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

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

Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

"The True Spirit of Vatican II and Apostasy"

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

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

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

Modernism = Evolution

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

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

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

Doesn't that sound Masonic-like? Hmmm. 

           AnP

Part III Dr. Bryan Ardis, Catholics, and Jews, and just about everybody else...

Friends,

Here's Part III of my rant involving Bryan Ardis and Catholics. It is also the end of the rant.

In these dire, dire times, it is sanity we need, not Jack Chick. Oh, yeah: And it's wrong to scapegoat.

Dr. Bryan Ardis asserting the Church is the mastermind behind the Covid farce and that it is "evil, pure and simple, from the eighth dimension" (if I may quote the famous Buckaroo Banzai comment out of context) stands as a truly lunatic observation. It's like saying Jews, as a group, are behind all the evil in the world. But "Those Jews! They did it!" remains a widely held theory about a lot of things because, like the Church and unlike the Freemasons (or since the latter are so secretive, maybe so), Jews are everywhere and often in positions of power and influence. (Freemasons might be, but they work to occlude themselves from sight.) Right now, Jews constitute the Biden Regime's top people, while in comparison, all most all U.S. Supreme Court justices are Catholics. Representatives of both groups seem concentrated in positions of great power and influence. That gets noticed.

Yet what does that prove, exactly?

Does it prove it is religion that's the issue? Very religious groups of Jews exist, but they are no more likely to be found in high levels of power than Trad Catholics would be. The "System", the "Deep State" loathes them. Thus, the more Orthodox Jew or Trad Catholic you are, the less likely you'll find yourself in "The Club". Biden himself, an immorally putrid man, is (supposed to be) a Catholic. Anthony Fauci was a Catholic at some point. George Soros was born a Jew. In any event, those kinds of bad Catholics rise to the top levels of power.

And all that is just one reason why many scapegoat either Jews and Catholics. The "religious" among them are spotlighted while the anti-religious ones (Soros is an example) are ignored. Interesting they're both also often accused of destroying the "Christian World", isn't it?

• And regarding Jews and Covid: the classic paradigm of every Jewish mother is that she wants her son to be a doctor.
  
• Jews play a stupendous role in both mainstream and non-mainstream medicine.
  
• So, Dr. Ardis, why don't you suspect Jewish medical elites with foul play? Would that be racist? Or anti-Semitic?
  
• It's no wonder Dr. Ardis demonizes Catholics and not Jews, any more than he why he refrains from demonizing Muslims. Neither Jews nor Muslims nor tolerate this paranoia, even in those cases where it isn't paranoid at all. (Evil people exist in every ethnic/religious group!) With the Muslims, such a accusations as Ardis makes will lose you your head; with the Jews, expect to be a lot poorer and marginalized. Alas, as E. Michael Jones knows all too well, any criticism of any Jews brings harassment and headaches only the strongest-willed can endure.
  
• Yet it is precisely that sort of Jewish defense which only makes people who really hate Jews qua Jews hate them all the more. Bad players can use it as a get-out-of-jail-card. It is badly self-defeating for Jews, as Jones has so often pointed out. It was self-defeating for the Church to cover up the sex scandals. It is self-defeating for Black Americans to use it, as well, as in the case of George Floyd. (Actually, Freemasons used to do the same thing: my mother told me about a child-molester back in 1920s Columbus, Ohio, who was caught molesting children but he got off completely because he was a Mason.)
  

"Human shields"

Individual or groups of immoral men can use either the Church or the Jewish community or being Black to shield themselves from scrutiny or even the law. This is truly using fellow humans as "human shields". They know they'll be defended. That no longer works for the Church because the sex scandals were so indefensible and because the Church is so openly loathed by our hedonistic society. But Jews will stop at nothing to defend Jews, no matter how bad certain individuals or groups might be, because they think – or claim to believe – examples of Jews doing bad things will trigger the Holocaust all over again.

 

Catholic and Jewish parallels

Ironically, except that Catholics usually submit profusely to criticism, as exampled by Bergoglio apologizing to Canadian Indians recently, Catholics and Jews have a lot in common, to be sure. They're both "elitist" in a sense. Religious Jews claim they have a special and absolutely one-off relationship with God no one else has, and Trad Catholics claim to be the one, true Church that Our Lord personally founded. (Vatican II Catholics are all over the board on that, and probably most don't believe it. Talk to Bishop Barron if you want more weasel words about Catholic belief in your life.)

So why the age-old fight between Jews and Catholics? An essential parallel between them actually holds the answer:

1. As Jews claim to be the one and only "Israel of God", so Catholics indeed claim to BE Jews, the "Israel of God", themselves – a claim going back to St. Paul. (Protestants have always hated that, as do the Orthodox. If Ardis is either of those, that might explain a lot.)
   
2. That was the origin of the eternal fight between Jews and Catholics, that and the obvious corollary in Catholic thinking that if Jews want to be true Jews, they need to convert.
   
3. But the Vatican II Church has absolutely flat-out run away from this ancient dogma...
4. ...Yet the Church can't. Why? To do so is to deny the point of the Church: to blaspheme the Incarnation, Christ, and His Sacrifice, which establish the Seventh Covenant. And that is because:
   
5. The whole point of the religion: i.e. Christianity (Historical, sacrament-based Christianity) is the Seventh Covenant, the capstone Covenant of the Six Old Testament Covenants, and the reason God established them.
   
6. To say certain groups need not covert is ipso-facto to damn the Church's entire raison d'être for existence in the first place. And it is that that serves as the kernel of the trouble Modernist Catholicism has – and that ruined the Vat2 Church. As they don't believe the ancient dogma, they can hardly get anyone else to believe it, either.
   
7. In any event, the two-millennia-long contention between Jews and orthodox, Catholic Christians is unfortunately just baked into the cake from the beginning. But it need not be – ever – violent. And in any case, of course, Jews born to Jewish mothers – the best possible way to be a Jew – do convert to Catholicism from time to time. Look at the Twelve Apostles. Or Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. St. Paul. Our Lord Christ Himself, Who was born to a Jewish mother, and it from her he received both His humanity and His Jewishness. It is hardly a new thing, and were the Vatican II Church's 60-year-old "protocols" about converting Jews had been practiced from the beginning, we'd have no Church at all!)

The Nazis and Communists

So, that's the theology behind the fight between Jews and Catholics. It's an exclusivity Protestants have always rejected. Totally unrelated to all that, however, new problems arose in the modern world in the last 100-plus years, such as the Theory of Evolution and the resultant Nazis and the Communists. Nazis want to kill all Jews to improve the evolution of the human race. Literally murder them all. (The original Fascists, like Mussolini or Franco, were not anti-Semitic. Hitler had to order the Italian Fascists to kill Jews.) Communists want to absorb them into new Socialist Man. "A Jew who is a Socialist is a Socialist first", goes an old saying. Same with Catholics, as per the example of Bella Dodd.

Since the Holocaust that the Nazis perpetrated on millions of Jews (and other groups) in their worship of Darwin, however, the Western collective guilt regarding the Jew was – and is today – very powerful, and in this guilt abides a the major reason why modern Israel exists. Had there been no Hitler, there probably wouldn't be a Republic of Israel. Antagonism between Jews and Christians would still have existed, sure, since that seems endemic for the two religions, as explained above.

But the Nazis did exist. Some Jews (by no means all) insist that "Christian Europe" either gave rise to Nazism, that Nazis constituted a form of Christian, or that the Nazis were caused by Christianity's traditional attitudes toward Jews. These want to see Christianity crippled and thus no longer a threat to them. Yet oddly, when it comes to Islam, which from time to time would simply slaughter entire populations of Jews, or force them to convert to Islam en masse, as Muhammad himself did, this sort of query never seems to arise.

1. Whether any postwar churchmen believed that Nazi origin tale (it wasn't true; the Nazis were narcissistic, sexually and morally perverted pagans motivated far more by Charles Darwin and self-love), by the early 1960s, Christians certainly felt guilt about what happened, and many Churchmen, (as I keep saying in other posts), felt the impotence of the Church in having positive effect on the world.
   
2. Had the Church "declared war" on Nazism, doing continent-wide what the Dutch Christians (Protestant and Catholic) tried to do in 1941-42, the Nazis would have shot every priest and nun they could get their claws on. Staring with Pius XII.
   
3. It would have been horrific, and yet afterward, the Church's sacrifice would have elevated its standing in the world tremendously. "The blood of the martyrs would have been the seed of the Church's renaissance." Vatican II would never have been called.

But that's not what happened, and today any criticism of Jews remains taboo; it is immediately condemned as being "anti-Semitic". (Except, of course, when Muslims do it.)

• But no one and no group is above criticism. It's a mistake to try to single out anyone for being beyond any sort of reproach.

Dr. Bryan Ardis

So Dr. Bryan Ardis avoids accusing the Jews, even though, of all groups of people, they are truly major players in "Big Med", and government, etc. Dr. Ardis is also clearly ignorant of ALL of these modern Catholic problems I've mentioned above. For whatever reason, whether raised anti-Catholic or just burned out after a lifetime of fighting hopelessly against "Big Med" (he was a chiropractor), Ardis comes across as utterly exhausted and a bit crazy.

And he certainly believes the whole Church is evil. He thinks it has always been evil. He refers to dates in the 1850s about the Church trying to take over America – that's pure Know Nothing/American Party (1844-1860) Protestant boilerplate. Yet despite all this, Ardis is a major player in fighting against the deadly Covid tyranny that threatens to enslave us all.

 

That he thinks the way he does is outrageous and depressing; that it isn't answered is intolerable, but Ardis himself is necessary. That puts us in a non-kosher pickle, doesn't it?

An Préachán

Enlightenment, de-lightenment: The Fix Is in in Western Thought

For a Protestant, "Faith" means a "leap of faith" (see Søren Kierkegaard for an explanation of that). Catholic Faith, on the other hand, is the willing acceptance of divine revelation and the witness of the Church because they are true. They're reasonable, in fact.

For example, St. Paul says in 1 Cor 15 that 500 of the brothers saw the Risen Christ at one time -- and 500 was the size of an Athenian jury when a man was on trial for his life, so Ft. Paul is saying he has evidence that would pass the legal system of the greatest city-state of the Ancient World. 

Faith as "blind faith," a leap in the dark, is based purely on self will, or rather self desire. One wants something to be true whether it is or not and one is willing to jump into the dark for it.

"Man is the Measure of All Things" is a Renaissance idea. I think the real "black hat" in Western Culture is none other than Nick, Niccolo Machiavelli. René Descartes and his Mechanical Physics was the "icing on the cake" that sealed the doom of Western Man, and that was highlighted by the wide acceptance of the teachings of that true and certain idiot, David Hume. Humie should be read only to be laughed at and yet today he's considered the dean of the Enlightenment (my understanding is the Enlightenment meant to be enlightened that God didn't exist).

And a prime directive of the Enlightenment was to come up with a metaphysical materialistic way to explain life on Earth. None other than a certain Erasmus was a leading proponent of such an idea during the Enlightenment, and this particular Erasmus came up with a theory of evolution very much like the one his grandson would come up with thereafter. Yes, I refer to none other than Erasmus Darwin and his grandson Charlie. 

In other words, "the fix is in" in Western thinking going back now some hundreds of years. There's a long, old, complicated story being unwound right now. Vatican II and its despicable "spirit" is on a tip of the pimple that has to be popped, if I may be excused for being vulgar.

An Préachán