Search This Blog

Friday, February 23, 2024

The Church Is a Bridge, Buckling and Swaying

Amici,

The Catholic Church is like a bridge.

Imagine a huge chasm, vast, overwhelming, terrifying. It reaches so far down you can't see the bottom, just swirling mist, but you hear thunder and crashing sounds of avalanches, and a roaring of great waters. The Church is like a one-arc bridge leaping across the chasm in a single bound.

The only way across the abyss is this arcing bridge. Yet many people don't want to take the bridge because the chasm is so vast and threatening, and the bridge looks so small in comparison. These folk stay on the near side of the chasm, shivering. Eventually, they wander away. Others cross the bridge easily enough, though they are laden with a lot of baggage. But as they get part way across, and the bridge's arc rises, they start to become unhinged. Some, terrified, run back to the near side, carrying their baggage. Others start shouting and dancing and quivering and shaking. They begin to open their luggage and take out all sort of shocking things; they shout obscenities and engage deviant acts – until, in groups or singly, they literally jump off the bridge, screaming. Still another crowd scoffs and laughs. They stand on the near side, hooting and scowling, and say, "Fools! That's not really a bridge at all. It's a fake bridge. Never was a bridge. Leads nowhere. Everyone, everyone who walks that bridge, the good or the bad or the in-between, end up in the chasm below." This crowd then walks away, noses in the air, though a few remain to mock. 

Then there's a group that marches across together, organized. They sing religious songs and recite prayers, and do not carry much in terms of luggage. They've been going over this bridge for a very long time. Yet about 60 years ago some of them added a new lane to the bridge. Those taking this new lane didn't pray very much, and spent a lot of time on the near side drinking coffee and tea and eating donuts, and attending psychology lectures. When they do cross, now and then, they drag along a lot of fancy, trendy, colorful baggage. Lately, their leaders DRIVE across the bridge, in big, weighty electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are very heavy compared to internal-combustion engine cars. They put a LOT of weight on any bridge, road, or car garage. AND these big bosses carry with them a lot of crazies in outlandish costumes, making a lot of noise, and committing all sorts of carnal acts in the process. It as though they were sort of on a parade route, a demented Mardi Gras. The bridge, especially the novo lane they use, is buckling. It's cracking. It emits all sort of squeaks and groans and snapping sounds. Finally the biggest electric vehicle of all starts across, driven by a very fat man in white, who orders the other lane closed to traffic (though many ignore his order). His heavyweight transport is carrying the most outlandish characters yet seen. The bridge begins to seriously wobble.

Will the bridge fall? Will it snap? Or only the novo lane, obviously the weakest? Will it become a single-file bridge? Stay tuned. But as you step back from the bridge you notice a plaque bolted on the near-side entrance. It reads: "Founded by the Holy Ghost on the First Pentecost Sunday. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. -Signed Jesus Christ, Sovereign King." It's a bit tarnished, and the mocking crowd papered over it at one point. The perverts then splashed it with gaudy paint. But it is still there, still legible, for those to see who can.

         AnP









Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Article: Pope Francis’ fight against the Latin Mass is ‘a fight against the Church’

Amici,

LifeSiteNews has a great essay up that a German priest, Fr. Heimerl, wrote, titled "Pope Francis’ fight against the Latin Mass is ‘a fight against the Church’" Read it hereIt is extremely insightful, and I highly recommend it.

A huge THANK YOU for this article, LifeSite, and to Fr. Heimerl ! The Old Mass, the TLM, could in no way represent the "NuChurch" that the Modernists at Vatican II wanted to create, so it had to go. Of course it did. THAT'S why Bergoglio so hates the TLM. It stands in his way. And he will stop at nothing to achieve what he wants. Rumor has it he fully intends to officially, full-stop, BAN the Traditional Latin Mass. That'll put the fox among the chickens. His time to create his Synodal Church is short, and every day might be his last. The Argentine Luther had to wait till he could stuff Benedict into the back of a van, but he charges on full steam ahead now.

A Schism is coming. A Schism is coming because it already exists, and has existed de facto since Vatican II; it just took a while for us to "get our bearings". Like someone just waking up in a strange environment, or after an operation, it takes a moment to get one's bearings. It took even Archbishop Lefebvre a few years to fully realize what was happening and the extent of the betrayal. And it WAS a betrayal of the Catholic faithful. A betrayal by the cocky Modernists who knew most Catholics were so conditioned to "pray, pay, and obey" that they would soldier along with it, at least up to the point. (Everyone has a breaking point.) So, no wonder about Ottaviani and Bacci, powerful orthodox Cardinals Fr. Heimerl mentions who confronted Paul VI about all this, but ultimately didn't call for his excommunication. Raised as loyal sons of the old Church, they could not bring themselves to do the needful.

Now, today, however, we have NO EXCUSE. Sixty years of facing lavender firing squads taking potshots at us, we know all too well what's happening. No. More. No more bleating sheep-like, "Baa, baat the bishop says so-and-so!" No more Disney princess bishops at all or histrionic priests flamboyantly auditioning at the Cranmer table "altars". No more "Prayers of the People" that seem to channel Leftist party talking points or the trendy social causes du jour. No more tolerating the destruction of the Holy Catholic Church. Zero tolerance. Start it saying in your own minds. Then tell family and friends, then priests and bishops. Say a prayer for the strength to grasp it and to admit it.

Some bishops, even one, will have to openly declare Bergoglio in Schism. I doubt Burke or Müller would. Maybe they might over women deacons; Viganò would. And sure, Bergoglio would rage, and excommunicate left, right, and center, but it is clear to anyone with two cents of a brain that Bergoglio himself is the innovator, the challenger, the heretic.

And that even as it morphs into the "Synodal Church", the Vatican II Church has finally manifested itself as the infamous, but prophesied, "Ape of the Church".

Thanks again to LifeSiteNews amd Fr. Joachim Heimerl.


        AnP




Sunday, February 18, 2024

Bergoglio Is an Unconscionable, Diabolical Liar

Amici,


Such is my takeaway after listening to Fr. Charles Murr discuss Bergoglio with John-Henry Westen and Liz Yore here at LifeSiteNews

The first half of this episode is Fr. Murr detailing (and I mean detailing) how Bergoglio, as a young Jesuit and then a bishop and archbishop, would come to Rome and "pump" Vatican insiders for inside information. Bergoglio also represented himself as a strong conservative and very much the anti-Communist, so much so that he fooled a good friend and mentor of Fr. Murr's, a friend who had been raised in Northern Italy, knew all about Communists, and was a die-hard enemy of Marxists. So Bergoglio fooled everyone, and it was one of the ways The Ogre got himself eventually elected pope. (Along with all the other behind-the-scenes nefarious goings on the Freemasons were plotting, naturally.)

And of course this proves Archbishop Viganò's idea that Bergoglio isn't a valid pope because he accepted the papacy illegally in that the Argentinian devil had NO INTENTION of serving as a pope is supposed to. He lied there, too, in other words. Yes, yes, yes, it may be that Benedict didn't abdicate the papacy correctly, and other aspects factor in, but clearly Bergoglio has never had ANY intention of serving the office as a successor of Peter is supposed to. Out with the vermin!

WHY do we commit suicide? Why does Europe flood itself with Muslims who have no intention of ever becoming "European"? Why do we tolerate that evil child molester Joe Biden flooding the U.S.A. with enemies while he drains the economy and the military and impoverishes the country by sending its wealth to a dictatorship in Ukraine? (Well, there the U.S. politicians are laundering money and "farming" child sex slaves.)

And most of all, WHY do we Catholic tolerate – even obey (Bishop Strickland, among so many others, I'm looking at you!) – a putrid hypocrite con-artist like Bergoglio, so obviously the son of his father, the Father of Lies, in fact? WHY? Has Catholicism become a suicide cult?

To every and any Catholic or "popesplainer" who says, "But he's pope! The world's bishops say he is!" I shout back: "Fool! If someone tells you to shoot yourself between the eyes, do you do it? No matter who he is?"

Listen to Fr. Murr tell what he knows about the younger Francis and how he slimed his way into power in the Church, and then try to tell me Jorge Mario Bergoglio isn't a true son of the Fallen Lightbringer himself.

Not dealing with this travesty is wrecking the Church, from top to bottom, as we see now with this blasphemous "funeral" of a deviant and promoter of deviancy from St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. Of course they claim they didn't know. Right. In the Empire of Lies, even the Truth looks guilty.

         AnP


Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Anglicans Are Thieves, and So Is Bergoglio (and Vatican II in toto)

Amici,

Bergoglio the Thief has stolen another important Traditional Latin Mass in the U.S., this one in Texas. Anthony Stine reports thoroughly on this theft here: "The Vatican Just Crushed One Of The Most Iconic Traditional Masses In The US".

Why do we Catholics tolerate this deprivation of our ancestral spiritual inheritance? Take the example of the "CofE", a.k.a. the Anglican Church.

Anglicans and the Anglican Church are thieves. Why? Those beautiful, massive piles of rock in England that are known as Medieval English Cathedrals do not belong to them. They belong to us, to Catholics. They were built by Catholics for Catholic Traditional Latin Rite worship of God (sometimes in ancient local variations) and funded via Catholic donations. The Anglicans, a false hodge-podge mess created by Fat 'Arry 8th and his (most likely non-genetic) daughter Elizabeth, stole OUR family heirlooms AND WE DEMAND THEM BACK. Well, not so much, alas.

Historical Perspective
As with the devastation of "Ape of the Church", Jorge Mario Bergoglio, it all came about via the exercise of power politics. After the death of Henry VIII's Catholic daughter, Mary Tudor (Protestants called her "Bloody Mary" but her sister was Godzilla in comparison!), the English government aggressively shut down Catholicism in England, on a more bloody scale than what Bergoglio is trying to do. Scholars estimate that by the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651), the country was still half Catholic. Cromwell put an end to that. (He certainly tried to do so in Ireland, the murderous servant of Satan. Thousands murdered.) It wasn't until September 1850 that Pope Pius IX issued Universalis Ecclesiae, which re-established Catholic diocesan hierarchy in England. Of course, the English government, officially Protestant, officially allowed this to happen. The Church created new dioceses and began building new buildings. BUT except for rare bits and pieces WE NEVER GOT BACK WHAT WAS STOLEN FROM US, and from whatever I've read on it, we never dared ask. (What we did get we bought.)
  1. The official Protestantism was too strong (though the "non-conformist" Protestants were supportive in many ways). 
  2. This process of hierarchy restoration was extremely drawn out over a century, and constantly frustrated by English State Protestantism. 
  3. The French Revolution served as a turning point: the relocation of thousands of Catholic clergy from the continent massively affected the situation. Even though most eventually returned, they left a strong impression, inspiring such as the "Oxford Movement". 
  4. So, too, did the constant Irish agitation for ending the Penal Laws against Catholics. 
  5. It is an incredible story and it owes a lot to Cardinal Nicholas Patrick Wiseman, a Spaniard of Irish descent who came to England and worked tirelessly for it.
But what another 100 years have done! By 1950, a mere century later and almost four centuries after the death of Queen Mary in 1558 (392 years), Anglicanism slid downhill on a fast decline to irrelevancy. Except to ecclesiastical thugs like Bergoglio, today Anglicanism is dead. A true revenant. A Leftist, Woke "Church", with women priestess and bishops; a majority of practicing "Anglicans" are actually evangelicals of various kinds. Whether silly woke idiots in "fancy dress" (bishops and clergy pretend) or as born-agains who eschew the Anglican fancy-dress tapestry, Anglicans have no need – and have no money – for their Medieval Cathedrals.

So, if only we had a pope, we should unanimously demand them back. Or maybe we would have by now except we have Bergoglio the Defendor Perverti Omnia and the rest of the Vatican II crowd of imps and over-aged catamites who apparently like to kiss Anglican derrieres (even female ones). The utter spectacle of Anglicans in Rome, having one of their Protestant services in a Catholic Church and all that footage of Bergoglio being blessed by them – including a woman "bishop" – should remind us that all of Vatican II is essentially a "Stealth" Protestantism. It always was. Or actually something not religious at all.

Thus when I say the Anglicans are thieves, I mean it literally. But then, so are the mavens of Vatican II, culminating in the pestilent revenant that is Bergoglio. WHAT IS Vatican II but theft? Didn't Paul VI and John Paul II and Bergoglio simply say, "You Catholics cannot be Catholic any more. You have to be quasi-Protestant." We'll excommunicate you if you try to be Catholic. (Be Anglicans, basically. Or a sort of mainstream Lutheran or generic Calvinist.)

Think about it. Didn't Paul VI simply say, "Alright, you recalcitrant Papists, no more Catholicism for you! We're getting rid of all the golden rulings and Deposit of Faith, in a word, the Tradition handed down to us over the past two thousand years, and replacing it with a glop of goop. A big, steaming porridge of equal parts orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and wishy-washy pablum. Goop! AND you're going to like it!" And didn't they say of the Traditional Latin Mass, "No more of this! We're going to replace 2,000 years of prayer tradition and Holy Ghost guidance with a committee-derived wishy-washy narcissism where you stare at the priest for 45 minutes and read his facial expressions."

Anthony Stine has an excellent podcast here titled "The Next Phase Of Banning The Traditional Latin Mass Has Begun". Stine details a great deal of what the putrefying Bergoglio is up to regarding the TLM, and he mentions how Arthur Roche, a Cardinal-flunkie toady of Bergoglio in charge of basically destroying the Traditional Latin Mass, has plainly said the old Mass does not reflect modern Church teaching. The Novus Ordo Gloop Mass does. Which, of course, is all the more reason to reject the Novus Ordo as it reflects some new (i.e. "novus") Church or other. 
  • I repeat: the new Mass represents a new religion; they acknowledge the Old Mass does not and cannot reflect that new religion, so it has to be damned.
And that's my point. We've had our actual Catholic Church of 2000 years stolen from us. The Anglicans did the same in the 1500s. Unlike say Baptists or Methodists who "start from scratch" (or at least they intend to) and create their own Churches – and certainly their own church buildings – the Anglicans and Lutherans take OUR churches and OUR ecclesiastical vestments, and "ape" OUR religion. And hasn't the Vatican II Church done exactly the same thing? This insight gives new meaning to the phrase "Ape of the Church", doesn't it?

The Catholic Cathedrals of England should be returned to us because they were stolen, yes, but also because the pathetic Anglican Church can't pay for their upkeep. Canterbury Cathedral came up in the news recently because the Protestant administrator there, the "dean" of the Cathedral, ran a "silent disco" in the Cathedral's nave. Hence the erroneous name: "Rave in the Nave"; apparently it isn't technically a "rave", whatever that is, but a booze (and no doubt drug)-fueled dance party wherein the participants listen and contort to carnally inspired music through their headphones, not amplifiers, so neighbors can't complain. 

This caused a good bit of controversy, as thankfully actual believers still exist in England. Indignant protestors called it desecration, and it is. This article has details. Catholic Herald columnist Gavin Ashenden has an excellent reflection on all this here: "Rave in the Nave at Canterbury: if the Church of England doesn’t know what its cathedrals are for, can we have them back?" Ashenden knows the Cathedral very well. Lots of lovely and pious reflection on the spiritual presence of the great Cathedral, with the prayers of Catholics for centuries radiating from its very stones. Indeed, since the Anglicans plainly have no clue what to do with their ancestral Catholic inheritance, give it back to us! 

And as we see with Bergoglio's actions involving the Anglicans recently, he, himself, Bergoglio – and really the whole dying Vatican II apparatus – is just as much a thief as the Anglicans. Imagine someone in the British government forcing the hapless Anglicans to give back to us Catholics just one or two of these magnificent medieval ziggurats. After clearing out the Protestant stuff and reconsecrating the returned Cathedrals, what's the first thing the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales would do? 

Offer the flaccid, floppy, faltering Novus Ordo in them. Now, THAT's desecration!

   An Préachán




Sunday, February 11, 2024

Kennedy Hall's Litany of Truth, with My Comments

Amici,

Mr Kennedy Hall, traditional Catholic apologist and podcaster, has up on his Substack the following "Litany of Truth" and challenges his readers to put it up. I gladly accept the challenge as I agree with a lot of what he writes anyway, though I don't think Bergoglio is an actual Pope, as Mr Hall does, and I refuse to call that, ahem, individual, anything but his actual name. (I.e. "The Old Devil" or "The Ogre" and other such.) But, whatever. I assume Mr Hall takes this position because it is the SSPX's position on Bergoglio. (And Mr Hall is 110 percent SSPX.)

So, here it is in boldcase. My comments – exhibiting my rather morbid, off-the-wall humor – are in parens; ().

Litany of Truth

I have a challenge for you. (Mr Kennedy writes.) Over the next few weeks, I challenge my readers to utter any of these truths in mixed company or online in an open forum.
  • Feminism is transgenderism (Ah, and here I've always wondered why some feminists were so darned ugly.)
  • Judaism is definitionally the religion of Antichrist (First off, any organized group that rejects Christ can be said to be "anti-Christ" to begin with. Islam certainly is. Secondly, this is a way to target Jews and in turn is a great way to get targeted by Jews. One can also ask: Which Judaism? There are so many Judaisms to choose from. Most of them "not-religious". I know, I know, but hey, that's Judaism today. And anyway, if you have four Jews, you have five opinions, goes the old saying. This is, truly, a quagmire.)
  • The Novus Ordo is an abomination and should be destroyed (I think it died 30 years ago and it has been rattling chains ever since. For myself, I often wonder what my life would have been been like were I to have had unfettered access to the TLM from 1965 to 1985, instead of all those decades of spiritual "junk food". We were all robbed, AND LIED TO, and now Bergoglio is apparently going to change it all again. I hope he does, because that will FINALLY blow it all up. Good riddance.)
  • Sodomy cries out to heaven (Isn't that called "squeaking from the feeling"? Sorry, couldn't resist. Sodomy is more than carnal depravity: it's the deepest anti-Life heresy.)
  • Mohammed is in Hell with Martin Luther and Maimonides (As a cousin of You-Know-Who, I suspect Maimonides now has a luxury car dealership in Upper Purgatory. Seriously, Muhammad [proper spelling] and Luther did true and lasting harm to the Body of Christ resulting in the loss of millions of souls; Maimonides was a physician and philosopher quoted by Aquinas, who called him "The Rabbi".)
  • There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (And Mr Kennedy Hall, there's supposed to be salvation within THIS Bergoglioan Catholic Church?!?)
  • Surrogacy is human trafficking (No argument here! And U.S. Catholic Charities is up to its eyebrows in trafficking kids across the U.S. Southern Border. It's wicked, wicked, and evil altogether.)
  • Justin Trudeau is Fidel Castro’s son (And both just as stupid AND as ugly as his pa.)
  • Freedom of speech is a liberal heresy and is unacceptable to Catholics (And...? And? Then what? Are Catholics supposed to let BERGOGLIO tell them what to think? Or Paul VI? All censorship raises the question of who does the censoring: there's no way to confirm the good being censored as well as the bad. But also, who is going to take it from me? Bergoglio? Tucho? Leftists in general? They'd better not. I, for one, can become suddenly very pagan, indeed.)
  • Vatican II was a complete disaster and should be done away with (No argument here, either.)
  • There is no such thing as religious liberty because there is no such thing as liberty for heresy (Then there's no crown for having Faith, either. Think about it.)
  • Porn addiction is rampant amongst most men, even many trad Catholics, and men who watch porn should be slapped silly until they wise up (This is another truth of this Satan-begotten Age, but God has always kept a pretty large Remnant.)
  • The bishops who have covered up for perverts or promoted sodomy would be exiled to the desert — or worse — in a saner time (St John Chrysostom, died 407 A.D., wrote that the road to Hell was paved with bishops' skulls. This is a problem that is always with us.)
  • Israel is a genocidal state, and Hamas is following Islam to the letter (Regarding Islam: That's what you get when you worship the Moon and murder people. Otherwise, nope, sorry. Know that a little over 7 million Israeli citizens are Jews, with around 2,080,000 people who are Israeli citizens being Arabs, whether Muslim or Christian or whatever. If Israel was "genocidal", none of these would exist: hence, it is not genocidal. This I cannot emphasize enough. If one cannot be scrupulous in telling the truth in one thing, who will trust them saying anything else? [Yes, Gaza, Gaza, Gaza; but that's an entire article by itself.])
  • Zionism is Satanic (That just gives insane fuel to every radical Muslim who wants to kill all the Jews on Earth. And 100s of millions of Muslims want to do just that. Christians do not want to kill Jews and Jews do not want to kill Christians. Muslims want to liquidate both. The bottom line is simple: Should God not be with Zionism, as many hyper-Orthodox rabbis argue He is not, then it will fail. Gamaliel would state that. On the other hand, if they ever start rebuilding the Temple, we can expect Armageddon, from any number of different angles.)
  • Any bishop who works against Tradition is doing the work of Satan (Vatican II bishops have disregarded Tradition; Tradition is defined by St. Paul in First Corinthians, chapters 11 and 15. So, this is painfully obvious.)
  • Popesplainers suffer from cult-like psychology and metaphysically view the pope like Muslims view Allah — he can contradict himself and change his will at any time (Yep. Yet YOU accept Bergoglio as pope, too. That's simply crazy.)
  • People who want to force you to get vaccinated are perverts who want to stick you with something that you don’t want in your body (Definitely.)
  • Evolution is a Gnostic creation myth that has no support from sound natural science and any Catholic “apologist” who promotes it is doing the work of the Devil, whether he knows it or not (Evolution is a lot of things, and all of them are bad.)
  • Come on guys, I say these things on a routine basis on my podcast, it shouldn’t be so hard to say at least one of these things.
AnP again:
Well, I've listed them, with my comments. FWIW.

 Pax vobiscum.
  An Préachán



Wednesday, January 31, 2024

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

Friends,

Spot Quiz
City of Dis 'Low' School

You are a Modernist Catholic if you think:

1. Sex-related sin is sin, but not as bad as spiritual pride, voting conservative, or loving Trump.
2. Sex-related anything isn't sin at all. It's an expression of who you are, and the only "sin" is NOT engaging in your carnal fantasies.
3. Better it would be for the entire world to end tonight than another sin to occur.

Answers
1. You're a Vatican II Catholic; but you're obviously slipping behind the times.
2. You're a Bergoglian Synodal Church "Catholic". Just don't tie your shoes anywhere near Cardinal Fernández.
3. You're a Traditional, orthodox Catholic; you can find your mugshot on "Open Season" hunting posters near any mainstream church.

Amici,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 68 Douay-Rheims (69 in Protestant Bibles)
Verse 20ff: Thou knowest my reproach, and my confusion, and my shame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   An Préacán


Friday, January 12, 2024

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




Tuesday, January 9, 2024

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

Amici,

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

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

First of all, words can barely express the contempt I have for this Simian Dystopic Duo of Begoglio and "Kissy", a spiritual orangutan and his pet baboon. Yesterday's revelation is that "Tucho" – Bergoglio's chief doctrinal sheriff and Flying Monkey in Chief – wrote a scurrilous and blasphemous book involving certain aspects of human carnal activity, some of the "research" derived from a 16-year-old girl. Fernández has now admitted he wrote the book but would not write it now. Oh, really? No celibate loyal to his vows could know this stuff, and no remotely true-believing clergyman would dare even think of writing such filth. (The news about the 16-year-old girl by itself should get him fired.)
N.B. This is Alfred Kinsey-level depravity. Kinsey was one of the original "sexologists" back in the 1950s, but Kinsey himself was a sexual deviant and his "research" was utterly flawed, taking place mainly among prisoners and the carnally disturbed. Kinsey, and his "work" was utter trash, but it influenced the "Sexual Revolution" that swept through the 1960s and '70s, the decades that formed both Bergoglio and then later, Fernández. All this makes Fernández Kinsey's imp. (Both imp and baboon! "Kissy" is a real winner.)

Dopamine and Physical Reality
Fernández's idea postulated that this carnal activity allows heightened spiritual awareness, such as the Mystics wrote about, and therefore was good. Even sacred or holy. Truth is, certain carnal behavior releases dopamine, a neurotransmitter that sends messages to nerve cells, and it often causes pleasurable feelings. It is essential on various levels, and helps physiologically in certain human traits (ability to plan, to strive, to find things interesting). Dopamine is like a drug causing pleasure, like magic mushrooms or LSD or I dunno, whatever. And addictive aspect exists with it, as it does with adrenaline (also involved here). It in no way causes true spiritual experiences, any more than mushrooms or marijuana could. Biologists say it makes carnal activity pleasurable so that we are more likely to reproduce ourselves.
  • So, something as prosaically natural as the urge for animals to reproduce is used by Fernández and who knows how many others to "make up" or constitute a religious experience, but only involves an actually naturally occurring chemical reaction. Fernández's basic idea, then, is utter bunk. 
  • And it is blasphemous, arguing that God can be found in natural chemical reactions in the body, especially ones involving sin. I've seen one blogger, "Alphonsus", make the comment at a LifesiteNews article that this insults the Blessed Virgin Mary, who certainly didn't need or experience any of this to have the closest relationship with God of anyone in all created existence. Spot on.
  • And it struck me that not only was he right, but also how so very Muslim this nonsense is. Islam teaches that the afterlife, the Garden of Allah, consists of nothing but men romping through harems of virgins every day, and that is "Heaven". And indeed, Islam teaches that Muhammad resides there in Allah's Garden with innumerable females, AND that he daily rapes the Blessed Virgin Mary. (I am not making that up.)
How are Fernández's sick fancies any more demented than that? In fact, they are kin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen to that.

  An Préachán



Saturday, January 6, 2024

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