Easter: Open Letter to Catholics re: Our Perceptions of Schism

Friends,

We know that this Easter week, Pope Francis, whom I call "Bergoglio" (when I'm being polite) is ailing. Whatever the immediate future holds for him, though, the Catholic Church suffers massive ailing as well. Catastrophic ailing. The first step to any cure is to recognize the sickness. Curing ills cannot occur if we don't know what's causing the ailment. And our understanding of anything, from the Church to Black Holes to Reformation History to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is based on perception.

It is precisely this essential perception of our realities that generates the problem we're having in the Catholic Church. We perceive – most of us – that there's one Catholic Church that has a host of difficulties and numerous factions who seem increasingly divergent. I suspect this view in the clergy at least stands strongest among those bishops consecrated, and priests ordained, when Karol Józef Wojtyła held the papal throne. Their ranks are thinning out now, but many remain. "The Church" for them is as they perceive it to be. But is it? And was it ever? And what of the other ideas of "The Church" that exist, pre- or post-John Paul II?

What if we could willingly change our perception? What if we perceived more closely that three separate "Catholic Churches" exist: i.e. the steadily drying up (and confused, and fading, and straying) Vatican II Church, the aborning Synodal/One-World anti-Church that Bergoglio is midwifing, and of course the Traditional Catholic Church, with its Traditional Latin Mass and Traditional Catholic teaching.

• This is a simple perception, and it doesn't involve endless contortions of cognitive dissonance. Achieve the perception by simply asking about the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Polls indicate that around 25 percent of the Vatican II laity believe in that, probably next to none of the Synodal Church believes it, while most likely near 100 percent of Traditional Catholic believe it. Thus, this question serves as a simple way to discern which of the three Church "avatars" one belongs to.
  

How did this situation develop?

Look again at Church history over the past three-quarters of a century. Under pressure from the Modernists, the Vatican II Church clearly broke ranks with the entire Church before it, as exemplified in the multitudinous Vatican II documents and the basically impossible ditching of the Traditional Latin Mass (impossible on a number of levels, not least Pope Pius V's famous 1570 Apostolic constitution Quo Primum). These dense, tedious, and prolix Vatican II decrees – that naturally very few have read or certainly studied – contain a thorough mixture of typical Catholic orthodoxy, Protestant heresy, and 1960s "pop-psych" palaver. They basically offer "something for everyone", depending on who is reading and what their conceits are. Whichever Church faction is strongest can implement them in any way they like. They laid the foundation of the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" that blew in so many dire phantoms that plague the Church today.

• To use a metaphor, they set the Barque of Peter's voyaging on an initially slightly divergent course from what it had been sailing on for nearly two millennia, and slowly, imperceptibly to millions, it began to head away from its ancient Witness Against the Worldly Powers route, and into dangerous Waters of Surrender to the secular, fallen "pop" culture. The Church went from "The world will always hate me because it hated my Lord" to "The world will love me because I will surrender to it."
• While probably 20 percent of Catholics (and certainly many onlooking Protestants and Jews) were not fooled by this new trajectory, millions of priests and laity were indeed misled. But now, nearly 70 years on, can we not see how far the Church has wandered off the counter-culture course its Founder chartered for it? Grasp our reality. We now have no excuse to tolerate this misdirection any longer.

I can't be sure of John Paul I, poor man, or the vacillating Paul VI who became a recluse after 1968 and Humanae Vitae, but clearly Pope John Paul II was the only pope who actually believed the Vatican II Church would be THE Church from now on. Perhaps the Polish pope's near assassination refocused his understanding a bit, but still, it was his Curia (papal court/administration) that held the line for Modernism. For example, John Paul II's refusing to approve bishops for the SSPX – and the perfidious way his people kept saying "yes" then changing that to "er, wait a bit longer," stringing the SSPX along – forced the necessity of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's ordaining bishops without papal approval. This was pure "Deep State"-style treachery.

Pope Benedict XVI would eventually rescind the resulting automatic excommunications of the SSPX bishops because of the absurdity of it all, and even the cunning, duplicitous Bergoglio seemed to occasionally favor the excellent Society's work to some extent, though technically it remains somewhat "canonically irregular". (I discount all such qualms entirely, of course. "Partial communion" is nonsense. And it remains a blessing the SSPX is not under full Vatican control.)

Benedict's Fall

Although an early and idealistic Vatican II revolutionary, the hyper-intelligent Joseph Ratzinger was no fool. Eventually, he could see "the handwriting on the wall" for the Vatican II Church. But as pope, Benedict's inability to control the "Junta" of homosexual mafia, Communist sympathizers, and the Freemasonry-Globalist clique that runs the Church – and has done so for decades – proved that the Vatican II version of Holy Church was hopelessly hollowed out and drifting toward the rocks. Yet Benedict knew he was not going to be allowed any true course correction. To buy time, therefore, he tried a subtle, sideways attack via his Summorum Pontificum, creating a Hegelian type synthesis-antithesis via his "Ordinary Form" and "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass. Very clever. 

But of course it only enraged the Junta. They removed Benedict in a less violent way than John Paul I had been, or the attempt to assassinate John Paul II. (Ever notice how the "cancellation"of Jack Kennedy, Nixon, John Paul I & II, and assassination attempt on Reagan and the lawfare against Trump all just seems to coincidentally happen? "Gee, what bad luck we have in our popular leaders getting removed!" Well, it ain't no coincidence, my friends! Wake up and see the very clear pattern going on here.)

1. Bergoglio was brought in to put paid to Benedict's "Reform of the Reform". 
2. But the Vatican II Church was too far gone. 
3. The Covid fraud gut-punched it and left it prostrate. It's a husk of what it was even 20 years ago, though the remnants of Team Pope John Paul II might not see that yet. 
4. So, Bergoglio began his employment of a legion of heresies to pave over it, to bury it alive, in effect, enabling the Synodal Church to drive over its grave. 
5. The Argentinian Peronist "Junta of One" clearly now wants to create a new Church entirely, an Anglican doppelganger called the Synodal Church. It happens to serve as the Jewish, Muslim, and Globalist-approved non-governmental organization for the New World Order that the elites want to establish. (None of those powers want to see a strong, confident – and independent – Christianity in the world.)
   

Schism from all that

So where does that leave the One, Holy Catholic Church? The Church of the traditional theology, worship, and spirituality? The events of a Biblical lifetime have partially submerged it, and scattered it too, though thanks to Benedict's Summorum Pontificum, it began a serious comeback. Now Generalissimo Bergoglio wants to crush it. Therefore, this Traditional Latin Mass Catholic Church simply HAS to break with the other two ecclesiastical avatars, or they will drag it down into the Abyss with their own self-destruction.

In other words, we actual Catholics – Catholic Christians who pray the Tradition, thus believe the Tradition, and thereby live the Tradition: Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi – MUST perceive full schism to be a necessity from what one needs call the Unbelievers. In a metaphor, the S.S.Vatican II is going down, and it has only two lifeboats; one boat is leaky and full of trannies, catamites, and absolute landlubbers, the other staffed by regular old-time sailors; indeed, the veterans of Lepanto. Which lifeboat would you chose?

Perception, Perception, Perception

Again, this is about perception, perception of our reality. And once you see this, grasp it, comprehend what's going on, there's no more trying to square the circle. A great burden is lifted from the soul, and cognitive dissonance is banished.

  An Preáchán

Papa Francisco a blessing in disguise?

 Amici,

Romans 8:28 (Douay-Rheims)

And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.

KJB

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Doesn't Bergoglio know that if you want to want to make people interested in something, generally speaking, just try banning it. This is so common a reaction as to be a cliché. A ban or controversy about a book or a movie is great for generating business for that product. It is in this sense that "Papa Francisco" might indeed be a blessing in disguise.

Consider that in American Catholicism, and certainly the Catholicism in the Anglo-sphere, the mainstream Church is wilting fast. All the metrics point to that conclusion: Financial contributions, Mass attendance, ordinations, especially baptisms, all point to massive decline. The Covid lockdown speeded this decline up by a decade or more. The one "growth sector" the Church has is in the TLM communities.

• Oh, sure, you'll be told in the U.S. that the illegal immigration is bringing in Catholics, and the future of the Church is Spanish-speaking. But while they may artificially inflate the total numbers for a while, few of them stay Catholic long. More importantly for the mainstream Church, the Federal government gives the Church money for these "refugees" and thus about half of the Church's current income is from the government! (No wonder the hierarchy pay no attention to the laity!)

The Long March from 1970 

When in 1970 the new Mass arrived, there had already been two new Missals since John XXIII's 1962 Missal, the last true TLM rite. 1960s Catholics were sort of "punch drunk" with all the uncertainty. Then the new Mass arrived, the Novus Ordo had dropped. This was supposed to be THE Mass from now on, although no Pope, not even the current occupant of the See of Peter, ever abrogated the old Mass.

Few were satisfied, however, with the new Mass. I remember reading that when it was first celebrated in the Vatican, in the Sistine Chapel, the bishop congregants were asked to vote to accept it. They divided into three groups of about the same size, those who accepted it (the smallest, IIRC), those who rejected it, and those who wanted modifications. Paul VI got the news and did one of his effeminate crying fits.

Today, therefore, when one reflects on the small number – overall – of TLM Catholics, remember that in 1970 NO TLM movement existed at all. Further realize that since 1976, Rome has tried to actively hinder it in various ways. Before that, the Vatican only grudgingly allowed the TLM after 1970, as with the famous 1971 "Agatha Christie Indult" for England and Wales. The Vatican hoped the old TLM devotees of the day would soon die off. But devotion to the TLM didn't die, and a Trad movement began, mainly sourced in the human realm by innumerable laity and the indefatigable Archbishop Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre. Paul VI's people told Lefebvre, as did JPII's later, that if Lefebvre would just offer one Novus Ordo Mass (to show his loyalty to the regime), they'd leave him alone. But he stood firm. (Like father, like son. Archbishop Lefebvre's father René was in the French Resistance during WWII, and worked with British intelligence running a spy ring. Arrested, he would die in 1944 in the Sonnenberg concentration camp.)

So, in 52 years, what with the mainstream Church against it, and not just against it via official opposition and harassment, but also very heavy and uncharitable neglect, the Traditional Latin Mass movement definitely has exhibited a serious growth rate. Especially since Benedict's Summorum Pontificum.

At least Bergoglio feels better now himself after his attempt to guillotine the TLM. I suspect the medicos told him he hadn't too much longer to live. Certainly, Herod-like, he went for the children – TLM parishes being famous for having young, and large, families.

Also for Bergi, the Argentine is smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall: as I wrote a number of times last year, you may remember, Covid showed the shallow Vat2 Church drying up and blowing away. That Vatican II Church did not show the heroism, the gumption, the basic Faith the Church had demonstrated in previous centuries. Contrary to that, Trad parishes tended to either keep open or operate in some way, and the SSPX never closed at all. (DeSantis in Florida actually gave them special permission last year to keep open!)

And of course for much of 2020, Catholics could tune in to YouTube and watch whatever Masses they wanted as that was all the Church made available, and there they saw the stark difference between the aging polyester '70s crowd and their felt-banner Novus Ordo Mass on offer, and the Trad Masses. It's a night and day difference. Also, they could hear the amazing preaching of many Trads or the Trad-inclined, such as the wonderful Fr. James Altman from out in LaCrosse, Wisonsin. (Now being persecuted by his Vat2 bishop.)

Fear of the Dying

Just as with Joe Biden and the Democrats against the Audits, Bergoglio clearly responded in fear. Why not? He should be afraid. The polyester-suited "bluehairs", the last of the '60s and 70s brigades, of whom Bergi is the captain-general, are cottoning on to the fact they're facing extinction. Neither the Vatican II Council nor its turgid, palaverous documents, nor in the "Spirit of Vatican II" thereafter, epitomized by the Mass of Paul VI, achieve what the Modernist Reformers hoped for. By any metric researchers look at, whether in people retained or converted, financial contributions, clerical ordinations, religious (monk and nun) vocations, especially in new births/baptisms, the TLM parishes beat the Vat2 "church ladies" hands down. Therefore, it was hardly a surprise that when churches finally began to re-open people "voted with their feet" in Comrade Lenin's famous phrase. (And being sheeple, once the movement starts, ever more will follow.)

The Enforcer of the Lord God

In fact, as a number of commentators have pointed out, another JPII would have killed us with a thousand cuts; Bergoglio, thankfully, forces everyone to take sides, now. So he's truly a gift from God, in Romans 8:28 style. Over the past weekend, I've read from a number of sources that TLM Masses were jammed packed. What had not even existed in 1970 became a trickle by the '90s and something of a good creek flow after Benedict's Summorum Pontificum in 2007, is now rising ever higher. Or so the elderly Modernists seem to think. While some bishops are jumping to close down the TLM in their dioceses, the hue and cry of the Faithful, their laments, arise unto God. So it is that many bishops have quickly stated they are not infringing on the local TLMs at all.

• I myself don't know why these hierarchs don't realize that since the Church has been trying to impede, if not actually stamp out, the TLM movement from its beginning (1970), that they think they can do so now, at this late date. Or have they never read of Gamaliel's famous comment about Christianity: "If this is not from God, it will die of its own accord; if it is from God, you cannot stop it"?

"Bergi" has actually done the Church a great favor, and all the middle-of-the-road "Conservative" Catholics, also known as the Magisterium Catholics or the JPII Catholics, are going to have to soon either go Left and embrace the gays (à la James Martin and so many of the queer clergy) or go to the Trads. Their third choice almost no longer exists. And we can thank Jorge Mario Bergoglio for that!

Shooting Wild, from the Hip 

Finally, there in the U.S., I've seen where many bishops have announced they're leaving the TLM communities alone. On the other hand, some yanked the Masses immediately, as in Little Rock, I believe. Absolute chaos. How are they going to explain the arbitrariness of it? It all "smells" of desperation and shooting from the hip. People sense the inherent contradiction of killing what's flourishing in an otherwise sterile landscape. It's King Herod murdering the children all over again, in its own way. An old, addled man, near death's door, lashes out at the only "youth" the Church has (TLM parishes are noted for their young families and many children). It's King Saul trying to kill the young David. History repeats, especially spiritual history.

Certainly, I must point out that Bergoglio doesn't WANT to help the TLM. We have to understand that Bergoglio's motu proprio has built-in mechanisms to steadily increase pressure on the TLM over the next few years. He definitely intends to kill it. But then, after 52 years, why expect success now?

And always and ever there's Romans 8:28. "All things work together unto good, according to His purpose."

An Préachán