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

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

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

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

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

Amici, Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May God have mercy on us.

AnP 

What Will Trigger a Formal Schism? Anything?

What would trigger a formal Schism in the Catholic Church? Anything? The ordination of women deacons? Women ordained as priests? Bishops? At least one write urges the ordination of women as a way to counter the Queer Mafia that currently has its fangs in the Church's throat.

As if this utterly corrupt, feminist de-masculinated Disaster-Pervert Church needs any more effeminization! The author is a long-time reporter on the Church's abuse scandal, but his "cure" is insanely wrong, on every level. And also, presumably, since the ordination of women resulted in even the Anglican/Episcopals going into Schism, such would force the Catholics to do so. Maybe. I suspect the damage is too great, now, though; the plan of the bad guys was too long laid, too termite-like ensconced, too deeply embedded in the bone marrow, for anything but a total break-up. In any event, the change into the vernacular must necessarily result in the break up of the One, Holy, Catholic Church into a series of National Language Churches, as the Orthodox are so divided today. And remember the Orthodox split originally because we spoke Latin and they Greek. All the theological issues paled in comparison to their outrage at our sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, but even that was nothing compared to the basic linguist problem. And long before the Orthodox split, the Syrians broke away from them and the Copts, too, and again, a few theological issues were cited but the real issue was language.

It was because of the retention of Latin through thick and thin, and the ancient, ancient Mass, the true Roman-derived liturgy (it really predates St. Gregory the Great) that kept the Church together.

I assume that if nothing -- or as likely, nothing much -- is done, in another 20 years, we'll see the formal establishment in the West of these language-based Churches (die Deutsche Kirche is almost a free-standing entity as it is!). And thus the Remnant will find ourselves in a Latin-based Church, retaining the Latin and the ancient Liturgy, and it will be our haven by default, without a formal Schism declared. Anyway, our current problem is founded in the fact the Crazies and the Lavender Mafia (but I repeat myself) hold the high ground. They occupy the Vatican and their man is pope (whether he's a "Pretender Pope" or not we laity and lower clergy can't decide in any sense of forcing the issue, but I'm convinced a future pope (if there is one) will declare Bergi to have been an anti-pope, for a number of reasons). So the orthodox Catholics -- and the more orthodox conservative Catholics -- who would oppose women's ordination (or whatever the trigger issue might turn out to be) will be the ones technically in Schism. Absurd. Bizarre. Stupid (in a word), but that's how it will be played. Schism is of course the great "Bugaboo". Nothing is supposedly as bad as causing Schism. But the Church has been in Schism with itself since Humanae Vitae and the vultures are now coming home to roost. We're now in the unenviable position of the Irish when they tried to resist the English occupiers -- the English yelled, "You are traitors!" and gave the Irish the treatment traitors get. But how can we be "traitors" or "Schismatics" when the clear heretics and sexually demented are in control of the Church? Absurd. Bizarre. Stupid (in a word), but that's how it is. An interesting puzzle in logic, and the reason Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider et al haven't begun a rebellion yet against the Pink Vatican Junta. RC

Burke & Co. finally ready to launch a rebellion?

Regarding this article at AKA Catholic:

https://akacatholic.com/only-the-devil-can-make-this-stuff-up/

Burke as the cowardly lion? Maybe. Look how he and the Dubia Brothers have been treated. And remember the German Lion of Munster? Clemens August Graf von Galen? Another somewhat cowardly lion. In fact, the German Church hierarchy and the general European hierarchy were total wastes in the 1930s and '40s, too. Cowardly lions, all. (The Dutch hierarchy did try, on a couple of different occasions, to stand up to the Nazis, but weren't supported from Rome and "stood down".)

I certainly think they should have been much more aggressive against Bergoglio. But if they were aggressive kind of guys, they would be in the military and not the effeminate Vat 2 drag-queen Church.

Things are past desperate, of course, but just now the question on their minds has to be how a Schism is declared, how it is brought about: that's crucial.

I don't look at Burke so negatively as in the AKA article. Clearly, Burke & Co. waited too long to act, but now the "bloom is off the ruse" of Bergoglio and his Ilk, and for everyone everywhere. Defrock that demon McCarrick but then go to the trouble to put McCarrick's butt-boy in charge as Camerlengo? The same butt-boy who drove Marcial Maciel around?

Schism is necessary. We'll see. I think Burke, with his website, and Müller with his long recent dissertation, and for that matter Schneider, are setting up the stage for an open rebellion. "We tried to be nice, brotherly," etc, "but now you leave us no choice but to..." kind of thing.

Obviously, we've passed over the ledge. We're off the cliff, and what's left of the "conservative" or "orthodox" leadership has to act or the Modernists will smash the Church on the rocks below. The only question is how to pull the trigger.

That's where we at.

An Préachán

At Least the End of the Vatican II Church Is in Sight

The current, ubiquitous and ever-excellerating Church crisis appears a waking nightmare we can't -- as it were -- go to sleep from and excape. Every day some new disaster, some horrible immorality on the part of high Churchmen is revealed. It's a waking dream from some kooky end-of-the-world types, shouting crazy news releases at us; indeed, blaring them at us from massive loudspeakers.

Yet there's often a "silver lining". And if God exists, He's in control. Therefore...

I think one thing in its favor, in favor of this brutal crisis, is that at least it spells the end of the Vatican II Church. It's dying now but it will be "not merely dead but truly most sincerely dead" until the final demise of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis. 

Why? 

First, how could it not? It is putrescent now. 

Via his handling of the sex abuse scandals, and his promotion and defense of major sex abusers, Jorge Bergoglio has so tarnished the version of the Church created by Vatican II and its "in the spirit of Vatican II" followers, there won't be much left. Less spectacularly, he's done the same destruction with basic Church teaching. Pope Francis is a wrecking ball. 

That's one thing. There won't be much left to build on.

But also there's this: Either the College of Cardinals will elect a "Bergi 2.0" or they'll elect -- well, either a "conservative" such a Cardinal Sarah or even, miracle of miracles, a Traditionalist (unlikely unless they go outside the College for that choice). 

Because Progressivism is so hell-bent on the New! Improved! Change! aspect of itself (hence the very name "Progressivism", it is necessarily on a trajectory, like a rocket, aimed forever outward. Evolution is its core idea, the will of its soul, the foundation of is purpose. Therefore, there's no "reentry" for it back into the atmosphere of Catholic Traditionalism. Because of that, a "Bergi 2.0" must go ever further, such as ordaining women priests, women bishops, blessing "same-sex marriages" and so on, or Progressivism simply implodes. 

Without moving forward, without evolving, without being "Progessive", it ceases to exist, as did the "Good Calvin" of Calvin and Hobbes -- the old Calvin made a new, Good Calvin but, he, the old Calvin, drove the new one to think a bad thought (i.e., made the Good Calvin want to hit him. the Old Calvin). "He could only be perfectly good as an abstracton," Calvin said of his good twin. 

So it is with the Vatican II Church: it can only be "Catholic" as an abstraction of the the Church it denies being, or you might say of the Church it has rejected being, and thus will go POOF when it achieves "singularity", when it truly becomes a new Church; i.e. ceases to be remotely Catholic.   

That point is fast approaching. And the Traditional Latin Mass is hastening the Singularity, for as the TLM becomes more popular and shows the power of its attraction, the whole raison d'être of the Vatican II Church's existence "spectralizes" (goes "poof!"). 

The remnants will be dwindling, evaporizing into ever smaller groups, and of course unable to seek the repentance necessary to join a newly invigorated Traditionalist Catholic Church (the only healthy -- though small -- part of the current Church that is growing). So the Progressive survivors will just join with the Church of England or the state Lutheran Church of Germany (both of these are "walking corpses") and that will be the end of the Vatian II Church.

Conversely, should a "Conservative" or Trad be elected pope, the German Church will go into Schism, as will many other bits and pieces of the world-wide Church that the Progressives totally control. They would have already done so had Benedict XVI not "resigned" when he did. 

Therefore, they'll marginalize themselves that way. The minute they leave, everyone will see the shallow parody they are. Like political Leftists milking tax money from non-Leftist citizens, the Progressive Church can't survive without a "sheeple" paying its way. 

Or one might say: An image in a mirror can't see itself, but when it steps out of the mirror, then it can. All too clearly.

An Préachán

Reflections on Schism

The whole Schism thing is a control mechanism. 

It keeps an outraged laity in a straight jacket.

Short of murder out in the middle of the street, or cursing God directly and fornicating proudly at the village fountain, the worst thing a priest or bishop can do is "foment Schism". 

Yet that weapon is used to beat up on the orthodox today, not the schismatics -- for, forsooth! -- it is the Schismatics who are are in control and they're the ones fomenting Schism.

So, now what?

An Préachán

Part II Catholic and Protestant Differences: Authority, Section 1

PART II

Authority

Section I

Why the Protestant Rejection of Catholic Authority Exists, and Why It Is Relevant Today

The Protestant rejection of papal and the wider Church authority occurred because Martin Luther and the other early Reformers couldn’t get the Catholic Church (either the pope or Church Councils) to accept the novel Protestant teachings about how Salvation worked. (N.B. Each Reformer had a somewhat different take on it, but more or less basically agreed with each other. See Part III of this series.) So Luther and Co. had to either recant – formally give up their ideas – or split from the Church. They chose to split. 

• The technical term for a Church split is Schism.

Basic Facts About How Authority Works in Catholicism and Protestantism

Protestants reject the authority of both the Pope and the bishops in Communion with him, whether that unity is expressed in a general way or in a Church Council.

• In other words, Protestants reject the Authority of the “Living Magisterium” (the pope and bishops of the current day) AS WELL AS the popes and bishops of each generation back to the Apostles – the collected writings, rulings, and theology of which are collectively called “Sacred Tradition” (Holy Tradition in the Orthodox Churches).
• For Catholics, Sacred Tradition serves much like English Common Law, something binding, yet itself slowly woven together over centuries, a built-up body of doctrine. It serves as a very strong support for the Living Magisterium, and when the Living Magisterium goes against it, as today with Pope Francis, there’s no mistaking were the heresy lies.

Protestantism, on the other hand, although individual denominations have certainly built up doctrine over the last 500 years, still claims to accept only the “Word of God,” the Holy Bible, as its real Authority. (They call Sacred Tradition "the works of men".) Each Protestant generation has to ask, “Show it to me in the Word of God!” as the old-time preachers would say.

• For Catholicism, however, the Bible forms the third branch of mutual support and teaching. Sacred Tradition is 2000 years of the Living Magisterium commenting on the Bible, yet both the Magisterium and the Tradition are older than the Bible itself.
• For example, when the Council of Jerusalem was held, as described in Acts of the Apostles, the New Testament had yet to be written. The Living Magisterium of the time decided an issue authoritatively – a black-and-white decision with no fudging or wordy misdirection as a modern Progressive would produce – and thus created a tradition of clear-cut and binding legislation, all done without recourse to a written Holy Scripture.
• Any review of Sacred Tradition shows no early Church Father taught the Protestant view of salvation; it is truly novel (or was as of 500 years ago).
• Summation: the history of Protestantism shows the dangers of rejecting clear dogmas and the Authority by which these are arrived. Today there are 20,000 some odd (depending on how they're counted) Protestant Denominations. Obviously, the Living Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and Holy Scripture all three go together and cannot be separated, or only at great peril to the Church. Some modern theologians talk against strict adherence to such clear-cut, long-standing dogmas, calling it a “prepositional faith”, which they claim is Pharisaical: a legalistic religion rather than a religion of “love”. Pope Francis seems to be of that school. (He calls Traditionalists and Canon Lawyers and so on “Pharisees.” But a religion without dogma is a mushy thing enslaved to whatever social currents ripple though human society at any given time. It is "popular" precisely because it doesn’t direct vertically to God, but downward toward the whims of popular opinion. “Fundamentalist” Protestants have no more use for “mushiness” than Traditionalist Catholics do. Church "mushiness" is a mainline Protestant or Progressive Catholic platform: its adherents believe it make belief easier, whereas it easily makes belief impossible.

Protestant Authority

In contrast, accepting only the Bible as it does, Protestantism has thus tended to stress the authority of the individual. “Read the Bible for yourself” is its Authority Motto – though individual pastors can, if they have the right mix of charisma and chutzpah, dominate their flock more than any priest can do.

• Martin Luther himself wanted to be the sole interpreter of the Bible, even though he claimed anyone could interpret for himself. (That didn’t last very long! But the aura of it has stayed with Protestantism till today. For details, see Part III.) 
• Against the Church and all its “priestcraft”, Protestants like to invoke the Biblical passage (from 1 Timothy 3:15) that “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” 
• In other words, one doesn’t need a “church” per se to be saved. (Someone once said to G.K.Chesterton that the Irish were a “priest-ridden people”, to which G.K.C. immediately replied, “precisely because they do not want to be a Squire-ridden people.”)

Conversely, in the Catholic world, as noted above, the Holy Bible is one of three legs of support. Thus, today, the Catholic Church is in full crisis mode (I’d say about DefCon 3, and edging fast toward 2) because the current pope (and many of his supporters) are clearly presenting teachings – teachings popular in some quarters – that go against both the Bible and Sacred Tradition. However, tthey’re actually teaching “mainline Protestantism” and it is a natural development of the “Spirit of Vatican II to make the Church more Protestant-like; i.e., the program initiated 60 years ago is about to achieve what it was started for.

• This could eventually lead to a Schism as Traditionalist and “Conservative” Catholics “step back from the brink”, but two Catholic Churches would be better than what you have in Protestantism: the reliance on the Bible alone (i.e., Sola Scriptura) has resulted in 20,000 some different Protestant denominations.

• A fragmented state (Schism) that Catholics deplore, Protestants institutionalized.

For more info, see PART II Section II.