or in some remote jungle, but in South Carolina! – and had to advertise on social media, "Has anyone seen our $80 million airplane? Call...." After a decade of observing him, one can honestly say Bergoglio has all the traits exhibited by con-artists and incompetent woke hierarchies, alas, and we need to practice solid common sense about him, and certainly not cognitive dissonance.

So, to balance my ravings a bit, and to give the other side of things, here's Bishop Athanasius Schneider's article: Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the Validity of Pope Francis.

Bishop Schneider makes a number of points, such as despite speculations in previous centuries by some weighty saint-philosophers, such as St. Robert Bellarmine (d. 1621), no mechanism exists to remove a bad pope. Bishop Schneider also explains how the 1917 Code of Canon Law excised legislation that offered a way to depose bad popes – i.e. a pope who deviates from orthodox Catholicism. It is astounding and shocking to read that they once had such a law, but deleted it! "The Church has no power over the pope formally or judicially," he writes. The only option is to "...in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently."

Oh, really? But how does that follow? And therein is the problem.

All this is no doubt in answer to the "cancelled" priest Fr. James Altman, who made an impassioned oration that Bergoglio is not pope because he's manifestly not Catholic, an opinion I obviously share, though neither Altman nor I have any sort of standing whatsoever to make that argument for other people than perhaps ourselves. (At least our position is one of cognitive consonance.)

Alright. Fair enough, Bishop Schneider. 

But here's the problem with your program. It is illogical. And potentially catastrophic. Why? Because if the pope is validly pope, he has tremendous authority to wield as he sees fit. It's been built in to the office for centuries, patiently, intentionally. Clearly, too much authority of the wrong kind, as it turns out in this peculiar case. But there's nothing legal to do about it. We're hamstrung. The power comes with the job. And if we criticize him, still more, disobey him, then we're actually the ones illegal resisting valid authority. See the "Catch-22"?

It's what they call a "bitter irony."

And it fits the eagle's lament as Aeschylus recorded it. We're shooting ourselves in the foot. Or one could argue it's a classic example of cognitive dissonance, the mental conflict that occurs when one's beliefs do not correspond to one's actions. 

So, see the problem? How can one "resist" orders from a valid authority? We look like knaves! It's an ecclesiastical version of the Führerprinzip. If the Führer insists on issuing immoral orders, sure, you can resist him, true, but a majority will think we're rogues and rebels. And he also has the power of the state behind him to simply shoot you. (After all, we're rebelling against valid authority, remember.) He can replace you with someone more malleable. Why? Well, he's the Führer, remember? You insist he is, right? As such, he demands allegiance, as Bergoglio does. We saw this play out in the U.S. and Canada and the Western World with the civilian police forces. Every day "valid authorities" ordered the police to do immoral things to force people to isolate for Covid, and no remedy existed. Occasionally a sheriff or police chief, or even one or two governors, "resisted" but so what? Minor speed bumps to a legal – if immoral – juggernaut.

Francis/Bergoglio walks clearly on an obvious path to utterly gut and hamstring the Roman Catholic Church. He conspicuously, indubitably, wants its carcass nailed to his office door in Santa Marta. After ten years of the man, let's please give the Argentine his due: he clearly wants to trash the remnants of the pre-Vatican II Church (the only form of the Church that's growing via the TLM) and replace it NOT with the usual insipid Vatican II simulacrum of a Church (by which its response to Covid it basically committed suicide), but replace even that milquetoast "Church" with something quite different. If this statement is not patently obvious to you, then write me off as a crank and go happily "Synodaling".

Now, Bishop Schneider, as quoted above, says we "can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him". But how is that going to work if we also, simultaneously, assert and declare him to be a valid pope? Just a few pitiful examples:

1. If he is a valid pope, what's to stop him from removing Bishop Joseph Strickland (whom Bishop Schneider supports) – which will happen any day now? 
2. What's to stop Bergoglio from relieving Bishop Schneider himself? Would Bishop Schneider "resist" an order by a "valid" pope? What sort of precedent would THAT set? 
3. After all, "Pope Francis" took over the Order of Malta and round-filed its chaplain, Cardinal Burke, and its properly elected grand knight – nothing came of that. All gave in. Bergoglio triumphant.
   
4. And he also sacked Burke from his position in the Vatican court system. (Burke is now somewhere about the orbit of Pluto, truly "on the outside looking in".)
   
5. Bergoglio dumped Cardinal Müller out of the Holy Office (or CDF or "dicastery" or whatever they call it now). Müller is now on the outside, looking in.
   
6. And nothing and no one has stopped Francis from inserting his wretched sidekick "Kissy" Tucho Fernádez into that crucial spot. Anyone see any "resistance" about that? (A few howls, a few groans; otherwise, crickets.)
   
7. Manifestly, nothing and no one has stopped "Bergi" from trashing the Traditional Latin Mass. (Pilgrimages are held, to be sure, and letters written; but the bigshots Bergoglio has installed could care less. They hold us all in profound contempt.) How can we "avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him" in that? Any priest who ignores his bishop about the TLM will be relieved of his faculties, and any bishop – supposedly, according to Vatican II, a direct successor of the Apostles, no less! – who ignores Bergoglio will be relieved of his episcopacy. It's already happened. See Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres; Diocese of Arecibo; Puerto Rico. (Summarily Führer-ed out the door, and now on the outside looking in.)

Bishop Schneider also brings up the fact that God will decide Bergoglio's fate, whenever it befalls him. True. Popes come and go, yes. Although Bergoglio clearly has his possible successors hand-picked. But it remains true our "sins of omission" that will damn us.

Especially if we "wait him out." Why would that be? Let's take a short, succinct lesson from history, shall we, about the dangers of dithering?

Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae

In 1930 the formidable Pius XI ("Achilles" Ratti; he lived up to his baptismal name) issued Casti Connubii ("of chaste wedlock" in Latin), an encyclical promulgated after the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference in which it relaxed its stance on birth control – it proffered a boatload of caveats, of course, which Anglicans of course promptly ignored. Casti Connubii, however, asserted the unchanged Catholic Church laws on artificial birth control: it is absolutely prohibited it in any and all situations. Pius XII reaffirmed it in 1951.

A mere 11 years later, however, Vatican II began (October 1962) and was seized by the "Young Turk" Modernists, who threw out all but one of the documents John XXIII had prepared for it. Apparently, they wanted to recast Casti Connubii, as well, calling marriage a "community of love" (as opposed to a sacrament to help spouses gain salvation and to bring new servants of God into the world). The new pope, Paul VI, knew which way the wind was blowing, so he removed this issue from their claws. Why? We can speculate, but he said he'd issue a new such document soon enough. The Council ended in December 1965, but Paul (Giovanni Battista Montini), a classic effeminate, "weak sister" type of bureaucrat, dithered around and didn't issue a new Casti Connubii till 1968. It was titled Humanae Vitae.

Humanae Vitae reaffirmed, rather clumsily, with a lot of sociological claptrap, classic Church teaching, BUT SO MUCH TIME HAD PASSED that many Catholic laity and clergy thought sure it would give them permission to practice artificial birth control. (Satan had made his plans, see, and he wasn't going to be gainsaid.) When published, the Bubulum Stercus hit the rotary air circulation device; i.e.

• "Six hundred Roman Catholic scholars signed a statement challenging Humanae Vitae, many episcopates attempted to soften the harsher aspects of the encyclical, a flood of priests left the church, and the number of U.S. Catholics attending mass weekly fell from 70 percent before the issuing of the encyclical to 44 percent a few years afterward. The total marital fertility (the number of children in a completed family) of U.S. Catholics (2.27 in 1975) became virtually the same as that of non-Catholics (2.17)." (From Britannica; boldface mine)
• Now, of course, 1968 (a bad year, indeed) saw the first public offering of the new "Novus Ordo" Mass. It was held in the Sistine Chapel for a synod of bishops, of whom one-third rejected it outright and another third voted to accept it ONLY if changes were implemented (they weren't). Paul 6 suffered a crying fit. He had given up the papal tiara crown, symbol of Christ's Sovereignty on Earth, but alas, the dunce cap he had assumed instead must have pinched. Anyway, the Catholic world was saddled with the Novus Ordo liturgy starting in Advent, 1970, so we can't say if "Mass attendance" fell solely because of Humanae Vitae or because the new Mass was so lame. Either way, the blow-back was such that the "weak sister" never issued another encyclical. He died in August 1978, after a full ten years in a sort of "internal exile in Gorky". (He was in effect a prisoner on the inside looking out.)
  

Now, how does this all relate to Bishop Schneider's advice? I would maintain that his planned "resistance" is a type of, or will be seen by most as, a type of dithering. And what's more, it will be seen as a type of cognitive dissonance, a dithering by "extremist cranks." But it gets worse. By the time anything truly big happens, like a new pope, the Church will be prostrate. Absolutely prostrate. A total wreck. Too many people, waiting for years, will have just given up. Vote "with their feet" as they've been doing for 50 years now. The Reconquista of the Church would be like taking Spain back from Muslim devastation, an endeavor lasting hundreds of years, or more like taking half the world back from simply unimaginable Mongol slaughter of one-third of the human race.

And who could trust the Church not to do it all over again? Once burned, twice shy. If orthodox prelates let us down for 50 years, especially in the last decade, how can we trust them to not let us down yet again? To not "blow with the wind"?

"Need brooks no delay, but late is better than never." True. And that seems all we can pray for at the moment, barring something truly titanic, like a nuclear war or a large asteroid. Or the Second Coming. God's will be done. Prayer can change things, of course, even from the cataombs. Deus vult!

           AnP

More info on Bergoglio's pectoral cross, the official explanation?

Amici,

A friend sent along this link to a website that explains the symbolism of Bergoglio's pectoral cross. Many thanks to my friend!

I have reviewed the link and include here the relevant part, which explains the cross's symbolism, i.e.:

Let's review:

Of this explanation, I note there isn't much here, actually. The explanation, such as it is, does not remotely address the Cross as symbol of the blood sacrifice of Christ's that He offered the Father. A shepherd saves his sheep, yes, indeed, but Christ Himself IS the Lamb of God, He's the sheep, offering Himself to the Father as Isaac (one supposes) didn't resist Abraham's tying him up and binding him on the wood of the sacrifice in Genesis 22. And strikingly, the offering continues in Heaven, outside of time, as illustrated so graphically in Revelation. Ergo, what struck me in the explanation is how Vatican II it all is; i.e. how NOT a vertical sacrifice but rather a horizontal Help-Along-the-Group message it proffers. Interesting. It definitely represents a "new ecclesiastical era", alright. (Isn't this whole fight with Bergoglio and so many other Modernists about exactly that? Them creating a "New Church"?)

And importantly, the one serious photo close-up doesn't include the figure's feet, you-all will notice. Curious! Also, there's no explanation of the folded arms, although it is obvious the figure is carrying a lamb. I grew up on a farm and although we had few sheep, and rarely lambs, I can't imagine carrying one like that. (My father used to manage the sheep dept at the county fair, so I've seen lambs carried around a few times.) It would be quite awkward. If the lamb is on the back of your neck with its forelegs over one shoulder and its back legs over another, and you're holding animal's the feet, you wouldn't cross your arms to do that. You certainly could not pick it up that way. How would you? Such crossed arms would give you a lot less control of when you wanted to put the lamb down, or if it jerked a leg free, and in fact, you would have to pick up the lamb without crossed arms, drape it over your shoulders, and then at that point somehow let go of the lamb's feet to cross your arms. How would that work? (I've no doubt the "frolicsome" lamb would make a break for freedom.) Try it with a heavy bath towel or some such object. 

• Caveat: However, I'll freely admit that though it seems quite awkward, maybe that's how it is done (for reasons I don't know). It's just as Ann Barnhardt points out, what a coincidence that certain satanic cults worship with such crossed arms, and she has a photo of Church prelates making the same exact gesture as they worship – what else would one call it – that miserable Pachamana idol Bergoglio set up in St. Peter's – an amazingly shocking replication of the Ancient Israelites setting up statues of false gods in Solomon's temple!

Beyond all this, the history of this cross offers some interest: it was a personal creation of an artist, then replicated by a metalsmith? How nice. But the backward-turned foot is still a satanic symbol, whether the artist who created it knew that or not. Yet the "kicker" (pun intended) is what artist, even an avant-garde type, would turn an entire leg backwards? Maybe a forward-facing leg bent slightly back at the knee to represent walking, or striding, with the other leg forward – sure. One could produce that easily enough. But this isn't that, not remotely.  

You-all can make your own interpretations of Tio Jorge Mario's pectoral cross. Were he a basically orthodox pope – I mean that loosely, like someone along the lines of JP2 of B16, maybe a little more Paul 6 than otherwise – that'd be one thing. Goofy enough, true; eccentric in a Catholic "tumbledown" way, one might say. But he's not. 

It is said that at some point most (not all) Germans came to the realization that Hitler wasn't their lover, but their murderer. Bergoglio and his peeps are definitely out to kill what remains of the Catholic Church as it has always existed, and replace it with something else. What else do they have to do to prove that? An individual might want that, but no one should pretend it isn't happening. Recently, I heard Taylor Marshall say something astounding on one of his podcasts: a priest told him that in his diocese, just about every week, a homosexual couple comes to a Catholic church with a baby they have adopted and whom they want to baptize in the Church! And the priests have to agree to that, per their bishop's orders.

Folks, that ain't Catholicism.

Neither is the vast majority of what's being pushed now. We see and can say the same thing about the U.S. wherein stormtrooper battle-armed police can break into your house at any time for any reason, and presidential candidates and those associated with them, past or present, can be arrested and charged with sedition. This is our reality today, secular and ecclesiastical. But we must not pretend all this pork is kosher.

I thank my friend again for the help and his getting involved! We need everyone involved these days, that's for sure. Fulton Sheen, go ndéana Dia trócaire air, foresaw this time. We're in the pot now. And the temperature is turning up exponentially. (Guess Pius XI or Pius XII should have consecrated Russia when Our Lady asked them to, eh?)

   An Préachán

Bergoglio's Pectoral Cross – Photo evidence of his true allegiance

Amici, Friends,

What's happening in the Catholic Church is so tragic, and unnecessary, and more than anything else, so crazily odd, that is is incredible. (And how peculiar it mirrors what's going on in the U.S.A.'s secular government.) But it's been a long time coming, after all. We've seen it developing for years. Or we should have seen it.

• Ditching the TLM was the most glaring sign 50-some years ago, and the current war against it serves as another. 'Tradition is the Deposit of Faith," as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrote. Didn't they see that? Yes, many of them did. The revolutionaries of Modernism knew precisely what they were about.
  
• Indeed, the take over of the Council at the beginning of its first session from the men Pope John XXIII had set to moderate it served as a portent. A "gob-smacking" one, forsooth. The "Young Modernist Turks" who seized control ditched all but one of the proposed documents that John's Curia had worked on for years for the Council to adjudicate. Out went the one against Communism, the one on the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc., and they cast the one they kept in a very different light than it was intended to have.
• John lost control of his eccentric "pastoral" Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI could only shut it down. Before he did, he took away from it the teaching on contraception that it was going to consider. He didn't want the Council in that minefield.
  
• In 1968, three years after Pope Paul VI shut the lurching, unstable Council down, he promulgated Humanae Vitae, which taught the Tradition on contraception. It resulted in a very large portion of Catholic clergy, laity, and educators rejecting it, thereby rejecting the Traditional teaching that HV (rather lamely) proffered. That stood as a tremendously significant auspice, too. An "in your face" one. A new Church, essentially, was aborning. Now today the rumor wafts about that Bergoglio intends to "redo" Humanae Vitae in some manner, allowing artificial contraception: (A rumor begun by no less than the Pontifical Academy of Life!)
  
• Bergoglio's insistence that capital punishment can no longer be countenanced is in itself mortally significant, because in 2,000 years the Church has always accepted the right of the secular authority to impose the death penalty. St. Paul preached it. Bergoglio is changing such a Tradition as that.
• And pretty much everything Bergoglio says and does offers yet more signals; e.g. surely his constant support of homosexuality and blasphemers like Fr. James Martin, S.J. (what else but an S.J.?) remains one of the stakes that this upcoming "Synod on Synodality" will drive into the Catholic heart, one of the whips he intends to flay us with.
  
• Now the latest Bergoglian Imbroglio involves his new chief at the Holy Office (Doctrine of the Faith, with some sort of yet newer name or other). This boss, "Tucho" Fernández, about to be elevated to the cardinalate, spouts that "Bergi" has Gnostic powers and his will looms paramount over both the Church in general and Tradition in particular. No, I'm not kidding. See Who are you to judge the Holy Father and its followup here: Quite Obvious to a Catholic.
  

So, in the midst of all that, the redoubtable Ann Barnhardt has a column about yet another, extremely obvious sign: Bergoglio's silver pectoral cross he wears. The corpus on it not only sports an ugly death-mask face, but it also has crossed arms – crossed arms! – and just unbelievably, its right leg is turned around backwards! Heel to front. Go see the photos Ann has. (And follow the link to an earlier article on Joseph Bernardin and Wilton Gregory. Must reads, all.)

It's clear. It's unnerving. And it's the same style "cross" the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin wore, the Satan-worshiping prelate that Malachi Martin wrote about in his novel Windswept House, and that Wilton Gregory – a protege of Bernardin and now archbishop of Washington, D.C., canceling Latin Masses everywhere there – wears now. And guess what? Tucho Fernández wears the same pectoral cross!

Ann B. details how this corpus is a Satanic code sign. She lists various Satanic groups signified and proclaimed by it.

So, the "pope" has been openly sporting Satan's Insignia since he was an archbishop, though then it was a gold one. Look at the photos of the one today and get "gob-smacked". Here's a close-up:

This is an augury, folks, a massive one. A plain omen. A warning. An exclamation mark.

What more does Bergoglio have to do to proclaim his objectives so that we get it?

It's one for all of us to see, if we look. And it appears in literally hundreds of photos. It's no joke (unless the joke is on us).

May God have mercy on us.

AnP