Sodom and Gomorrah and Bergoglio: Hell's Triplets; Horror about to be unleashed

Friends,

Spot Quiz

City of Dis 'Low' School

You are a Modernist Catholic if you think:

□ 1. Sex-related sin is sin, but not as bad as spiritual pride, voting conservative, or loving Trump.

□ 2. Sex-related anything isn't sin at all. It's an expression of who you are, and the only "sin" is NOT engaging in your carnal fantasies.

□ 3. Better it would be for the entire world to end tonight than another sin to occur.

Answers

▣ 1. You're a Vatican II Catholic; but you're obviously slipping behind the times.

▣ 2. You're a Bergoglian Synodal Church "Catholic". Just don't tie your shoes anywhere near Cardinal Fernández.

▣ 3. You're a Traditional, orthodox Catholic; you can find your mugshot on "Open Season" hunting posters near any mainstream church.

Amici,

Since The Logos made the world and everything in it, and doubly so since God the Father would not remake the world except through the Blessed Virgin Mary, NEVER has there existed a scope of words that Angels or Men ever conceived which can possibly express the absolute disgust, the utter, utter despisement I have toward that subhuman, that feral, brutish Bergoglio and his subcreatures, imps, incubi, hobs, hellions and gremlins.

Or I should add: EXCEPT for the disgust I feel toward those (i.e., Cardinals Burke and Müller, Bishop Schneider, and so many, many others) who ought to have "outted" and denounced Bergoglio a decade ago. (And cursed him every year since, because he keeps adding evil to evil.) I cannot conceive what their just punishment would be. They're shepherds! Yet they let their lambs be raped, skinned alive, and eaten raw. Bishop Strickland, you abandoned your sheep to a false pope, a "porno-pope anti-pope". You let the Wolf win. Thankfully, God is the the judge of all these men, not me. Other than that they are – not a one of them – St. John Fisher, I have nothing to say to them. Bergoglio serves as their ringmaster, clearly, he's their dominus, their dog collar and chain.

Over at Mundabor's blog, he notes that TWO MORE obscene books Fernández wrote years ago have come to light. Mundabor makes the logical observation that the putrid Fernández used these 'books", what with their small print runs, as "grooming" tools. "I think it is – if possible – even more sinister than that. I think that all these books were written and published in order to help this guy to groom young people, more likely boys."

Were I such a one to have any standing in the world, secular or ecclesiastical, I'd be begging the Italian government of the Republic of Italy to invade Vatican City and arrest all these perverts and rapists of children and nuns. More has come out recently about what the rapist Rupnik did to a nun, breaking her fingers and telling her it was a Jesuit ritual. (Again, words just fail.) Go through their computer files, oh Officers of the Republic, expose every last criminal among them, then lock them up and melt down their Vatican keys. For surely, these wretches have melted down the Keys of the Kingdom.

See also Anthony Stine's new podcast: "Francis Just Inflamed The Scandal He Caused With Satanic Blessings" Please give it a thorough review. Anthony Stine updates daily with a steady flow of information.

As for the rest of us, it is past time to take the gloves off:

Psalm 68 Douay-Rheims (69 in Protestant Bibles)

Verse 20ff: Thou knowest my reproach, and my confusion, and my shame.

21 In thy sight are all they that afflict me; my heart hath expected reproach and misery. And I looked for one that would grieve together with me, but there was none: and for one that would comfort me, and I found none.

22 And they gave me gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

23 Let their table become as a snare before them, and a recompense, and a stumblingblock.

24 Let their eyes be darkened that they see not; and their back bend thou down always.

25 Pour out thy indignation upon them: and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

26 Let their habitation be made desolate: and let there be none to dwell in their tabernacles.

27 Because they have persecuted him whom thou hast smitten; and they have added to the grief of my wounds.

28 Add thou iniquity upon their iniquity: and let them not come into thy justice.

29 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; and with the just let them not be written.

30 But I am poor and sorrowful: thy salvation, O God, hath set me up.

31 I will praise the name of God with a canticle: and I will magnify him with praise.

In short: "In the lips of the wise is wisdom found: and a rod on the back of him that wanteth sense." Proverbs 10:13

   An Préacán

Catechism of Schism from Church Loonies

New Catechism

Catechism of Schism from Loonies

Sometimes we need to laugh at it all.

N.B. "Schism" is the dreaded "S" word in the Church. Let's put it in context, for once. Hence, this new catechism of Schism.

Question: Are you in schism with anyone who teaches that God evolves?

Answer: I am.

Question: Modernism is founded on God evolving. Does God evolve?

Answer: Definitely not! See Exodus 3:14; Psalm 89:4 / 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8; Hebrews 1:12, 13:8.

Question: Then you are in schism with all Modernists in the Church?

Answer: I am.

Question: Many prestigious Bible "scholars" say the Holy Texts "evolved" and were composed by some creative scribes a couple of centuries B.C. in a suburb of Babylon. Are you in schism with them?

Answer: I thought those experts said Mormons printed it up a hundred and fifty years ago in Albuquerque?

Question: Are you in Schism with all secret, occult organizations, including (but not limited to) the Freemasons, Mormons, Shriners, the St. Gallen Mafia, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, the WEF, the USCCB, Opus Dei, the Democrat Party, RINOs, and all UniParty politicians of any country? 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with loonies, frauds, heretics, the demented, "sex fiends"; i.e. the prurient, the homosexuals, the "I got this info from a 16-year-old" creeps, and dopamine or adrenaline addicts?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with Argentine heretics in white who frown a lot?

Answers: Always.

Question: Are you in schism with any clergy who bring in shamans, witches, and sorcerers, and who worship their devils?

Answer: Vade retro satana!

Question: Are you in schism with all "pope-splainers" and papal idolaters? 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all Ultramontantists? 

Answer: Weren't they a '70's punk rock band arrested for public nudity on stage?

Question: Are you in schism with all popular music used in Mass, or folk music, or banal lyrics in general used liturgically? 

Answer: Palestrina, Tallis, Byrd, and Bach are my quartet; them, or Gregorian chant. (Bach should be baptized for his Mass in B minor.)

Question: Are you in schism with all "Church ladies" and parish "Karens"?

Answer: Yep!

Question: Are you in schism with every aging Hippie of any denomination?

Answer: Every single one.

Question: And any clergy whosoever sporting polyester vestments?

Answer: I am, massively. Especially ones who hang felt banners from the rafters.

Question: Are you in schism with Vatican II Council Humanism, the one that masqueraded as an Ecumenical Church Council, and generally the "Man is the measure of all things" crowd?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with "Religion exists for Man" and "the Mass exists for Man" theorists"?

Answer: Manifestly.

Question: Are you in schism with a pope who supports Communism?

Answer: Trad laity of the world, unite!

Question: Are you in schism with priests standing behind altars looking at you like clerks from behind a store counter?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all priests who begin the Novus Ordo with "Good morning!"?

Answer: Bet on it.

Question: Are you in schism with parishioners who stare constantly at a priest's face while he says Mass?

Answer: Yuck! Creeps me out! I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all Cranmer tables, non-stone table altars, and Jewish supper prayers said in the Novus Ordo?

Answer: Definitely.

Question: Are you in schism with all "Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist"?

Answer: Who?

Question: Are you in schism with any liturgy that replaced the Offerendum with Bidding Prayers?

Answer: Yikes! Absolutely.

Question: Are you in schism with the "All Religions are good" commissars, the "Islam is better" Moonie worshipers, the "Buddhism is really a Western religion that ceaselessly affirms me, myself, and I" sects?

Answer: Buddhism teaches that the self doesn't exist, so, yes to all three.

Question: Are you in schism with all self-realization gurus, Health and Wealth Gospel Protestants, and the Shinto emperor of Japan?

 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with any Jews, especially those who got the Church to drop the prayer for Jewish conversion from the Good Friday prayers?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with anyone who blames Christianity for the world's problems, headaches, and nausea?

Answer: Tediously so.

Question: Are you in schism with the Deposit of Faith, also known as Catholic Tradition?

Answer: That's the one thing I'm not in schism with.

Inquisitor: Congratulations! You're orthodox!

Me: I thought I was Catholic!

-End-

  An Préachán

Bergoglio, Fernández, Apes of the Ape Church and Kinsey's Imp

Amici,

Alright. This latest revelation about "Tucho" "Kissy" Fernández serves as a klaxon call to get rid of the Apes of the Ape Church.

We can throw up our hands at the general apostasy, or we can see this as an unique opportunity. 

First of all, words can barely express the contempt I have for this Simian Dystopic Duo of Begoglio and "Kissy", a spiritual orangutan and his pet baboon. Yesterday's revelation is that "Tucho" – Bergoglio's chief doctrinal sheriff and Flying Monkey in Chief – wrote a scurrilous and blasphemous book involving certain aspects of human carnal activity, some of the "research" derived from a 16-year-old girl. Fernández has now admitted he wrote the book but would not write it now. Oh, really? No celibate loyal to his vows could know this stuff, and no remotely true-believing clergyman would dare even think of writing such filth. (The news about the 16-year-old girl by itself should get him fired.)

N.B. This is Alfred Kinsey-level depravity. Kinsey was one of the original "sexologists" back in the 1950s, but Kinsey himself was a sexual deviant and his "research" was utterly flawed, taking place mainly among prisoners and the carnally disturbed. Kinsey, and his "work" was utter trash, but it influenced the "Sexual Revolution" that swept through the 1960s and '70s, the decades that formed both Bergoglio and then later, Fernández. All this makes Fernández Kinsey's imp. (Both imp and baboon! "Kissy" is a real winner.)

Dopamine and Physical Reality

Fernández's idea postulated that this carnal activity allows heightened spiritual awareness, such as the Mystics wrote about, and therefore was good. Even sacred or holy. Truth is, certain carnal behavior releases dopamine, a neurotransmitter that sends messages to nerve cells, and it often causes pleasurable feelings. It is essential on various levels, and helps physiologically in certain human traits (ability to plan, to strive, to find things interesting). Dopamine is like a drug causing pleasure, like magic mushrooms or LSD or I dunno, whatever. And addictive aspect exists with it, as it does with adrenaline (also involved here). It in no way causes true spiritual experiences, any more than mushrooms or marijuana could. Biologists say it makes carnal activity pleasurable so that we are more likely to reproduce ourselves.

• So, something as prosaically natural as the urge for animals to reproduce is used by Fernández and who knows how many others to "make up" or constitute a religious experience, but only involves an actually naturally occurring chemical reaction. Fernández's basic idea, then, is utter bunk. 
• And it is blasphemous, arguing that God can be found in natural chemical reactions in the body, especially ones involving sin. I've seen one blogger, "Alphonsus", make the comment at a LifesiteNews article that this insults the Blessed Virgin Mary, who certainly didn't need or experience any of this to have the closest relationship with God of anyone in all created existence. Spot on.
  
• And it struck me that not only was he right, but also how so very Muslim this nonsense is. Islam teaches that the afterlife, the Garden of Allah, consists of nothing but men romping through harems of virgins every day, and that is "Heaven". And indeed, Islam teaches that Muhammad resides there in Allah's Garden with innumerable females, AND that he daily rapes the Blessed Virgin Mary. (I am not making that up.)
  

How are Fernández's sick fancies any more demented than that? In fact, they are kin.

Truth is: the Vatican II changes via "The Spirit of Vatican II" were all based on lack of faith in God, that Faith derived from the Faith of our fathers, and then propped on two stilts: Sex craziness and the Modernist "making up God", "evolving God ourselves to suit our carnal lusts". That's it. All the rest was window-dressing.

Now what? A Machiavellian observation

One would think that this is so horrifying, so simply standout putrid, that bishops the world over would demand, DEMAND, Fernández be fired, forced to resign. Again, I think the revelation that a 16-year-old girl was involved would force this outcome. Anthony Stine of Return to Tradition is certain that that will not happen: that Fernández will be there until Bergoglio finds out whether God really exists. Probably true, but I am not so sure. That 16-year-old girl news is horrific. It depends on what the bishops do. Don't laugh. As we have seen with Fiducia supplicans, a strong reaction (for the Vatican II Church) has developed against that document. This reaction is worldwide, but strongest in Africa. The Fernández revelation is like the second of a one-two punch, however; how outraged will the bishops outraged of Fiducia be now? Double? Treble? This could be, in short, a cascade event (i.e. "an inevitable, often unforeseen chain of events potentially resulting in a dangerous system failure").

From a purely Machiavellian point of view, I suspect this could easily happen. Really, Bergoglio's stupid gambit of bringing in Fernández to begin with – and BTW, it was one of Bergoglio's first acts as pope to see that Fernández was made a bishop back in Argentina – was a mistake. Sure, "Tucho" will do his master's bidding, no matter what, but Fernández comes with a LOT of baggage. How many more skeletons besides that adolescent girl are stuffed into Tucho's closet? This new one by itself is so over-the-top!

Any hue and cry that Fernández be removed will take up time, attention, and eat up whatever goodwill remains regarding "Pope Francis" among all the "pope-splaners". It will also incite Bergoglio's infamous volcanic temper. How might he react? Fernández's revelation reveals Bergoglio, making him out sharp and clear as an Ogre, a true Beast, a Dragon in God's vineyard. How can Bergoglio push his evil agenda with all this attention on him, and all the ill-will on the part of increasing numbers of Catholics?

Conversely, if Fernández stays, as seems more likely – maybe – he'll be the proverbial albatross around Bergoglio's neck. More like a millstone. In this context, too, only more so, for as above: Fernández will take up time and attention, eating up whatever goodwill remains regarding the tarnished "Pope Francis" among all the "pope-splaners". Fernández's revelation reveals Bergoglio in sharp detail, making him out cold and clear as a hideous Ogre, a true Monster, a scaly Dragon in God's vineyard. How can Bergoglio push his evil agenda amidst all this attention and all the ill-will on the part of increasing numbers of Catholics?

Either way this goes, in other words, Bergoglio loses power, prestige (I can't believe he has any), and tolerance for his papacy. 

For Us Catholics

That's Machiavelli. For those of us who try to be practicing Catholics, Bergoglio and his peeps are painting us into a corner. We have no choice now but to deny this guy's validity as a pope. NO POPE would treat God's Church to all this Hell. NO POPE would monkey around with the Faith as these monkeys have done. And that, in itself, is quite liberating. With every increase in monkey poo they throw at us, we can cast aside the endless cognitive dissonance the Vatican II Church and the "Bergoglio-is-a-true-pope" types try to impose on us. By their own acts, they reveal themselves. By their fruit ye shall know them. Thank God for that.

God rules. Jesus Christ established the Church for our salvation. We can – and I'm sure my readers do – pray for God to cast out these rebels and to restore His Bride, the Church, to her pristine purity. As He told Elijah, "I have kept 7,000 who have not bent the knee to Ba'al.' (1 Kings 19:18)

Amen to that.

  An Préachán

The Jonah Reality, Valid Priests and Bishops: and Papal Infallibility

Amici,

In my previous essay, I mentioned The Jonah Reality as a possible solution to an intractable problem. 

As Bergoglio and his peeps ("Tucho" "Kissy" Fernandez and a large coven of other Modernists and deviants) do their best to disintegrate the Church, we need to take a moment and consider our options, although things are happening so fast now that "Fiducia supplicans" has been foisted on us, and as it is apparently going to be seriously defended with Tucho saying bishops can't opt out of it, full rebellion might erupt at any moment, and some bishop or bishops' conference will declare Tucho, at least, excommunicated. Now, that would be interesting! The firing on Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor rolled into one. It's past due.

Three Options

1. We Traditionalists can pretend that Bergoglio is an actual pope, which many Trads do, for example, the SSPX itself, the FSSP, and various VIPs, such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Burke (more like Cardinal Punching Bag) or Bishop Strickland.
   
2. We can be "Benesedevacantists", such as Ann Barnhardt and Dr. Edward Massa, and so far as I can tell, Archbishop Viganò himself. I myself basically take this position; i.e. that while John 23rd, Paul 6, JP 2 and Benedict 16 were very flawed and essentially heretical in various ways, they were at least still validly elected pontiffs. JP2 and B16 certainly were, though maybe not the first two. Bergoglio (for a number of reasons) clearly wasn't validly elected. (N.B. Popes are not "the Lord's Anointed" as I saw one blogger insist; they're just elected as already-existing bishops to serve as bishop of the Roman See. E.l.e.c.t.e.d. Just whether they're immune from heresy after that election is pretty much what Trads – and everyone else – are fighting over at the moment. See Papal Infallibility below.)
   
3. Or one can take the "Hard" Sedevacantist" position, such as Novus Ordo Watch or AKA Catholic, who argue cogently that a true pope hasn't existed since Pius XII died in 1958. Don't simply dismiss their efforts; they're trying to make sense of a total mess, after all.
   

1. If we take Position 1, we blow our circuits; i.e. cognitive dissonance will eventually cause us to go cross-eyed and sit in trees and chirp and eat worms. Bergoglio is that much an anti-pope.
   
2. If we take Position 2, we can at least argue that Bergoglio is an usurper and anti-pope, and none of his antics are valid. But we have still many bishops consecrated by JP2 and B16 to work with and who could – if they want – act to preserve the Church. Some seem to be waking up and doing just that.
3. If we take Position 3, we easily solve the disastrous problem of the wayward, clearly heretical (increasingly heretical with Bergoglio in charge) Vatican II Era Church. But then we create a new problem: What or Where, then, is the "true" Catholic Church? Can it be said to still exist at all?

Position 1 is we stay in the frying pan as Bergi burns the whole house down around our ears; Position 2 allows us to dump The Ogre and jump-restart the Church, or you could compare it to removing a kidney stone to save the kidney; Position 3 is a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire" of the Unknown, a search for Apostolic Succession in the shifting sands of a very grainy desert.

• For if the "Hard" Sedes are right, they would say the Church exists here and there, extant via bishops consecrated NOT by any Vatican II bishop. (The Novus Ordo Watch provides a list of priests not ordained by Vatican II-consecrated bishops.) Yes, these priests would be excommunicated automatically for receiving ordination from an excommunicated bishop, but that excommunication would be from a Church the "Hard Sedes" regard as heretical, and thus void.

The Dilemma

In other words, a dilemma! I mean, this Hard Sede argument would insist Bishop Athanasius Schneider is just a layman in fancy dress (as we used to say of the Anglican clergy). It would mean that Fr. Chad Ripperger is just a layman in fancy dress, too. We KNOW that isn't true because of his long success against demons, those hyper-legalists of all legalists would not let themselves be pushed around by a befuddled layman!

• So, it seems, the "Hard Sedes" can't be right, either. Unless you are a very, very "Hard Sede", what does N.O. Watch offer? A bunch of excommunicated bishops and priests who may or may not have Apostolic Succession, but no standing – except in their own eyes – to confect the sacraments. That is hardly comforting to most of us.
• Or we can stay in the mainstream Church, the "Universal" or "Catholic" Church. So, what if the pope is a lunatic? Or at least a massively obvious heretic like Bergoglio? Sooner or later, Bergi's reign will end and his "Ape of the Church", his Synodal Church, will collapse – because it most definitely is not of God. We see collapse in seminarian numbers in both Poland and Germany, with the latter below 50 now, while in Poland, the number has fallen from 6,789 in 2000 to 1,690 today. That's The Bergoglio Effect and it can't continue. (BTW: Germany harbors a bit under 21 million folks who identify as Catholics, but just 1.2 million of them went to Mass. I bet a lot of those are Trads.)
• A Schism will almost certainly occur as this impossible mess cannot continue, which Bergoglio's "Fiducia supplicans" is demonstrating by the hour. The Church has already fractured de facto, but it is about to become de jure. Yet unless he is officially declared to be an anti-pope and his appointments and rulings invalid and illegal – by a significant group of orthodox prelates – we are still stuck with heretics running the show. For a time.
  

Solution: The Jonah Reality

• Hence my argument about Our Jonah Reality.
  

Jonah was an Old Testament prophet and God assigned him the job of going to the great pagan city of Nineveh and preaching to its inhabitants, sometime in the 700s BC. Jonah, an Israelite nationalist, didn't want them saved: he wanted them in Hell. So he fled God. God caught up with him on the sea and stuffed him into the belly of a whale (or fish, or aquatic creature of some sort) for three days. After that digestive experience, Jonah got himself cleaned up and went to Nineveh and starting walking straight through the metropolis, preaching away. Sure enough, via his preaching, the pagans repented and their city was saved. (Important: God, you see, clearly had a whale-sized tub of grace prepared to pour out on the citizens – as He had at Pentecost; He just wanted to work through human agency like He works through the Church.)

Jonah served as a unwilling prophet, but God worked through him anyway. The Jonah Reality is that God works through us even when we don't want Him to. Saul of Tarsus was literally Hell-bent on destroying Christians, for example, but God zapped him on the road to Damascus, and Saul became Paul, the famous Apostle. God does things like that.

So even though the Vatican II Avatar (version) of the Catholic Church is a mess and a disaster, God can work through it. Even though the Vatican II Church changed the consecration of bishops and the ordination of priests, God can still consecrate and ordain valid priests from that. It is all pure Gift to begin with, pure Grace. All existence is. God rules. And He loves; i.e. He "wills our good". He's already gone to great lengths for us (see Christ, Jesus) and we can have confidence in Him.

Reflections and Addenda

Excommunication and Power Manipulation

Excommunication the Church uses to control people. It is mean to sober sinners up, and tell them they cannot receive the Sacraments until they repent and get their life in order. Instead, the Powers-That-Be in the Church use it to slap down people and control them. An Italian priest named Father Ramon Guidetti called out Bergo

glio recently as an anti-Christ – which his parishioners immediately applauded in the church – and his superiors excommunicated him. This will not sit well with real Catholics.

When Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops for the SSPX in 1988, he and they received Canon Law-stipulated automatic excommunication, but that didn't sit well with a great many; those having "the Catholic sense" knew it was wrong, and in 2009 Pope Benedict grudgingly lifted these excommunications. God stood behind all that. Despite the mainstream hierarchy's foot-dragging, God got His priests un-excommunicated. And He had a tub of grace prepared! Pope Francis, old Begoglio himself, anti-pope and Church Smasher, the Terror of Trads and Dragon of Argentina no less, later allowed the SSPX to hear confessions, etc., and basically since then, very few except hard-core wackos would argue that the SSPX is a heretical, excommunicated sect. (One of its bishops was kicked out for preaching against the Jews, and formed his own Church, consecrating four bishops as of now, I think it is.) The SSPX's canonicity might be still a bit "unsettled", but so what? Good for them. The SSPX grows daily by leaps and bounds. Obviously, God supports it. Who can stand against God? (See Gamaliel, Rabban, in Acts 5) Jonah couldn't stand against God, the Sanhedrin couldn't, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio can't, either.

Apostolic Succession note:

• Apostolic Succession is the traditional way ancient Christianity was and is organized. Protestantism opposes it; they dismiss Apostolic Succession, root and branch, as mumbo-jumbo. You're saved by faith alone, Protestantism (usually) teaches, not good works – though most Protestants won't put up with charlatans doing evil deeds yet saying they are "saved" despite the fact that Luther specifically taught you are damned if you DO any good works! (Few, or none, modern Protestants could stand either Luther or Calvin today.) That would impinge on God's sovereignty, see? 
• However about Protestants, all the ancient historical Christian Churches: the Western Orthodoxy, aka Roman Catholicism, Catholicism in general (Latin Rite Catholics plus the 22 Eastern Rite Churches in Communion with it), the Big Fourteen Orthodox Churches that don't recognize the pope (The Russian Orthodox, The Greek Orthodox, the Serbian Orthodox, etc.) and the "Oriental Orthodox", the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Armenians, etc., ALL have Apostolic Succession, the Seven Sacraments, and so on. They are ALL based on that doctrine, and rite, of Apostolic Succession. This was how Christianity was founded, and it is central to it, for priests and bishops exist to confect the Sacraments, and it is by participation in the Sacraments by which we are saved.

The Anglican Exception

Now, many Anglicans squirmed about regarding Apostolic Succession. A lot of them didn't feel very Protestant, to put it simply. Some of them therefore wanted to claim Apostolic Succession, and asked Pope Leo XIII to recognize Anglican Orders as valid re: Apostolic Succession. But Leo sagely pointed out that since the Anglican Church was founded by an Act of Parliament, and because that Act founding this Church did not recognize Holy Orders as a sacrament, then he, Pope Leo, could obviously not recognize them as validly ordained since their founding document disallowed Apostolic Succession. Kapow! So, since then, some Anglican priests have somehow got Orthodox bishops (of one of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, of which there are 14, as noted above), to ordain them. All so they can truly have Apostolic Succession. If that works for them. Er, well. Whatever. God will sort it out.

Popes and Infallibility

This doctrine is actually the rock upon with so many crash their barques and find themselves in the water, as Jonah did. Is the pope infallible? If so, exactly how? It's been a developing doctrine, from the ancient past down to today, but it certainly seems more headache than anything else. No one ever seemed to have thought – maybe a handful of theologians like Robert Bellarmine, for one – what would happen if a true heretic became pope. The usual idea was that God would preserve the papal office from such. Yet since all the Vatican II popes have one way or another, some more, some less, taught against Tradition and the Deposit of Faith (The Deposit of Faith equals Tradition, as Archbishop Lefebvre said) then are they all false popes? It seems a true Gordian Knot. And round and round the arguments go. 

I just touch on it here since the entire Vatican I Council dealt mainly with this Infallibility issue, and volumes upon volumes have been written about it. 

1. Part of the problem is that the Church has always had the pope, and the pope has always been the last court of appeal. Any organization needs such. It is inherently necessary. The Protestant idea that Sts. Peter and Paul and James and so on were just guys who knew Jesus and got together once in a while is not Biblically or Traditionally sustainable. There've always been bishops and there's always been Christ's vicar on Earth serving as bishop at Rome. Truly, "the buck stops with him". That's simply in the nature of the job. But obviously, the man has to be orthodox Catholic.
2. The Corinthians had an issue with their bishop about the year 100 AD, and to solve it, they didn't write to Antioch, site of a very strong Church and the first place Christians were called Christians, and where St Peter had once served as bishop. They didn't write to Alexandria, the second largest city of the empire, and center of a strong Church. Jerusalem had been destroyed 40 years previously and Constantinople didn't yet exist (and wouldn't for 230-some years). 
3. The Corinthians wrote to Rome, and they accepted Pope Clement's ruling.

So it has always been. A problem arises – Martin Luther is an example – and slowly it works its way up through the hierarchy and eventually (I say eventually) lands in the pope's lap, and he has to deal with it. Henry VIII is another example of this. But since Pope Pius IX's reign, we have had transatlantic cables. Technology altered the situation. So, since the 1870s a pope has been able to deal directly with issues on the other side of the planet. 

• Over time, this caused centralization and increased power in the Vatican. 
• The Vatican bureaucracy grew and grew, costing ever more, and the figure of the pope himself grew and grew, average Catholics began reading papal encyclicals which appeared more and more often, all this while the papacy itself became economically poorer, losing the Papal States in 1870 and thus relying on handouts, with the pope a "prisoner" in the Vatican. 
• Today, apparently, Bergoglio has sold the Vatican to the Chinese Communists for huge sums of money, which explains a lot of his behavior and his betrayal of Chinese Catholics. "Follow the money" is just as crucial in Church issues as in anywhere else. But because of our technology, should the "pope" slap some woman away from him, as Bergoglio once infamously did a Chinese woman, it is instant news worldwide. 

My point is a lot of the problems we have with the Pope are structural, as in organizational and financial. One man now is literally universal bishop, universal dictator, really. He needs a huge bureaucracy. If he's a good man like Leo XIII or St. Pius X, great. If he's an actor and a flashy Public Relations genius, like John Paul II (who was also a true hero against the Nazis and the Communists, let us never forget), well, that's nice. But if he's an out-and-out coward, as was the effeminate Paul VI, or a dunce, as was John XXIII, or a bully – as is Bergoglio; unfortunately for us, an anti-Catholic bully! – then we're in trouble.

And this is simply structural: as the Church became more and more centralized, it became more and more open to infiltration and take-over by hostile forces. Modernism the Mother of All Heresies arose with Darwinism and the idea of Evolution (we evolve, truth evolves, God evolves, we make up God and evolve Him ourselves; i.e. basic Freemason or Communist conceits). It attracted theologians to it, and they began to try to alter Church teaching. The Church resisted till Vatican II when modernism won out. Now we suffer from an over-centralized Church flinging heaps of heresy on us like monkeys in a zoo throwing poo at visitors.

We need to decentralize, but not in this false "Synodal Church" fashion, which is a fraud, but back to bishops and archbishops running their dioceses. And we see today that the African prelates may be the key to that. How far will Bergoglio push them to establish his pervert agenda? We need a pope who will free himself from the over-centralized bureaucracy so he can do his job. The job Clement I did. The job most all the popes have done. And his primary job is to defend Catholic (i.e. Universal) Church's Tradition, also known as the Deposit of Faith (Bergoglio dismisses the whole idea of that, by the way) while strengthening his brother bishops (not treating them as hogs he can slaughter, as Bergoglio does). Like the Emperor Augustus, a pope is the first among equals in the Church's Universal Republic, for all the bishops are direct descendants, via Apostolic Succession, of the Apostles. Apostolic Succession, then, remains central.

We need to get back to that model, that paradigm. It is a necessity.

 An Préachán

Are We All "Kakure Kirishitans" Now, or What Exactly Is the Catholic Church?

Happy New Year, Friends,

After all the recent controversy in the Church (and the general world mess), it is time to truly raise the question we now find ourselves in a position to ask:

• What is the Catholic Church, exactly, and has it self-destructed? Or are those of us who follow the Faith as it was taught pre-Vatican II all now "Kakure Kirishitans"? 

Are we Traditional Catholics not hiding out from the Shogun Bergoglio and his murderous pagan sodomite samurai? "Kakure Kirishitans" is the term for Japanese Catholics who went into hiding when the pagan Japanese government tried to wipe them out in the early 1600s.

Something odd is going on.

Look at old news reels of any Church event pre-Vatican II. Old Masses, processions, you name it. Not hard to find. Check out this British Pathé Newsreel of a minute or so. An excerpt:

(0:36)...Honoring of this centenary the apostolic delegate Archbishop Gregory as celebrant sings the Mass in the presence of seven
visiting Cardinals, eleven Archbishops and forty-six bishops at Wimbly celebrations, climax with a pageant of catholic history in Britain followed by Pontifical Mass and a hundred thousand Catholics applaud...(1:08)

Wow. Just wow. Atlantis. A totally lost world. All that, then! Now? I suppose you might find some carnal deviants getting "blessed" by a "priest" sporting a meretricious rainbow alb – maybe. Or a tourist taking photos of a particular structure that hasn't been gutted via "Wreckovation". It's like we've gone through the Protestant Reformation all over again: i.e., churches gutted, vernacular worship services not mentioning Christ's sacrifice (or Christ), a "presider" facing the assembled, in short, a very horizontal "Humanism" replacing the old vertical "Divine Liturgy". One wants to ask, "When did the Anglican Church replace the Catholic Church?" Or really, maybe we're the Methodist Church now?

Before and After Vatican II photos, news reels, whatever. These have been played before because the contrast is so staggering. Where has all that CATHOLICISM gone? Don't you want to know? I know, I do. It seems to have to hide, to become hidden, like the Japanese Catholics had to hide.

Roots of the Disaster

I read a revealing article about Josef Ratzinger giving a speech back in 1964. It has extracts from Ratzinger's December 1964 sermons to students at the Cathedral of Műnster, apparently found in the book What It Means To Be A Christian, which is to be published soon. These talks reveal Ratzinger to have been a Modernist non-Catholic from the git-go. The author of the piece wants to laud him: instead, the author unintentionally reveals a heretic. An excerpt; Ratzinger himself:

“God cannot be found except by going to meet him as the One who is coming, who is waiting for us to make a start and demanding that we do so. We cannot find God except in this exodus, in going out from the coziness of our present situation into what is hidden: the brightness of God that is coming.”

Er...what? Ancient Egypt wasn't "cozy". And what's this: "The One who is coming"? Didn't He come? Didn't He establish a Church? What the tarnation is all this about, exactly? The author of the piece writes:

And yet many “traditional” Catholics also found and still find Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI hard to swallow, because his leadership and vision did not square with the picture of the Church that they have made for themselves: he refused to accept the idea of a Church whose essence was the preservation of the status quo. Instead, Ratzinger relentlessly called the faithful to undertake a pilgrimage – an exodus – whose essential prerequisite is a readiness to make ourselves uncomfortable in order to go forth and meet the Lord.

This is, in a word, idiocy. Look folks, we didn't "make the picture ourselves"! Absolute lie. The Catholic laity only believed what the Church taught, and taught assiduously for 2,000 years: that Jesus Christ IS the answer to everything, that he founded His Church on the Rock of Faith (and St. Peter, apostolic succession, etc.). Be secure and grounded in this belief! The Church taught us THAT THAT IS EXACTLY the "STATUS QUO". Forever. We are not on an Exodus except from confusion and sin, because we've entered the Promised Land of the Faith and Christ's Church. 

1. We're not the blind leading the blind, as Ratzinger clearly suggests. 
2. We don't "find God" by wandering around dazed in a new directionless "Exodus", looking for Christ Who is somehow "Hidden". What sort of guano is that? Age of Aquarius claptrap. New Age "walkabout" fantasy. 
3. A medieval pilgrimage was to a KNOWN place, an established House of God, a font of miracles that had been proven over time via tons of witness, as had Canterbury or Walsingham or Santiago de Compostela. 
4. Medieval pilgrimages were NOT "off into the blue" to "find I know not what is true". 
5. The Post-Vatican II theologian hotshot Josef Ratzinger had it exactly backward, and so do all the Modernists who so infest the Vatican II Church.

No wonder we have what we have now.

Right now, the biggest Church news is that creepy homosexual Cardinal "Tucho" "Kissy" Fernandez backpedaling and even name-calling over his disgusting magisterial document "Fiducia supplicans" about blessing "irregular unions" and the false "pope", whom I just call "Bergoglio" (when I'm being very polite) grunting out his displeasure at that document's reception, when he's not snorting out his hatred of just about everything else that's Catholic. 

• This is the great shock of the Vatican II Church, that its episcopacy would tolerate such an obviously anti-Catholic ogre as "pope" at all, simultaneously with supporting homosexuals – going to great lengths to support and coddle homosexuals – a group have collectively cost the Church literally billions of dollars (many times over) and who have lashed the Church with the whips of lechery, extracting from it an incalculable amount of respect, honor, and credibility. Not to mention, sanctity.

Honestly, Bergoglio and his regime in control of the Church have reduced the One, Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to utter humiliation. It's a laughingstock. Orthodox and Protestants howl with glee as it stumbles and wallows, indeed, crawls, like an amnesia-afflicted hobo through a swamp it cannot find its way out of.

Too harsh? I check a number of conservative political blogs that run a pretty tight reign on Comments, and the contempt is palatable even there. On blogs not so tightly controlled, Protestants delight in disparaging all things Catholic. And of course "mainstream" blogs and "liberal" Leftist blogs are worse. 

• I can honestly tell you that after nearly 70 years of trying so desperately to be "liked", to be "a popular girl in school", the Catholic Church is reviled and hated far worse that it ever was before Vatican II.

On the Traditional Catholic side, unfortunately, we've got those who insist, against every iota of common sense and observation, that Bergoglio is an actual pope, but one who must be "resisted" and that the powers of the papacy have to be highly curtailed hereafter. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski typifies such. In contrast, you have the "Hard Sedevacantists" (as at Novus Ordo Watch or AKA Catholic) who insist that not only is Bergoglio not a Catholic, but that this entire Church isn't Catholic; i.e. that the entire Vatican II Church is a fraud. 

• Delving into their position, which they're thorough to explain in detail – though it's far more difficult to find what solutions they propose – they argue that the only "true" Catholic Church is to be found where a priest who was not ordained by a Vatican II-consecrated bishop runs an outfit of some sort that offers Mass. And you just have to ferret him out. (Novus Ordo Watch helpfully provides lists.)
  

Considering how bad Ratzinger was, or John Paul II with his plaintive calls for a "New Pentecost" – the Polish pope apparently had NO IDEA of how blasphemous that was (What? God didn't do it good enough the first time?) – one is strongly tempted to agree with them. Though, of course, that would make us all Kakure Kirishitans.

• I've written here where I think that tempting though it is, the "Hard Sede" position is impractical, to say the least. It essentially entails going out into the Wild to find a Kakure kirishitan bishop or priest. Since I wrote that earlier post, I'd say now that once people, i.e. general Catholics, got the Hard Sede critique of the Vatican II Church fully absorbed, they wouldn't go on "walkabout" to try to find those rare "Churches" that fit the Sedevacantist bill; oh, no. No, no. No. They're not going out into the hills and hollers to find a Kakure Kirishitan church: they'd just walk away entirely.

Bottom Line

What solution do I propose? What equation do I formulate? I'll write about that in my next, what I call Our Jonah Reality. But for now, consider this:

1. Remember how the Vatican II Church has always, ALWAYS been against what they call "Triumphalism"? Look at the Pathé newsreel again for a minute. Pure Catholic Triumphalism. 
2. THAT was the Church pre-Vatican II (except for the Modernist Underground waiting in the wings to destroy it). We were all Traditionalists then, and all Triumphalists. 
3. We were full participants in The Seventh Covenant, the Most Holy Eucharist. We were full participants in Christ's Salvic Offering of Himself on Calvary. 
4. We were certain sure we were right, and not lost (while avoiding the "I'm Saved!" presumption of certain Protestants). 
5. The Protestants loathed us for it, and importantly, so did the Jews. (Islam just hates, pure and simple; nothing new there.) The Jews never ceased their work to get the Good Friday liturgy changed, which they accomplished in 1955 (during the reign of "the last pope" Pius XII, ahem). 
6. But we WERE Triumphalist. we belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Our Lord Himself founded. 
7. We were NOT the blind wandering around following blind shepherds and falling into the Pit of Modernism, as Josef Ratzinger would have us do. No. Not at all. 

And so "The Powers That Be" stole it from us, using a flashy stage show called The Second Vatican Council to bemuse and befuddle even stalwart Catholic leaders, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (for a short time). They drowned us in a torrent of words, more words in Vatican II than in all the previous Councils put together! They mixed their poison in with orthodoxy so carefully that they stole our inheritance. They stole our spiritual and religious inheritance, and they stole our cultural and philosophical inheritance, and replaced it all with what? Meretricious navel gazing. By degrees, not all at once, but steadily, till Bergoglio has essentially "made it official" they threw us out into the highways and byways, the hills and hollers, to make us Kakure Kirishitans.

Enough! We want it back. Let that be our New Year's Resolution: We want it all back, and since they're so fond of wandering around on endless "walkabout", they can get out of our way, and take their anti-pope Ogre and his Sodomites with 'em.

An Préachán