The Catholic Church Is Underground Now, Awaiting the Counter-Reformation 2.0 (PS added)

Friends, Amici, a Chairde,

One reads and hears it across the board of the Catholic bandwidth: The Bergoglians are getting ever more desperate. From ordaining women to the priesthood to the Vatican claiming Traditional Catholics are about to take over the Church, the false "Synodal" Church bigshots are panicking. All this is birthing just before "Pope Francis" and his henchmen (Cardinals Roche, Kissy Fernandez, etc.) drop the hammer on the Vetus Ordo, the Mass of the Ages.

• A time comes in any war when one side realizes they've lost, that continued fighting is futile. Yet they often keep fighting insanely on: Ukraine has lost its war with Russia, most clearly, and the Battle of Gettysburg proved the South lost its war against the Union. The entry of the USA into World War I knelled the end for Germany, though they actually probably knew they lost as early as the end of 1914. The Vatican II types, now Synodal, surely know they've lost, and prove it by lashing out impotently. 

But for Now, the Truth Is, Real Catholicism Is Going Back to the Catacombs to Await the Synodal Church's Death Convulsions

The excellent Father David Nix has an important epistle here that everyone should read. Father Nix, a diocesan hermit under Canon 603, explains how more and more diocesan priests are willing to retreat from parish life, as he did, into the hermit life so they can say the Traditional Latin Mass and offer the Traditional sacraments. Father Nix writes in part: 

"I know it’s not what most of you lay people want to hear for your good priests, but there are priests much less extreme than me that are saying the best priests are now leaving the priesthood and getting laicized because they can’t take the wokeness from the Vatican anymore. Better to be a hermit like me than get laicized because of an infiltration in the Church."

Meanwhile, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf posted an article here about laity-prepared home chapels in which the TLM can be said after Bergoglio orders all dioceses to cancel the TLM.

Some blame the Germans, as here where the Rhine flows into and floods out of the Tiber, but the truth is the rot, the stinking septic tank overflow has deeper roots. It is essentially, quintessentially, Protestant. 

• Protestantism always constituted a desacralization of the world and the Faith that the Reformers thought necessary to be more purely "spiritual". Wasn't that the argument for iconoclasm during the post Vatican II period? In the 16th century as well as today, mostly zealous young academics thought all the beauty, liturgy, the "lived holiness" and striving for holiness of the Traditional European Christian culture "cluttered up" their purely spiritual "leap of faith". They possessed a failed anthropology. What they failed to realize is that humans, being psycho-somatic unities, naturally sanctify and "clutterify" their physical world. "All that clutter" constituted flying buttresses holding up the Faith's walls and colorful windows. They knocked them down, in an iconoclastic frenzy in order to get at "the real Faith", and the Faith collapsed. After a few generations, Protestantism of any stripe leads to atheism, and atheism leads to nihilism, a civilization surrendering itself to Muslim hordes who themselves do no have faith, but only submission. (Judaism is about inheritance, Islam about submission, and Christianity is about Faith.)

In this context, a review of Gavin Ashenden's arguments about the "decoy" Anglican Church and the Reformation is very definitely worth the review. In the same way, the Vatican II Church was a decoy intended to lead us to ever deeper Protestantization. It was for "our own good", the Reformers thought.

All this indeed conjures the English Reformation and stories of home Masses, priest holes, and St. Edmund Campion (1540-1582) and so many like him. I wonder whether we'll have anyone like Cardinal William Allen (1532-1594), who organized the underground missions to Tudor England. Perhaps Bergoglio's attempt to cancel the Mass of the Ages will finally bring about the avalanche of grace needed to truly start a Counter-Reformation 2.0, and raise up new Campions and Allens. We can pray for that avalanche. Archbishop Viganò might well be the start. Please Cardinal Müller, please Cardinals Burke and Sarah and Zen and Bishop Schneider! Join Archbishop Viganò! Bergoglio cannot resist you all together!

(We've had the Reformation 2.0; now it is time for the Counter-Reformation 2.0 and la Reconquista!)

• Of course, they fear for their lives. It turns out that Cardinal Pell was quite likely smothered to death; that's how a corpse gets its nose broken. We have as evil a crew in the Vatican now as Rome sported in the 10th century!
  

The Dawning of Our Reality Now Floods Us with Blinding Truth

Despite the odds, and with Islam about to engulf us, I write this with some degree of the Virtue of Hope. We know now – now with the cascading revelations since Bergoglio was installed as "pope", and certainly since the death of Benedict XVI, after which The Ogre, as I call him (and I am being charitable, actually) "took the gloves off" and really began whipping the Catholic Church unmercifully – that the real Catholic Church is underground. Bergoglio & Company have driven it underground. 

• But it was in the process of being driven off the stage and into the wings (as it were) since the Vatican II Council threw out the original schemas for documents that John XXIII's curia had prepared, and then went off the rails with the unreadable but malleable pseudo-"pastoral" cum absolutely-most-dogmatic-of-all-time documents it did promulgate, documents that apparently cancel all the previous Church councils entirely. (So bogus, so laughable, so cretinous.)
  
• This was a process, I say, hard to fully comprehend at first, especially for Catholics, both clergy and laity, who were so vested in the Vatican I idea of Church as to resist seeing it. 
• Even Archbishop Lefebvre took a few years for it to fully dawn on him. Same with Archbishop Viganò, though for him it took decades. John Paul II ever and always resisted seeing it, stubbornly, mulishly. Benedict – a Vatican II insider and ardent, though more middle-of-the-road, reformer – finally grasped what was happening and felt forced to counter it – which is why he himself was "countered" in the end. At least his poor 'hermeneutic of continuity" is well and truly dead. (If you don't grasp that, Bergoglio will flog you a bit more to get the point across.)
  
• Now, with Bergoglio the Junta of One, all the illusions are swept away. "Bergi" is Emperor Diocletian come again, and just as with Diocletian 1800 years ago, the Argentinian has rescinded what previous emperors (popes) granted us. We have to go back to the old Vatican II pantheon, they say, but few will actually do that.
  

The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

Were you to posit the Church as a theater and a stage, it serves as a drama house whose function was to put on the Traditional Latin Mass. This is not surprising as all drama originated as religious re-enactments, from Ancient Greek drama to medieval drama flourishing during the centuries immediately leading up to Shakespeare and his Spanish contemporary, Lope de Vega. The great Cathedral churches, whether Hagia Sophia in Constantinople or St. Peter's in Rome, or the Romanesque and later Gothic and still later the Baroque churches in Europe, all were built to be stages on which the Sacrifice of Calvary God makes present to us, and the veil between Earth and Heaven His angels draw back to make us all present at the eternal sacrifice and "coming forward" of the Lamb that was slain in Revelation (Rev 5:6). No, Protestants, no! Christ is NOT re-sacrificed, but God melts away time and distance so Our Lord's one sacrifice is brought bodily to us.

This is a miracle that all the Apostolic-founded Churches embrace and teach and celebrate in as much holiness and glory as they can muster. Protestants formally reject it, and are thus more akin to Jews and Muslims than they are to Apostolic Christians. To see this miracle, to comprehend it, to embrace and partake of it is a gift, a charisma of the Faith that saves us. But the Vatican II Reformers, the Modernists led by their Masonic allies, fight against it. Protestant-like, they retreat from this central sacrament of the New Covenant, the Seventh Covenant God has established more firmly than He established the first six, because this one God the Father established with His Son.

The Protestantizing Vatican II tried to reduce the Mass, break it down, emasculate it because...

The Heavenly Liturgy is glorious and noble and transcendent: simply real beyond our poor powers to emulate, and yet, by the grace of God, we can participate in it ourselves. The Holy Spirit guided us in all Truth (St. John 16:13) and called us to participate as well as we could, hence the noble traditional liturgies of East and West. But Vatican II, the Modernist cradle of the Ape of the Church, grew a baby – a non-Catholic Changeling Church – and that baby took a long generation to grow, now going on a Biblical lifetime. And Bergoglio serves as the midwife. The Synodal Church being established by the Modernist, non-believing hierarchy, is being finalized by the Synodal process, which merely stands in for a new Church Council, a "Vatican III", that will soon put paid to the True Church. Or that's the intention and reason for the endless attacks on the Vetus Order, the Traditional Latin Mass, and all the Vatican claptrap I noted in the first paragraph of this essay.

That new church is a different church, so of course it has different worship AND cannot tolerate the old, actual Catholic, worship. As this becomes ever more obvious – day-by-day it stands more glaringly obvious – they try harder and harder to crush it, Diocletian-style. As I have written before, they've abolished every discipline in the Faith except one, and that one discipline they demand we give them unreservedly because they are about to drop their guillotine blade: obedience. 

Obedience

But we are not required to obey bad laws or bad rulers. That's true in the religious sphere as in the secular. And in the latter, people are now realizing elections are useless. 

1. England recently held an important election, but voting is useless. The pro-English national Reform Party garnered 14% of the vote yet only gets 5 seats in Parliament; the Lib-Dem Party, a mild Labor Party knock-off, got 12% of the vote and yet seats 70 new members. 
2. The people of France tried to elect Marine Le Pen's party to power in the National Assembly of France, but the Leftists rioted in the streets and Macron and the Communists connived to fix it so that Le Pen's party is blocked from power. 
3. The Demo(Demon)crats in the U.S., stunned by Donald Trump's victory in 2016, stole the election in 2020; their old trick: they stole the 1960 election, and stole the 1972 election from Nixon after his incredible blowout victory. They tried to steal the 2000 election, too.
   
4. Today, their zombie candidate – a subpar idiot and carnal maggot when he had his right mind and now is a walking corpse – as was Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in the 1944 election, actually – will probably be removed, but the Democrats have no one credible to replace him.
   
5. In the same pus-filled vein, the Catholic Church has been taken over by carnal deviants and the most venal, evil partisans of Hell, slowly but surely, since the1960s. They are not Catholics. Not Christians. Yet they demand our obedience.
   

But we are not required to obey these bad rulers and their misrule. St. Thomas Aquinas leads a long list of theologians saying so. However the secular political issues will be solved, if they are solved, at least for the religion we can support Father David Nix and Archbishop Viganò, and all the new Edmund Campions and William Allens whom the Lord God raises up for us.

May the Counter-Reformation 2.0 come quickly, oh Lord!

PS

The Ogre Pope keeps blowing things up, which I take as a sign of madness and desperation. Telling Muslims "all religions to be respected, free from proselytism" (June 26, 2024) is a renunciation of Our Lord's Great Commission, and yet another anti-Christian heretical kick in the head provided by Bergoglio. And telling that to Muslims, who have NEVER respected other religions or were ever "free from proselytism" is just cross-eyed cognitive dissonance. Bergoglio goes in for open cesspool lies, that's certain. The heretic witnesses against himself, daily now, basically. And can there be anyone who still cause this guy "pope"?

For God, Under His Mercy

AnP

'Tradervatives' at AKA Catholic...and is Bergoglio pope, or what? (Updated)

 Amici,

Over at AKA Catholic,a good article to read is Are non-infallible doctrines trustworthy? It's a follow-on to this article about the knots many Traditional and Conservative Catholics tie themselves into in trying to 'square the circle' that Jorge Bergoglio is actually pope, yet obviously a wanton heretic who needs converted to the True Faith or excommunicated (i.e. his own blatant self-excommunication needs to be recognized).

I alluded to this cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-you-face conundrum (or one could call it the "We must destroy the village in order to save it" syndrome) in recent comments about Dr. Peter Kwasniewski's efforts to defend the Vetus Ordo, the Traditionalist Latin Mass. Efforts such as Prof K's are aiming toward redefining the nature, office, and powers of the pope, rather than asserting Bergoglio simply is NOT pope, for no actual pope would do what Jorge Mario B. does on an hourly basis. OnePeterFive and other such "mainstream Trad" sites are good exemplars of Prof K's thinking. They work overtime at it, and while they generally have excellent arguments for keeping the TLM, "Bergoglio as pope" is ultimately "a dog that won't hunt".

As I've written before: a pope has carte blanc powers, indeed, but they are to only be used for defending and promoting the Deposit of Faith. No pope can change or add to the Faith. Montini deeply wounded the Church in attacking the TLM Vetus Ordo, but he wasn't teaching heresy per se (though one could argue that point, I suppose). Bergoglio is trying to absolutely, truly, and most sincerely cancel and repudiate and kill the TLM AS WELL AS teaching heresy daily. (Indeed, Bergoglio's evil henchman, Andrea Grillo, says the TLM is already abrogated completely!)

Having the greatest respect for Prof K, and many of the others, I cannot go down their road, and the papacy cannot be weakened with extreme dangers to the Church. Trying to limit the papacy's powers in order to prevent Bergoglio's treachery leads to "rabbit hole" articles like this one. Such debates cause factions and perpetual adversaries.

We can clearly solve all this by insisting papal power only be used as intended. And that means, shove Bergoglio into an oubliette. I agree with Louie at AKA Catholic and Ann Barnardt at her site that it is much, much saner, simpler, and far more truthful, far more self-evident, to admit we have not got a legitimate pope in "Bergi". Now, that would get me called a Sedecavantist or a Benedicavantist label (like Ann B argues Ratzinger is still legit pope, so she gets unfairly mocked as a "Benedicavantist").

Prof K and that crowd seem to think it absolutely verboten to go Barnhardt's or AKA Catholic's way. It causes too many problems, they maintain. Well, their position causes even MORE problems! Insurmountable ones. Catholicism is not an intellectual suicide pact. And anyway, we've had eras in Church history when we have had two concurrent popes, even three! (Great Western Schism, 1378 - 1417) And periods existed when a pope could not be elected for various reasons. Pius VI died on August 29, 1799 and his successor, Pius VII, was elected on March 14, 1800. That's six months.) And Pius had been out of power for a couple of years before that! (Our old friend "Nappy" Napoleon occupied Rome in 1796 and poor Pius ended up in exile in France for 18 months before his death.)

Some die-hard sedevacantists say Pope John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli, was not a valid pope, and none of the others after him. But it was only Montini, Paul 6, who was a catastrophic disaster – and he holds no candle to Bergoglio, who is in full Church-gutting-and-scalping mode, striding Godzilla-like across the ecclesiastical landscape, smashing all before him and snorting radioactive fire.

It seems patently obvious that the logic is clear. AKA Catholic (Louie) writes in the first article linked above, in part about whether we should get rid of what the Church has always taught:

Not so. Let’s revisit the examples given. In each case one has a choice to make, to either apply what the Church has always taught to explain the present situation, or to redefine (that is, to twist or reject) what the Church has always taught to fit the present situation.

• The organization presently in Rome claiming to be the Holy Catholic Church authoritatively teaches false doctrines. 

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about herself, the organization presently in Rome, since its doctrines endanger the faithful, cannot be the one true Church.

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: The organization presently in Rome is the one true Church, despite what the Church has always taught about herself. Yes, it teaches false doctrines, but not infallibly, and so we are called to resist.

• Jorge Bergoglio fails to manifest the true faith; he actively opposes it.  

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about membership in the Church, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic of any rank. 

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Jorge Bergoglio is a member of the Holy Catholic Church, despite what the Church has always taught about visible membership in her. What’s more, given that most everyone considers him pope, we have no right say otherwise.

• “Francis” attacks the true faith but claims to be the Holy Roman Pontiff. 

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about the pope being our rule of faith, the Divine protection afforded to the pope by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years, Francis is obviously an anti-pope.  

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Francis is the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, despite what the Church has always taught about the papacy, the Divine protection afforded to it by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years. Even though he is the pope, we cannot treat him as our rule of faith, rather, we must defend ourselves against his false doctrines!

AnP again.

Read the whole article. Read both AKA Catholic articles. They are excellent, and I think AKA Catholic and Ann Barnhardt carry the day, easily.

For what it is worth. Who cares what I think? But personally, I think it worth a lot to know the truth of things and not let oneself get tied hopelessly into a Gordian knot. Speaking of which, another old-time general friend of mine famously took care of that knotty issue in a simple yet dramatic way.

He cut it. 

An Préachán

'The "Vatican Rite" or "Pauline Rite" is the Novus Ordo, but NOT the Roman Rite...'

Amici,

For all of us repudiating and discarding – to the extent we can avoid it, something Bergoglio is making difficult at the moment – the hapless, never sufficiently disparaged Novus Ordo Mass, there's an essay from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski at OnePeterFive, here online that I encourage everyone to read.

Dr. K is a great defender of the Vetus Ordo, the Ancient Rite, the TLM, and I always read him with profit. Usually, my only quarrel with him revolves around whether Bergoglio (for whose pitiful soul we must all pray while he's still among the living, before it is too late for him to repent – though it is a pretty big mountain to repent: i.e. a lifetime of trashing out the Church and supporting the sexually deviant in myriad ways) is actually pope.

But leaving that issue aside, this article at OnePeterFive focuses on the infamous Sant’Anselmo professor of liturgy Andrea Grillo. Grillo has been outed as the creator of Traditiones Custodes and the subsequent liturgical garbage Bergoglio has tightened around our necks, like successive slave collars. Indeed, except for one or two individuals, Grillo is perhaps the biggest influence on Bergoglio.

The article is lengthy, but should you have interest in how the official Catholic Church (à la the "Officials" for you who know IRA history) is now so determinedly anti-TLM, well, Grillo is yer man. He's just evil. And stupid. These two estimable qualities vie in his cockroachian soul. But don't take my word for it. Read the article.

I will say that the comhrá os íseal, the scuttlebutt, that the TLM will be formally cancelled sometime next year, must come from Grillo's fevered imagination. "Grillo proposes, God disposes" ought to be a saying. Actually, Grillo is insisting it is banned already! (Read the article.) By this time next year, however, there'll be mass starvation around the world, national power outages in the "developed world", esp Europe, and social unrest on a horrendous scale. Covid vaccine mortality alone will bankrupt public and private insurance on a planetary scale. So somehow I think it will be easier than ever to dismiss Bergoglio's rantings (as indeed, Prof Kwasniewski would have us do, though not as I would, as the words of an anti-pope whom we must pray for lest he be damned).

Here is an extract from the article, a fascinating and a very revealing exchange of email Grillo had with a student; here's the student:

More and more voices, of different sensibilities, testify that the 1969 operation was truly radical, in the face of a limited conciliar mandate: from the right, as in Card. Stickler’s lengthy memoirs; and from the left, as in Fr. Gelineau’s lapidary comment: “This must be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

And it is precisely on account of Gelineau’s admission that I personally feel like making a concession: it is indeed true that the theorem of the two forms of the Roman Rite is fragile (to be generous) and sophistic (to be more ruthless). For the Council had called for a reform of the Roman Rite. The Consilium produced instead a “Vatican Rite” or a “Pauline Rite,” with some vestigial resemblance to the historic Roman Rite, and some superficial resemblance to some of the Council Fathers’ indications, although most were ignored de plano. Hence with a little intellectual honesty—but that is still a long way off—it will sooner or later be necessary to acknowledge that the Vatican Rite or Pauline Rite is not the Roman Rite, as indeed a forthcoming book argues.

AnP again:

• An excellent way of saying it. The Vatican II Council called for one thing and got another, something with "some vestigial resemblance to the historic Roman Rite, and some superficial resemblance to some of the Council Fathers’ indications." Touché. It's ridiculous, but there it is. We should have demanded they toss it back then, reject it on the spot, yet the "Vatican I Church" (from 1870 to 1962) had drilled Catholics to pray, pay, and obey. No longer. That sort of submission no longer exists much of anywhere in the Church.
  
• FWIW, I never bought into Ratzinger's spiel that two forms of the western Roman Rite existed, the "Ordinary" form and the "Extraordinary" form. Many others did not, either; anyone, in fact – me thinks – will come away with that realization who bothers to even remotely interact with the TLM Vetus Ordo. Hence the idea of a "Vatican Rite" or "Pauline Rite" seems so fitting. The N.O. is an alien thing altogether. A Changeling. As I say, it's a Methodist service with one of the N.O.'s Eucharistic prayers squeezed in.
  
• If you take time to read Grillo's responses to this student above, and another exchange Prof K provided, you realize Grillo is a parrot to Modernist notions purely ideological in nature. A high apparatchik in a dying cult. Such ideas cannot be sustained except by brute force (via KGB, Stasi, or FBI), which is precisely why Bergoglio acts the way he does.
• The near-term future is not conducive to the Novus Ordo: world-wide social stresses and economic upheavals will destroy, at long last, the "Vatican II Church", for as we saw with the ridiculous Covid lockdowns, that Church has no stuffing, no guts; it bent over showed its  butt to the dominant Grillo gorilla-brute culture of power, the fascist "boot on the human face forever" (Orwell) when what the world needed was the actual Catholic Faith, represented during the lockdowns best by the SSPX, which kept chapels open and priestly services ongoing, as much as possible. If you want to see that actual Catholic Faith in action, watch this video of an SSPX priest making the rounds in Alaska. 
  
  

So, we'll see. Time will tell. But remember: Motus in finem velocior. Time speeds up before the end. Or as Aristotle said: Time is the measure of motion. And things are running ever faster toward Global Dystopia.

    An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

The Vatican II Church explained from Mattias Desmet's psychological terms

A friend wrote me not long ago, saying,

I am reminded of the fact that without a rock to cling to, one becomes wreckage the ship of state upon the waters. The church is the answer, but certainly not certain members of the hierarchy to be sure. We still have to listen to who has the truth.

Indeed. The "modern world" is by definition an idea in which rocks, foundations, psychological safe harbors of all sorts are eschewed. The modern world doesn't want "rocky people" who are – as the notorious Bergoglio says – "rigid". Rocks are rigid. That's why we harvest them, carve them, and use them when we want to build solid, such as enduring solid architecture or solid sacred altars. Rocks endure. But "Modernism", the Church heresy, is all about "evolution", how we are so smart and so sophisticated we are that we don't need a solid foundation, or a dogmatic faith, and certainly no traditional morality or worship.

The result is a nearly dead Church, the Mainstream Church of empty churches we are all so familiar with; nearly empty except for old folks who "came of age" in the frothy 1960s. The 1960s were like the 1920s and the "Gay '90s" of the end of the 19th century, the original fin-de-siecle era Mark Twain so adroitly titled "The Gilded Age". WWI put paid to the "Gay '90s" and the Great Depression put paid to the Roaring '20s. The 1960s were more successful in polluting our souls, however, precisely because the radicals had invaded and polluted the Church herself. Before the '60s, the Church had stood as "the Rock" and foundation of sanity, the bastion of psychological certainty. But with Vatican II, all that went kaput. We were all cast adrift without an enduring social bond, without the sense-making ability when life gets tough, with all of us drowning in free-floating anxiety and an ever-present, uneasy free-floating psychological discontent.

The changes in the 1960s and 1970s Church left us adrift on psychological free-floating anxiety. But we're not supposed to be zombies, still less slaves to cheap passions and lusts and passing fancies, but instead we were to be true servants of God; thus, we are at daggers drawn with ourselves now – and our useless CEO-style bishops, who have replaced metaphysics with politics (I didn't think that up, BTW) are absolutely, truly, and most sincerely incapable of dealing with our civilizational crisis! They consult neither Holy Writ nor the Church Fathers, but they consult polls, because for them it is all politics.

One would do well to reread St. John's Gospel Chapter 10, all of it (it's long), a number of times, to the end. Notice how Our Lord plainly says there He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him. Notice how He expects us to recognize Him. The social bond He offers is strong. He expects us to respond to that. And He inspires us in that social bond. He says He leads them and dies for them, but the hired shepherds don't do that. Then the Jews, properly translated "Judeans" in St. John, harass Him and then try to kill Him via stoning. They embody the rejection of a solid social bond; they certainly reject Christ as "sense-maker" of life, as does so much of the modern world, obviously, itself so much shaped as it is by non-believers in entertainment, law, and banking.

The world Christ offers is different than that. Psychological anxiety and discontent do not exist in such an environment as He offers, but much of the Church has distanced itself (major elements of it have, not all of it by any means) from Christ the King. Tomorrow* is the Feast of Christ the King in the TLM. Search out such a Mass and "enter in" to the narthex of Christ's Kingdom, the TLM. Otherwise, try to worship in the modern Church that the descendants of those unbelievers in St. John 10 approve for us.

In the meantime, most of the modern world will be following the Beasts of Revelation, worshiping these monsters as gods because they no longer know God, do not recognize His Kingship and are alien to our Heavenly Fatherland, either spiritual or temporal.

Grim times, indeed.

Μόχθων δ’ ουκ άλλος ύπερθεν ή γας πατρίας στέρεσθαι.

There is no greater grief that the loss of one’s fatherland.

—  Euripides, 480-406 BC, Ancient Greek tragedian ‐ Medea

(Euripides knew all about free-floating psychological anxiety.)

*The priests of the TLM celebrate this feast on the last Sunday of October, and on the last Sunday before Advent in the Novus Ordo. In the Vetus Ordo, it immediately precedes the Feast of All Saints on November 1, which itself immediately precedes All Souls on November 2. 

PS November was sacred to the Ancient Celts, as Samhain, the seam on the iron tire of the year, when the old year bends around to meet the new year, and the dead and living could intermingle. The Irish kept strong remnants of this and eventually it gave rise to Halloween in English-speaking countries, a secular "Day of the Dead", as it were. As if it could not be made more shallow by commercializing it, modern "pagans" actually use it for their "religion", which cretinizes it profoundly.

Restrict or Delete Summorum Pontificum? Francis has already moved in that direction.

A rumor is afoot about the pope exiling B16's Summorum Pontificum. Many suggest he won't really go so far, but as AKA Catholic points out, Bergoglio has, in fact, restricted it already — the essential point of SP being priests could no longer be restricted in saying the TLM. But early in his reign, Bergoglio did just that. 

See the article for details but here's a link and an excerpt:

https://akacatholic.com/summorum-pontificum-under-attack-how-soon-we-forget/

You see, a decree had just been issued by the Congregation for Religious, with the approval of Francis, that reads in part:

The Holy Father Francis has directed that every religious of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is required to celebrate the liturgy according to the ordinary rite and that, if the occasion should arise, the use of the extraordinary form (Vetus Ordo) must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities, for every religious and/or community that makes the request.

Get that?

The use of the extraordinary form must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities.

Though the aforementioned decree was aimed specifically at the FFI, it effectively negated the very precept upon which every priest of the Latin Rite relies with regard to his right to celebrate the Mass of All Ages.