St. Anselm, the Incarnation, and all Creation Rejoicing

Friends,

I always send this sermon from St. Anselm around on Christmas or Easter because it is so important, and it is so very much what you don't get from the mainstream Western Church (Catholic or Protestant) but it SO needs to be read and reflected upon: Just what the Incarnation means. Some Christians focus mainly on Christ's death and resurrection, but neither would be possible without the Incarnation to begin with. Some Christians concentrate on getting to Heaven, but God incarnating Himself into the human race changes all our natures now, if we are willing to accept this grace: it's what the Greeks call Theosis – the true point of the Incarnation.

No greater act than the Incarnation exists, and Christmas is the time to remember that.

Monday Morning Prayers of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary
From a sermon by Saint Anselm, bishop (1033/4–1109)

Blessed Lady, sky and stars, earth an rivers, day and night – everything that is subject to the power or use of man—rejoice that through you they are in some sense restored to their lost beauty and are endowed with inexpressible new grace. All creatures were dead, as it were, useless for human beings or for the praise of God, who made them. The world, contrary to its true destiny, was corrupted and tainted by the acts of human beings who served idols. Now all creation has been restored to life and rejoices that it is controlled and given splendor by those who believe in God.
The universe rejoices with new and indefinable loveliness. Not only does it feel the unseen presence of God Himself, its Creator, it sees him openly working and making it holy. These great blessings spring from the blessed fruit of Mary’s womb.
Through the fullness of the grace that was given you, dead things rejoice in their freedom and those in heaven are glad to be made new. Through the Son who was the glorious fruit of your virgin womb, just souls who died before his life-giving death rejoice as they are freed from captivity, and the angels are glad at the restoration of their shattered domain.
Lady, full and overflowing with grace, all creation received new life from your abundance. Virgin, blessed above all creatures, through your blessing all creation is blessed, not only creation from its Creator, but the Creator Himself has been blessed by creation.
To Mary God gave his only-begotten Son, whom he loved as himself. Through Mary God made himself a Son, not different but the same, by nature Son of God and Son of Mary. The whole universe was created by God, and God was born of Mary. God created all things and Mary gave birth to God. The God who made all things gave himself form through Mary, and thus he made his own creation. He who could create all things from nothing would not remake his ruined creation without Mary.
God, then, is the Father of the created world and Mary the mother of the re-created world. God is the Father by whom all things were given life, and Mary the mother through whom all things were given new life. For God begot the Son, through whom all things were made, and Mary gave birth to him as the Savior of the world. Without God’s Son, nothing could exist; without Mary’s son, nothing could be redeemed.
Truly the Lord is with you, to whom the Lord granted that all nature should owe as much to you as to himself.

They don't write 'em like that any more, St. Anselm. Thanks!

And for my friends who are into Hayao Miazaki movies, or sci-fi in general, there's this little jewel of a Christmas gift. 

A sacred Christmas and a blessed New Year to all.

An Préachán

How to Break Free from the Changeling (Synodal) Church

Well, Friends,

The fox is among the chickens now. Bergoglio, the anti-pope (definitely an anti-Christ is his miserable way; at least a Changeling "pope") has let the fox in among the hens. I would love to ask Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, perhaps the most famous (amongst Trads in the States) of the "Francis is really pope!" apologists, "Well, Professor, Bergoglio has just gutted the Catholic Church like gutting a fish; he's opened it with a sharp knife titled Fiducia supplicans to endless discrimination lawsuits, as "Gay, Inc." will be providing "couples" calling conservative parishes asking for a "blessing (with flowers, invited guests, special music, the works – but of course it isn't marriage, wink-wink, nod-nod) and who will be absolutely geared to sue the cassock off any priest who denies them. They can legally raise all Hell (literally) via Fiducia supplicans. So, Kwasniewski, what sayest thou now?"

Not very charitable of me, and I'm sure the Prof is a very nice man. But, his fence-sitting has betrayed us. 

John Zmirak at The Stream has sharply harped on this homosexuals-suing-the-Church here, adding his voice to many, many others who have argued this is some way. Myself, I would ask readers to pause a moment and reflect: How much money have the homosexuals cost us? Sure, they've cost the Changeling Church millions of members who have left or are leaving in utter disgust, and they've cost the Church her priceless reputation, respect, and MOST OF ALL, T.R.U.S.T. 

But just consider how much actual cashola they've cost the Church. One study I saw from 1986, I think it was, stated that only 26 percent of Roman Catholic clergy were heterosexual. Homosexual men prey on, or if somehow they resist, still lust heartily on, teenage boys. Grown men and teenage boys is the classic paradigm. It was that way in Ancient Greece's Golden Age (adult men had to train teens in the art of war, using weapons, etc., and over time this morphed into carnal activity). It was that way in China during periods of decadence, and it is that way in the Arab Muslim world, as first detailed for Westerners by Richard Francis Burton, the famous English 19th century explorer. 

So put them in among boys and the lusts of such perverts will wear down even the strongest willed of them. No one trying to break the chains of alcoholism takes a job in a liquor store or a bar. Sodomites have cost the Church literally billions of dollars – and again, the spiritual and morale disaster these degenerates have cost us is beyond staggering, and beyond counting..

Even the new Mass, the Novus Ordo, is effeminate, and encourages a flashy "performance" from the Cranmer's table (er, a.k.a. "altar"). It is like it was designed for narcissists.

Now Bergoglio has opened the floodgates to simply endless litigation and the "cancellation" of endless numbers of what true-believing, orthodox heterosexual priests remain.

And of course, here's the kicker: the laity won't remain. They've left Catholicism since 1965 by 100s of millions, literally. But now it is the turn of the remainders. The Remnant. You are a father or a mother of kids you want to raise in righteousness (justice, God-fearing and God-respecting), and after much searching you found a TLM or a N.O. that at least truly tries to be orthodox. And BANG! the bishop removes your parish priest for Non-Compliance to Gay Inc.'s demands. What are you going to do? By DEFINITION, the replacement can't be orthodox or a real believer (or he would fear God too much to do such a blasphemous thing). Solution: Vote with Your Feet. Leave. Soon, the mainstream Church will only have "Church Ladies" (a.k.a. "Karens"). The carnal vampires that are 'Gay, Inc." certainly won't fill the pews. Haha, NO ONE in his right mind would think they would, even for a second.

So, Amici, my friends, the only question is:

How do we break the "Roman Catholic Church" free from the Synodal "Changeling" Church? Will Bishop Strickland be the only one (I doubt it, but Grace accomplishes miracles) to stand up and say, "I announce and promulgate, as heir of the Apostles, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has abandoned the chair of Peter and the See of Rome, and my banishment is null and void, and I call ALL the "cancelled" priests to me to accept faculties that I will bestow on them to confect the sacraments, either by the Novus Ordo or the ancient, glorious Vetus Ordo."

So, who will this be? Strickland? Schneider? Schneider's Archbishop, Tomasz Peta? Some African bishop, or bishop's conference? Probably one of the latter.

However it is to be done, it has to be done. And the sooner the better. No more Professor Kwasniewski fence-sitting.

          AnP

Looking at Sedevacantism Issues Again What with All Our Troubles Breaking Full Upon Us

A Chairde, Amici,

Opening Note: Regarding Bergoglio's official approval of blessing the carnally deviant, this is, of course a "deal breaker". It cannot stand. Already we're seeing battle lines drawn up across the globe, for and against. We, the laity, must not tolerate it. If you have a local priest or bishop who approves of such an "abomination set up in the House of the Lord", break it off with them. Vote with your feet. They've excommunicated themselves from the Lord Jesus Christ. Full stop. Bergoglio has taught a lot of heresy before (death penalty, reality of Hell, etc.) but this is too much. Of course, "Bergi" is just pushing the envelope, seeing how far he can humiliate God, God's Church, you, and me. That in itself is the story of his war against the TLM. It's all of a piece.

Things are dire. People are on edge. Millions are leaving the Church, "voting with their feet". Things seem to be getting ever worse, more insane, more frightening. Now, as noted, "Pope Francis", aka Bergoglio, via his creepy henchman "Tucho" "Kissy" Fernandez, has allowed same-sex blessings in the Church. Taylor Marshall opines here that this is to destory marriage as a sacrament. And exiled Bishop Strickland calls on "his brother bishops" to unite against this Vatican ruling (fat chance). 

What with all this literal filth – spiritual septic tank filth spewing all over us from Bergoglio's volcano – I have been studying the Sedevacantists again. Personally, I think it quite reasonable to deduce that the papal office stands vacant with the so-called "Pope Francis". As with the reports above, every day his "Magisterium" goes from bad to worse. Reading Liz Yore's recent work at Lifesite News reinforces this deduction. However, going beyond that idea, I was perusing the Novus Ordo Watch site, going through their blog posts and Most Frequently Asked questions. They are considered "hard" Sedevacantists; i.e., that there's been no valid pope since Pius XII's death back in October of 1958. As such, they do not consider the Vatican II Church a Catholic avatar of historical Catholicism at all. That has some far-stretching complications, indeed. It certainly explains a lot of the past 60 years' history, but it is the answer to our problems? I will discuss this below.

Now, in August of this year I had written an article about Sedevacantism. My question then embodied the following, in which I wrote back in August regarding the "hard" Sedevacantist thesis that:

Anyway, were these men NOT actual popes, then we don't have a Catholic Church, because the last priest ordained by the last bishop Pope Pius XII assigned a diocese to has probably passed away by now. Invalid, false popes cannot ordain or assign bishops, and invalid bishops cannot ordain valid priests. Therefore, Catholicism is dead.

Remember the priests exist to validly ordain the Sacraments, especially the Most Holy Eucharist. (It's by Baptism and the Holy Eucharist that we participate in all the ancient Covenants. The Covenant system God set up with the First Covenant, when He blessed Creation and established the seventh day for the remembrance of it. The Holy Eucharist, capstone of the system, is required for salvation, as St. John makes clear in the sixth chapter of his Gospel. So it can't come to an end, until The End.) And the bishops exist to ordain valid priests and keep an eye on them. And in their turn, popes exist either to ordain and assign bishops or approve the election of bishops elevated by local cathedral canons, etc., as it was in the Middle Ages and before....   

So, if valid popes have not existed since Pius died on the 9th of October, 1958, (or I suppose since June 3rd,1963, if one assumes Roncalli was a valid pope), then the Church is an illusion, a "maya" as Buddhists say. That cannot be true, either. Not if God actually exists and if Jesus Christ is indeed God. So, how to square this circle? Maybe it is just me, but I've never seen a sedevacantist explanation of this: a clear one, concise, instantly recognizable to one's reason, as are the First Principles of Logic and the Truths of the Faith.

This was it. I wanted a clear, concise, instantly recognizable explanation to how this could work: how could a Catholic Church still exist assuming the "long-march" 60-plus-year sedevacantism? And how could we know/find it?

Remember: No valid popes for so long means no valid bishops. No valid bishops means no valid priests. No valid priests means invalid sacraments and thus no salvation whatsoever. That is, of course unless we want to go Protestant and ditch God's entire Salvic Plan from the First Covenant (Genesis 2:1-3) down to the Seventh Covenant Our Lord Himself made with His Father two thousand years ago, as told in the New Covenant/Testament. 

But would the Lord God abandon thousands of years of Covenant, since Creation itself, in this way? Would he create a "Hidden Church" of true believers? And is that very idea very Protestant, in itself?

Trying to Understand This Thinking, What I Learned Is...

On their page Now What?, NOW helpfully provide a series of Mass directories where one can search for a Mass not hooked up in any way with the infamous "Vatican II sect", as they call it. I.e.

Look for a Mass location that is close to you, and keep in mind that you may have to go across state or country lines for your nearest Mass. The editors of these directories try hard to ensure that all of the Masses listed are sedevacantist, that is, as far as they know, the clergy who offer them profess the true Catholic Faith, are validly ordained, and do not profess communion with any false papal claimant or the Vatican II Sect.  

Notice they mean, of course, by "true Catholic Faith" the one defined for millennia, not its more recent iterations. And that they thereby totally discount ALL of the Vatican II Church, entirely. One has to find a Mass location (not a parish because those cannot be set up, things being as dire as the are) where the priest was ordained by a bishop who himself was NOT ordained by any Vatican II bishop – but would have been ordained by someone who "passes", someone somehow ordained in a line not connected with Vatican II.

So, that would be either some sort of SSPX bishop or priest who left the SSPX because the SSPX prays for Pope Francis, and the Society has not been cast off by the official Church. (Horrors!) Who fits such a description, though? Aye, there's the rub. Well, there were "The Nine" who left the Society at some point, and some of those (or maybe just one guy?) founded the SSPV, and was consecrated to the episcopacy by Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục (I guess it was) at some point. (Thuc died in 1984.) One of these ordinands just died, a "founder of Congregation of St. Pius V... Sedevacantist Bishop Clarence Kelly (1941-2023)". But then in the Novus Ordo Watch comments on an obituary regarding the late Bishop Kelly, debate arises whether the entire SSPV (not the SSPX, mind you) is Sedevacantist at all. Some say yes, some no, chaos reigns. Fascinating, but a bit like getting into the details of ancient Gnosticism, that or Japanese mythology. Bewildering, in a word.

Another of The Nine, was, I believe, one Father Anthony Cekada. Though dead (in 2020), he has a large Youtube presence. Look him up. You shall thereby find links to articles about some of the issues the guys commenting on Kelly's death brought up.

Another fly in the ointment is that, if nothing else, Pacelli (Pius XII) made it plain that a pope would have to approve new bishop consecrations. Things have changed since then; i.e. the mode and words of bishop consecrations have changed, the words of ordaining priests and deacons have changed, too, for that matter. Changes galore. But not only that. If I recall correctly, from at least Pius' day, the pope has to approve a bishop's consecration, and if there's no pope...er...well, you see the problem. 

Bishops are now not just consecrated as bishop of a certain town, region, or ruin, either; regardless whether they are a titular bishop of an actual place, ancient or modern, or not; they're ascended to a higher rank of clergy and are in direct Apostolic succession of the Apostles! Bishop Strickland is still a bishop fully gunned, victualed and manned, as the old Navy would say. He just doesn't have a ship, a diocese,  not even a titular one, but he still has all the power that being a bishop entails. Therefore, even "dry-docked", he has episcopal power to fire on Bergoglio, as Lifesite reports above. This, thanks to Vatican II. But not in the pre-Vatican II Church. 

Practical Considerations

• As regards changes in the consecration/ordination rites, I personally think that too much scrutiny on that makes it into more magic than grace. A spell won't work unless the words are quite right. Just ask Gandalf.
  
• But in Church sacraments, it is not magic, but grace ("grace" means Divine gift, freely given: i.e. God does this); thus, some verbal variation might be tolerable. It depends on the sacrament, and so on. Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rites, i.e. non "Roman"-Catholic Churches, have different words for ordination and consecration than the Western Church had. They've always been valid. It's the intent that mattered. (I'm just making this notation to save folk from losing their marbles about their local clergy's ability to confect the sacraments.)
  

Bottom Line

Assuming – and I think it is a valid assumption – that Novus Ordo Watch in their research, their articles, their links, are solid for "sedes", that they're well-intentioned but that their zeal puts them on a very tall cliff, basically; i.e. they solve some problems but create new ones. Perhaps even bigger ones. What can we deduce?

I'm Not Joking

That you'd rather be Orthodox. Not a joke. (Well, sarcasm.) And I do mean one of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, "the 14". Consider, my friends: 

1. These Churches A: have existed for centuries, 
2. B: you know that since they're not "fly-by-night" you don't have to dig around to verify whether they've Apostolic Succession, and...
   
3. C: your problem is how to adapt to a foreign national culture in your religious life: i.e.: We're Western Christians. The Orthos are Russian, Greek, Syrian, whatever. Can you deal with that? Myself, I could not. (But I love icons in general and Russian Church architecture in particular!)
   

As for the search recommendations the Novus Ordo Watch suggests, I've only one word: headache.

1. A; whatever Sede "Mass community" or "church" you found would NOT have existed for very long, and thus been proven by that cruel, exacting "Test of Time"; 
2. B: therefore you would have to spend a lot of time, energy and patience trying to ferret out whether they have Apostolic Succession.
3. And C: With the Orthodox, of course, they're national Churches. So, if you are not Russian, or Serbian, or Romanian, or Greek, or Bulgarian, or Syrian, or...well, you really think some generic Orthodox Western Church is a real thing? But with these tiny Sede break-aways that are insisting they're really Roman Catholic, does that sit well with you in your craw? Maybe your gut says yes. Maybe not. And we have to live with our gut.
   

To Finish Up

The Hard Sedevacantist situation, my friends, is nearly impossible. Honestly. On the one hand, sure, they describe well and thoroughly the very falleness of the mainstream Church. (NO doubt as to the N.O. Church.) And Bergoglio is so obviously a wild boar of an enemy of Christ that he has usurped the throne (a lot like Biden and his swamping the USA with military-aged men from China, etc.). But on the other hand, their long march attempt at a solution just doesn't work for long. 

• Spiritually, who are we to ascertain that Bishop Strickland – to take an example – is not only not a bishop, but not even a priest? That he, and Bishop Schneider and so many others are what we used to say of Anglican/Episcopalian clergy: just laymen in fancy dress.
• Morally and legally, oddly but truly, we have no right to judge these others in that way. We can judge moral action, definitely; for example, Bergoglio's sell-out of the Chinese Catholics and other Christians is a horrific evil no pope could allow. Yes. See Liz Yore here. So also his "Kissy" up to the Gays.
  
• But regarding your local bishop or priest? Unless they excommunicate themselves, as in the Opening Note, can we excommunicate them?
• And what do demons judge? They are THE hyper-legalists of all hyber-legalists. If a local bishop isn't valid, he cant appoint a valid exorcist. However, I believe Fr. Ripperger has said he can cause a demon great pain by just showing him the photograph of a local bishop. And for that matter, Fr Ripperger himself, how's he casting out demons if he's just a confused layman in fancy dress?
• And finally: Practicality. Practicality hangs over Hard Sedevacantism like Damocles' Sword. What in Heaven's name is the practicality of a layman having to do tons of research, not to mention serious travel, prayer, and simple reflecting, on whether some local off-shoot outfit is really Catholic at all? Does that sound like something we can practically engage in, time and again? 
• Yes, sometimes "the less must lead" as with confronting Bergoglio, who affects us all. We can all see his immorality and judge that. We can judge those who openly embrace his apostasy. But locally, in judging whether Fr. So-and-So is a Catholic in the first place? God set up the spiritual hierarchy of human beings for a reason, and we all agree Luther went too far with his priesthood of all believers (he himself clearly thought so after seeing its consequences). 
  

Summation

Who among the laity – except for the "hard core", whoever they might be – could stand the trouble? All this searching NOW recommends, and for what? So much would depend on our money and time as well as our will, and then our mental state rather than our rational state, and wouldn't so much depend on the charisma – or lack thereof – of the priests involved? Father Anthony Cekada exhibited a great and winning personality. It is said Father Leonard Feeney (died 1978) could be mesmerizing, too. Doesn't make them wrong – or right.

1. It's obvious the Vatican II Church has troubles, and that it has been moving further and further away from the Deposit of Faith. 
2. But that's been a process, my friends. A PROCESS. It is an arc. 
3. This latest fiasco about blessing homosexuals shows it is reaching its apogee, its culmination, its denouement. Maybe the majority of bishops in the world will submit to Bergoglo and "Kissy", thus separating themselves from the Lord Jesus. We'll all be scrambling, then. But there will remain 7,000 who have not bent the knee to Ba'al. (First Kings 19:18)
   
4. I recently watched that enemy of Tradition (and hence the Deposit of Faith and hence a Ba'al knee-bender) Cardinal Wilton Gregory, say his piece about Tradition dying a bloody death. It's stomach-churning to watch. The man parodied an actor back in a '60s "Rat-Pack" movie playing a homosexual man. Gregory is very "faggoty". He's just a parody entirely. So many of Bernadine and McCarrick's highly placed "sons" are. 
5. And besides that, it's equally obvious to EVER more people that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a valid pope. Whether invalidly elected or fraudulently elected (or post a valid election he abandoned his post argument) we can set aside for this discussion we're on. 

My argument is long-march Sedevacantism like this – that the entire Catholic Church except for a few eccentrics (apologies to everyone at N.O. Watch), is very valuable in a great many ways, but ultimately, I'm sorry: arguing over whether the SSPV is really and truly a Sedevacantist or just a seemingly merely Sedevacatist church, is nuts. I can't reduce Catholicism to that. I really don't think they want to, either.

Right now, we have to weather the storm that's on us as best we can. Pray. As I wrote above, the battle lines are being drawn. Fundamentally: Schism, True Schism, is now upon us all.

• Pray to St. Patrick. He went to Ireland without the approval of his bishops back in Britannia. They didn't consecrate him a bishop. They might not even have ordained him a priest. But he went regardless, and the Lord God rewarded his sacrifice pretty handsomely in the test of time. 
• There's a delightful Russian story about three monks on an island in a lake who spent their days and nights chanting, "We three below adore You Three above." So the local bishop got a boat and went out to enlighten them about the Faith. As he was boating homeward, he saw one of the monks running across the water. He ran to the boat and stood on the lake to ask the bishop a child-like question. I'd rather be one of those monks than the bishop, wouldn't you?
  

   An Préachán

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Changeling Church: A Humanist Council Produced a Humanist Church; It Is Now Collapsing

Friends,

St. Matthew 7:24-27 reports Our Lord telling the parable of the man who built his house on rock as opposed to the man who built his house on sand. The Vatican II Church built itself on sand, i.e. Humanism. Kennedy Hall has reported on this Humanism aspect to Vatican II, and his podcast is well worth listening to. (See below for link.)

But is the Vatican II Church coming to its end because it was ill founded on an almost pure Humanism? A "Man is the measure of all things" humanism that draped itself in a bit of Catholic bunting? It is a great insight. Are not the most important segments of its most important decrees just that? Humanism with Catholic bunting? 

This Vat II Church bears a boat-load of issues, problems and wounds: most self-inflicted. And its agonized spasms often drive one to ask: "Is the Church suicidal, or what?" What are we to make of it trying to kill of the most exciting, laity-driven reform since time-out-of-mind: the TLM revival, and madly sacking orthodox bishops while promoting the heterodox (to be polite) into high office? All this self-flagellation drives millions away from the Church.

How odd a situation we are in that we have to demand of the Church to stop its self-destruction, cease being incoherent, and most of all to stop robbing us of our Catholic inheritance. The Traditional Latin Mass IS our inheritance, our spiritual inheritance going back to the beginning. Give it back to us! Give us back our traditional prayers and liturgy and theology. It isn't something anyone – Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Humanist, Communist, etc. – has any right to take from us, any more than the Confederacy had the right to strip the South's poor whites of their American citizenship (then kill them for four years to keep the theft in place).

The Church's self-demolition exists because the Vatican II Church was founded on Humanism, not the Gospel, not Church Tradition that embodies the Gospel. To conjure Irish folklore, it is a Changeling Church. At first, it was more Catholic than not, but slowly, then more quickly, like a Changeling, since 1964 it has shown itself to be NOT the Church we thought it was. 

"The True Spirit of Vatican II and Apostasy"

Find Kennedy Hall's excellent podcast on this Humanist revelation here. "The True Spirit of Vatican II and Apostasy". As such, I would argue that this is quite true and thus this historical Church version we have to suffer through, a Humanist-grounded ecclesiastical "avatar", quite naturally didn't take three-score and ten to crumple in upon itself. It's a house built on sandy Humanism.

Note that by "Vatican II Church" I mean, in the first instance, merely the Church of our time, but in the second instance, I mean a Church veering off the course set by Tradition (which, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, IS the Deposit of Faith), and which is now morphing into the notorious "Ape of the Church" foretold by Archbishop Fulton Sheen: a.k.a. the Synodal Church.

1. The Vatican II Council began the Vatican II Church. 
2. That Council infamously pretended to be only a "pastoral council" (said ad nauseam) but since it ended, Modernists have treated it as the Dogmatic Council of ALL TIME. 
3. It remains the ONLY Council of any import. The others? What Councils? There's only THE Council. (Paul VI and John Paul II both lauded it in this manner via hyper absurd praise.)
   
4. Holding high its voluminous writings and decrees, its verbose, rambling documents that no one can read (I've thoroughly read short ones like Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae: effusive efforts at wrapping heresy in twaddle) that sound – give or take – sorta Catholic...
   
5. ...But reading seriously, one realizes that as always, and here literally, the Devil is in the details.

Modernism = Evolution

The basic argument of Modernism is evolution. This remains very well hidden (much of the time) by the Neo-Modernists. But the core idea of it is that people evolve, as taught by Darwin, that hammer-wielding, animal skull-crushing atheist who invented eugenics. 

• Our relationships, duties, family structures, cultures also evolve. 
• No timeless truths exist. "Truth" is an illusion. 
• Our understanding of the world, via the new religion, "science", evolves us. (Just read Yuval Noah Harari, and other such futurist mavens.)
  
• And certainly, in terms of religion, our theology evolves, our sense of the divine develops in all sorts of ways.
  
• That's the attraction of this to so many: they get to "Invent Church". Sound familiar?
  
• Finally: the penultimate revelation is that God Himself evolves. He is not the God of Hebrews 13:8-9 "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines." Or of course Exodus 3:14 "God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you." 
• But the ultimate revelation of all that only gets revealed to the highest Gnostic geniuses is that God Himself doesn't exist; i.e. that we make Him up. (This is so Freemasonic, isn't it?)
  

All of the above shows how literally "Gnostic" evolution and humanism both are; how Gnostic so much of modernity is. So, Humanism (Christian veneer or not) always remains "Man is the measure of all things", and certainly the measure of God. In other words: God is completed, fulfilled, perfected through the perfection of man. Kennedy Hall mentions this as well.

History

The Vatican I Church was a tough, no-nonsense Church, really; a sort of Katholische Festung that survived Napoleon, Marx, loss of the Papal States, and two World Wars. It had its problems, sure, but basically it was doing great. So, for many: Modernists, yes, and always the Masons, many Protestants, certainly the Communists of all stripes, and even certain Jewish groups (such as got the Easter Good Friday Liturgy changed in 1955), it had to be bagged. Brought down. Stopped.

1. Note: These ecclesiastical "avatars" follow one another through history: the Counter-Reformation Church – one of the Church's high points in its 2,000-year history – existed from about 1540 to the Thirty Years War a century later...
2. ...when the Bourbon dynasts of France, Spain and Italy replaced it with the Bourbon Church until 1789, when in turn, the French Revolution ended the Bourbon Church (and many of the Bourbons). 
3. Each avatar has its essential mood or cast of spirit, its good points and its failures, its great saints and its sinners. The Vatican I Church really began with Pope Pius VII's resistance to Napoleon, and thereafter it continued to resist the modern world.
   

But all had the Traditional Latin Mass. Let me repeat that: ALL Catholic Church versions had the Latin Mass, the core elements of which go back to the "Dreamtime" of the early Faith. (Read 1 Corinthians, starting at 11:17.) All had the traditional theology. All stood fundamentally for orthodoxy. Certainly, none of these Church avatars, even the relatively corrupt earlier one in the 1000s, has ever produced a series of popes failing the basic Deposit of Faith. I don't mean popes exhibiting basic moral failings in themselves: many at certain times were great sinners. I mean failing to hold the traditional and ancient universal (Catholic) teaching such as the Vatican II Church has consistently veered away from – and of course NONE of them produced a Jorge Bergoglio. Not remotely.

Bottom Line

Watch the Kennedy Hall podcast. Take notes. He's working from a book, Prometheus, published by Angelus press. Note Pope Paul VI's speech that ended the council. At 8:05 into the podcast, Mr. Hall reads from Paul VI, "This entire Council may be reduced to its definitive religious significance which is none other other than a powerful and friendly invitation to the humanity of today and to find God once more through the path of Brotherly Love." Kennedy Hall comments that the entire council is reduced to "the spirit of fraternity", and that this sounds like Bergoglio. And Paul does, doesn't he? Remember Bergoglio's disastrous roll out of a "fraternity" event at the Vatican some months ago? No one came? Bergoglio has always hustled fraternal Humanism, as Elizabeth Yore writes here at Lifesite News. Kennedy Hall opines, "People think Pope Francis is really liberal; Pope Francis is not really that much different than Paul VI." Neither, ultimately, were John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Mr. Hall discusses this, and how Benedict's idea that the ancient Vetus Ordo and the modernist Novus Ordo would "enrich" each other. That's pure Hegelism, Kennedy points out: thesis, antithesis, and a resulting synthesis. (From this Humanistic insight I'm discussing, one would think great minds like JP2 and B16 would have seen the Novus Ordo for the pallid, Humanistic, horizontal liturgy it is. Maybe they did, but then they were true papal Humanists, apparently.)

Therefore, comprehending the reality of the Humanist Council and its Humanist tendrils wriggling through the Church's subsoil, we are seeing today the necessary, and I mean NECESSARY denouement of the Vatican II Church and its fully Humanist creed. How else could it have ended? It has produced a great multitude of Apostates. Tens of millions. Although many join other churches, separating themselves from the Holy Sacraments necessary for salvation that way, the majority leave the Church, as Mr Hall says, not to join Protestant churches, but to just stop religious practices. "Self-satisfied prigs" the kids in the Narnia Chronicles would label them. No wonder the murderous Anthony Fauci doesn't feel the need to attend Mass, as he's pontificated recently. That freak thinks he's been perfected. Totally immersed in all his post-Vatican II education (much of it Jesuit), he's a true "self-satisfied prig," a "know it all" snot who has obtained a higher plane of existence. Fauci thought nothing of killing millions. Humanists do that. (Doesn't this sound like Yuval Noah Harari and so many of "our betters" who want to refashion the world? It's hardly a Catholic-only failing.)

Good riddance, Vatican II Church; the Synodal Church, the "Ape of the Church" is next up. Yet it won't have Catholics in it. Many middle-of-the-road Catholics of today, mainly those who insist the Second Vatican Council was great and necessary, and who insist Bergoglio is pope, will under the wheels of the Synodal bus just stop practicing the Faith. That is, after all, the goal of the Modernists. But alas, notice how they're so often closing parishes and taking down good church buildings as they "clear outta town", closing them forever? That's to make sure no TLM can replace them. They want to leave a desert and sow it with salt, because, after all, they've achieved a nigher Gnostic enlightenment than the troglodytes they're leaving behind.

Doesn't that sound Masonic-like? Hmmm. 

           AnP

Article on How Depraved Bergoglio Is, and His End Game, by Henry Sire

Amici,

So, now we know. It was all a gambit to change the method the College of Cardinal elects a holder of the papal office. No more Josef Ratzingers or Karol Wojtyłas. Just either ogres like Bergoglio or wimps like Paul VI from now on out.

Friends, with the whole Bergoglio freak show is reaching its apex; Henry Sire, the Church historian, has an article at OnePeterFive published that is truly, really, and most sincerely a "must read" for Catholics. 

It reveals much about how unscrupulous a Machiavellian politician Bergoglio is now and in fact has always been, and how simply ruthless and wildly dangerous the man is to the Catholic Church, and to anyone, really, who gets in his way. Read the article for details. 

Lots and lots of details and particulars to be reflected upon, but wow: Sire reveals the end-goal, what all the pain Bergoglio has put us through is about: and that is to change the way popes are elected. Excerpt:

This was the disclosure of a plan to change the rules for the papal conclaves so as to introduce the participation of lay people, including women. What this showed us was that the point of the preceding Synod had not been the document to emerge from it, but the process itself. It was designed to soften up the Church for a revolution in the papal election. Thus we had had bishops making declarations like: “It will be impossible from now on to hold a Synod without lay participation.”

Popes elected by laity mixed with cardinals? Women? And you know it would be "Catholic" women equivalent to Harvard's president, Claudine Gay (important news regarding here).

Sire makes no predictions except to say it will only get worse. I myself, for whatever it is worth, would say that should this actually eventuate, the Schism in the Church will be finally formalized; i.e. a good number of Cardinals will not participate, or conclave among themselves and elect a pope that way, one against the mainstream Church. Think about it. Who in the Church would accept a "Bergoglio-pope" imposed without the smoke and mirrors, all the chaff and counter-measures veiled via a traditional "election"? This would be truly slapping Catholics "in your face" and smashing them into "shut up and take it" territory. 

Such a carefully lavender Mafia groomed individual would be naturally very naive and pliable, or easily blackmailable, or yet another "modernist" like Bergoglio, and probably callous and shallow in the extreme. It's one thing to argue Bergoglio was – or was not – validly elected. It's another to change the election process of a thousand years and simply install someone no one can trust to do anything but wreak more havoc. It would be like the Deep State cockroaches running Joe Biden suspending the Electoral College and just declaring Biden re-elected. (They're actually close to this now, trying to install illegal aliens into the U.S. military and allowing them to vote in federal elections.)

This rebellion against such an "election" would include more than Traditional Catholics, but we Trads are the tip of the halberd here. As Sire writes:

A corollary of this is (Bergoglio's) drive against tradition. Pope Francis realises perfectly well that the only real obstacle to his revolution comes from traditionalists in the Catholic Church, the only element with any backbone prepared to recognise that the emperor has no clothes. Hence the campaign he has waged throughout his pontificate against so-called “rigid” and “backward” Catholics, whom he derides at every opportunity.

So, there you have it, my friends. The Church's eleven Purgatorial years of this buffoon blatantly imposing ecclesiastical Hell-on-Earth finally making sense: it was all a gambit to change the method the College of Cardinal elects a holder of the papal office. A method to establish the "Ape of the Church" forever.

One thing would be true, at least. The "Conservative" Catholics and "mainstream Trads" won't be throwing the words sedevacantism/sedevacantist and schism/schismatic around as bombs at  those of us who have seen this fiasco from the get-go.

           AnP

Pray against Catholic Church Collapse by Contemplating Catholic Truths

Friends,

Catholic Church collapse is happening rapidly now. It is self-evident. On November 30, Bergoglio publicly said in an address to theologians: “This is the job I ask of you: Please, demasculinize the church.” (What? Like him and his creeps?)

OK. That's it for me. The Vatican II Church is comatose. It is about to breathe its last. Meanwhile, the True Church is being crucified. I could thesaurus all the synonyms for "putrid" I can find, but enough. The Church's "rank and file" bishops are already "demasculinized". They're reprehensible eunuchs.

We're on our own. Well, we have Someone on our side. 

Pray for God's will to be done as the Synodal Church/Bergoglio's Mirror Church gains strength and seemingly stomps and wallops the True Church. For some detail on that, see Anthony Stine's report here about how incredibly bad things are getting: such as one archbishop formally excommunicating priests and laity for simply celebrating/attending any Traditional Latin Mass in his archdiocese while allowing some Voodoo thing to occur, or Msgr Charles Pope deleting and recanting his refreshingly and perfectly honest 'X' commentary about how nasty Bergoglio is showing himself to be, and so on. (Anthony Stine does excellent reporting.) 

Now, I know it seems trite, cliché, the constant advice to "pray". But there's prayer and then there's prayer. 

Try contemplative prayer at this time of the liturgical year – Advent. It's the beginning of the liturgical year and the end of the secular year, and as we can be certain 2024 will be a disaster on all levels, it is a good time collect ourselves.

Adventus, the Coming of Christ. It's a Lenten time of fasting and preparation for Christ's Incarnation. Consider praying by reflecting on what the Incarnation itself means.

God rejoices in His creations, and His creations rejoice in Him, and in us. Incarnate Creation reflects His Glory, His Being. Prayerfully reflect on

Psalm 5: ⁴ For I will behold thy heavens, the works of thy fingers: the moon and the stars which thou hast founded. ⁵ What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? ⁶ Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: ⁷ And hast set him over the works of thy hands. ⁸ Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: moreover the beasts also of the fields. ⁹ The birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea.

God incarnated us into being as a wonder. Our unique part angelic, part animal ensouled body constituting a being to rejoice in His Creation of us in the marvel of His earthly creation. The good angels certainly glorify Him for material existence and for creating us. Can we do less? And He blessed us, and our world, in the first three verses of Genesis 2. I take this to be a Covenantal blessing. The Lord God made a pact with his physical Creation, and that is why He did not kill Adam and Eve when they fell as Genesis 3 reports; instead, God kept them alive, cursing them, yes, but covenanting with Eve, as well, promising that her seed would rise up to crush the Devil's head (Genesis 3:15). 

That first Covenant with Humanity turned our shame into blessing. No one, no anti-Christ, can undo that. We can follow Satan to Hell, yes, but we cannot undo God's glory, only witness to it, even in the Inferno.

Prayerfully reflecting on this, how can Bergoglio and his lavender monkeys in clerical garb separate us from what God ordained for us? They cannot. Especially in this season. God, the pure spirit, takes on human nature, becomes a true human being yet wholly God as well. The Incarnation. Contemplate it. God has thus elevated our nature by His Incarnation in us, that we may take on God's nature, the Church doctrine called in Greek Theosis. And the good angels, God's first creations, pure spirits formed in the image and likeness of God, they marvel and rejoice in this awesome Divine Incarnation and the superlative transformation this miracle sets in motion.

Not by nature, but by grace (i.e. gift: all creation is gift), "Theosis" (Divinization) enables our incorporation into Christ, raising us up to participate in His Divinity, as St. Peter teaches in 2 Peter 1:4. Usually described in the Western Church as an Infusion of Grace, our natures are changed. Protestantism teaches Imputation of Grace: God assigns grace to us but doesn’t actually divinize or change our nature.

•    St. Athanasius: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460]
•    St. Thomas Aquinas: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]
•    This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Prayerfully contemplate Romans, chapters 6 and 8 ("Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry 'Abba, Father'). See also:
•    John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation)

•    2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.

•    Two Old Testament examples: Isaiah 65:17; Ezekiel 36:25-26

So, Friends,

Despite the Church's woes and the disgrace she suffers with that mountebank anti-pope currently installed and her gutless emasculated sons who won't remove him, we should rejoice with our angelic brethren, and they’ll show us how, joining our voices – and our awe – to theirs, together contemplating the Divine Glory of Our Blessed Lord’s Incarnation into human nature, and what it portends for our salvation. The True Church is bursting with this most incredible grace, this all-conquering gift. May it triumph, by God's will.

The Peace of Our Lord be with you all and all priests who "believe in His name" and may Bergoglio, the Scourge of the Vatican II Church and would-be murderer of the True Church, repent and believe before it is to late – and Bergoglio and his creatures and hangers-on experience the eternal payment for their evil. 

And shame, great shame, on Msgr Charles Pope and all the bishops who won't stand up for Christ in this time of trial. After a decade of Bergoglio, they have absolutely, ontologically, no excuse.

An Préachán