Did Trump Betray Us re: Abortion? Women certainly betray themselves...

Amici,

Did Trump Betray Us re: Abortion? As abortion is such a horrific evil, the short answer is Morally, yes. But then the longer answer is politically not quite – or not immediately – when you cold-heartedly consider that "politics is the art of the possible."

Unfortunately, Trump keeps digging his own political grave. He took just the bait and answered an abortion question that will kill him with Pro-Lifers: he said he would not sign a federal abortion ban if it reaches his desk. See Lifesitenews for details. This is an "unforced error" since any federal abortion ban is impossible politically in the foreseeable future. What a fool Trump is. No conservative American politician speaks "unscripted" about abortion. Ever. Such called-out questions are traps.

Abortion should be banned outright, of course, but politically in the United States, that can't be done – not without another Civil War at least – that's the Democrats for you: they build up an evil like slavery or abortion till the only way to fight it is to fight it, literally. But then, that's what they want you to say so their "Deep State" can arrest you for threatening violence.

Consider: the U.S.A. has two parties, although they're basically a UniParty, and more or less alike in a great many ways, and nowadays under the control of U.S. Intelligence Bureaucracies. Regarding abortion, though, one wing of this UniParty is willing to restrict abortion a lot more than the other wing – more or less; recently a lot less. The other wing, the Democrats, unabashedly now want abortion up to birth, and even after. Thus, as a pro-Lifer, I have to vote for the side that is more willing to restrict it; I cannot (and have never) voted for the other side.

• HOWEVER, I am no fool, either. Abortion politically is like slavery. As John Daniel Davidson so eloquently points out here. The American nation cannot exist half abortion and half pro-Life. It will become all one or all the other, just as with slavery. We see that happening in "red state" Ohio and Kansas. Davidson's essay is a fascinating and insightful article well worth the time to read.

The 2024 Election

Well, in terms of "normal" American politics, former President Donald Trump looks to be winning the 2024 presidential campaign, except for the fact that the Democrats will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to keep him from swearing in January 20, 2025. Remember: the American election system is completely unstable. Election theft and fraud remain endemic to it. Since Jack Kennedy stole the election in 1960 from the feckless Richard Nixon, we've actually had a number of true coup d'états: Kennedy by the gun (two Kennedys, actually, if you remember RFK), Nixon by lawfare (remember "Watergate"?), Reagan – almost by the gun a few months after his inauguration, and by lawfare rendering him impotent in his second term (remember "Iran-Contra"?) – and so on and so forth, till Trump's first term, where The Powers That Be tried to render him impotent via lawfare (remember "Russian Collusion"?, and then they finally brazenly stole the 2020 election. (And have you never noticed how no one tried to assassinate Carter, Clinton, or Obama? Gee, how curious. The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton over a carnal escapade, but the Democrats impeached Trump what, three times – once for a phone call?) So, with a record like that, and with all the unbridled lawfare against Trump, we can expect disaster this November.

And now maybe Trump himself has shot himself in the foot over abortion. Now multiple times, as noted above. Pro-lifers across the nation groan in true heartache. In the process, though, did Trump really betray all the pro-Lifers who have supported him through all the devilish hell he's been subjected to? Or is he the Machiavellian politician – as was Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's opponent – just trying to win? See Lifesitenews for details of Trump's new abortion position (if you're not already sick of this). Trump has a stubborn streak. Note that he's never admitted the rush to Covid vaccines was a disaster. Despite the growing evidence, he won't budge on that. But now he won't budge on his pro-abortion positions that he is staking out.

First thing to consider and weigh in the scales is that the Democrats, i.e. the party who booed God at their convention years ago, the Left, the Communists and godless hoards galore who have completed their "long march" (the term is Mao's) through our institutions and academies, have won the propaganda war – largely but not entirely – on abortion. 

1. Tens of millions of women seem to regard killing a child as absolutely untouchable. And I mean, they are adamant about baby killing as were the terrible Erinyes, the Furies of Ancient Greece.
   
2. Any politician who wants to ban abortion will be defeated, and most politicians on the Right who even bring limiting it up get lambasted by the mainstream media (a.k.a., the Democrats' lap dogs). Therefore, Republicans are backing off of abortion, as John Zmirak astutely explains in this column. So it is that Trump probably thinks, "Why should I stick my neck out?"
   
3. Yet abortion as a universal carte blanc right, as in France? We've come a very long way from Bill Clinton's infamous call in 1992 for making abortion "safe, legal, and rare", that's for sure. No Democrat today could repeat Clinton's line without being ripped to threads by the pagan furies that seem to possess Leftist women, and many not so leftist women.
   
4. The Left has spent, and will spend, immeasurable oceans of money to promote "Women's Reproductive Rights", and pump money into red states like Ohio and Kansas to garner state constitutional changes mandating unlimited abortion (and also bring on "gay rights" and "sex change" and so on). It is as though the Supreme Court ruling opened Pandora's bag (yep, Panni had a bag, not a box.)  
5. It's obvious that abortion has become the spear point the godless use to pierce the hearts of millions, especially women, regarding the sanctity of life, turning living hearts into stone. "Who among you would give your children a stone if they asked for bread?" Well, today, they stone 'em to death, just kill them, or mutilate their young bodies. 
6. Just as with slavery by 1860, abortion has gone beyond any sort of civil discourse now. Beyond civil discourse, or even rational discourse. It's taken on quasi-religious tones; indeed, it is the worship of Moloch, Ba'al, and Satan in the technological age.
   

Trump the Fool

Against this seeming juggernaut from Hell, Trump plays by its rules. All Trump had to do in terms of callow political expedience was stop soon after he started on his abortion statement. Yes, were he not going to remain 100 percent pro-life, he should have begun as he started out: i.e., abortion is now, thanks to the Supreme Court, a states-right issue. He did start with this. Then he should have stopped and said: "I'm not running for governor of a state, but as president of the nation, and as a nation we have absolute Armageddon hanging over us economically, Armageddon in a fight against Communism within our own Federal government, and obviously Armageddon with our insane foreign wars! We need to focus on those national issues first and foremost."

All of that is desperately true. How hard would that have been?

• That should have been that. But no. Trump brought up Democrat talking points, like the infamous "rape, incest, or health of the mother" smoke and mirror. It's a fraud. Had he had to open his mouth on that, he could have said regarding "rape, incest, health of the mother", that that's for the states to work out in their legislatures. But no, he had to endorse those "exceptions".
  
• That's a grotesque cop out, as well. Donald John Trump should meet and have a long, long talk with Rebecca Kiessling, a woman, a lawyer, a pro-life fighter, who was conceived via a rape. Watch her profound eight-minute presentation here. Donald Trump, you should be ashamed. Political expedience or no.
  
• In terms of IVF, Trump has actually endorsed it! IVF is the artificial fertilization system that creates dozens of fertilized eggs/zygotes in order to produce ONE child, Trump should have been honest and declare, "I don't know much about this and I'll have to research it for myself, in terms of science and religion. When I know what I'm talking about, I'll form an opinion." 

Simple. Again, simple re: political expedience. Morally lame in the extreme.

Abortion is absolute evil, and we are nowhere near getting it banned

Now, obviously, my Machiavellian-inspired suggestions above would be a "cop out". A political dodge. It's what Stephen Douglas tried 150 years ago. Machiavellian maneuvering to get elected. Morally, abortion remains an absolute evil. One stands either appalled by abortion, sickened, horrified, and want it to end, or one can say he's uncaring about it, or one is a worshiper of Moloch (like so many Leftists in the world and Democrats in America) to the loss of one's soul. Those are the three options. No others exist.

Many pro-Lifers say we have to elect Trump, or the country is lost. I tend to do that myself because it is true, but then, what kind of country would we be saving? An abortion horror? A narcissistic nirvana of stunted "juveniles for life"? Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0?

• Abortion is the only crime where the absolutely innocent one gets the death sentence. Also, fully 97 percent of all abortions, it is said, occur BEFORE 15-weeks. Mainly are now done chemically; i.e. "the morning after pill". This little factoid is crucial to understand because it shows how pointless the Left's manipulation of Conservative politicians is: they don't do it to "keep abortion legal" at all, they fight this fight to manipulate women and win elections. The whole thing is one big fraud.
  

IVF

And finally, Trump highly touts the execrable IVF method with creates extra zygotes then kills them (after freezing them).

That, readers, is not merciful. It's the height of narcissism. Yes, it is. Think about it. I feel very sorry for couples (and yes, I mean a married man and woman!) who cannot have kids. Any healthy person would feel sorry. But what person possessing any sort of moral mind or with a moral soul at all wants to have ten or twelve kids just to "harvest' one of them? That's sick in the extreme. Purely diabolical. That's like killing babies to test drugs, etc. 'For the greater good, many must die." Bovine guano.

And Trump covered himself in it. Was he ever truly pro-life? He was a pro-abortion Democrat for most of his life. Did he have a real conversion? God knows, and God will pass the judgment. 

Clearly, everyone can see that Biden won't last even the summer, let alone to November, and that Kamala Harris is a complete idiot. (That's been proven again and again out of her own mouth. And her uncontrollable laughter is freakish. And unnerving.) The Democrats will replace them when expedient. But whoever they run for the presidency, he or she will be "more of the same" as Biden and Harris. Thus we find ourselves between Scylla and Charybdis. If Trump isn't elected, the country is finished. Yes, but again, what country would be saved, really?

Then there's the women who make abortion possible

Do not mistake me. Women are easily manipulated by men. Worthless, immoral men want cheap carnal "full-body contact with women" and for the past 100 years have worked on women's self image to get it. Abortion exists almost solely because guys want to carnally take advantage of gals, and pay no penalty. Read that sentence again. It's part of the over-all contraceptive culture that is hollowing out our civilization. That's why men scientists developed "the Pill" in the first place. Women test subjects DIED in testing it. But they sold it as a "freeing" of women, a "liberation" of women. But that was all a lie. It enslaves women to endless male predation.

Nowadays, abortion owes a lot of its unshakable, iron-clad position in America (and Europe, etc.) to the support of women. Unmarried women tend to be Leftist anyway, and then again, married "soccer moms" have tended to vote Democrat because that party cynically cries up the poor and downtrodden and supports abortion, as well. American Jews have traditionally voted Democrat for protection from what they saw as an aggressive Christian culture; women vote Democrat because they are taught to feel like a threatened minority, as well.

1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt owed his second to fourth elections largely to women who voted for "that handsome, feline man". 
2. And of course he flooded the country with bureaucrats to "look after" everyone. 
3. Women elected FDR the second time in 1936, when his policies had left the country in a worse state than when he came in. (Women, and the Republicans, who ran utter non-entities against him.)
4. Women elected Jack Kennedy (voted for him enough that he only had to steal the vote in Illinois), and women voted for Bill Clinton and Obama, the "Metrosexual".
   
5. And today, Democrats keep harping on the "Alpha-Male" Donald Trump and what a threat to women he is. (Anyone who knows Trump knows this is not true, except maybe per aborting them.)
   

Women and the State

Also, many women tend to vote for "the state", a paternal state that promises to look after them and their children; see this excellent Ann Barnhardt essay here. There's also this. 

Now, of course, the country has millions of sane women, conservative women, patriotic women. And a Catholic author, Kimgerly Begg, writes about them and why they tend to "give in" to peer pressure here: Survey: Most Young Women Hold Conservative Beliefs But Hide Them. I recommend this very thoughtful article; it is fascinating.

Conclusion

But this is our situation. Because worthless miserable Leftist godless men, ruthless ideologues and narcissistic hedonists, have been manipulating women ceaselessly for generations so that women tend to vote against their own self-interests. Again, it is much like Jews who reflexively vote for Democrats. Now, the flood of "tranny" men who insist on pushing women out of sports and gyms and toilets and even redefine the female sex entirely may finally drive home to women how wretched their conditioning has been. Maybe. Maybe not. The incredibly blatant antisemitism that's everywhere now might get Jews' attention, too. Maybe. Maybe not.

Truly, everything is such a mess that only a full return to God can save what's left of our civilization. But where is the Roman Catholic Church? Read that John Zmirak article linked to above for that. It ain't pretty. And our situation is dire.

AnP

 

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

Friends,

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

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

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

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

How did this situation develop?

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

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

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

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

Benedict's Fall

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

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

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

Schism from all that

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

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

Perception, Perception, Perception

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

  An Preáchán

"Prophecy will take care of itself." Re: The Mission of Divine Mercy

Friends,

A recent essay of mine mentioned the prophecies of that group in Texas – the Mission of Divine Mercy – who claims to be receiving messages from the B.V.M. See one of the Lifesitenews articles here. 

And the local bishop, a notorious Modernist infamous for shutting down a Catholic family retreat center, squashed them for it. A number of commentators told me "they lost me" when I brought this up and that John-Henry Westen should be ashamed of giving space to them. The Mission of Divine Mercy has been receiving prophecies for 30 years or something but is only now making them known. Or so they say.

In a return comment, I wrote that "Prophecy takes care of itself" is the old saying. Whether the prophet is a prophet will be seen, and soon enough. The Church is disintegrating as we look at it, and nothing and no one seems to be able to stop Bergoglio, or whoever is running the show. (A Freemasonry committee? A Communist junta? Atheists R-Us?) John-Henry Westen is desperate. That desperation is he published these prophecies and why the bishop squashed the revelations: they were on target. They'll squash Fatima and the other accepted revelations soon enough, as well. Bet on it. Yet the Church's situation is an exact parallel with the U.S. government devolution into tyranny. Exact.

If it is a true prophecy, it will happen whether we note it or not; if it is not a true prophecy, it will fade away and be forgotten – unless, of course, the "Usurper" finishes off the Church. Whether a true prophecy or not, however, as I've been arguing for years, Bergoglio is obviously an usurper who has been allowed to sit on the throne of St. Peter. 

You don't need a prophecy to see that. 

Just common sense. 

AnP  

What Is Love? Follow up on Scott Hahn and "She's not your girlfriend".

Friends,

Following up on my earlier criticism of Professor Scott Hahn's assertion in the Mass of the Ages 3 movie that every bishop in the world should "fall in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary", I received a number of comments that make me realize "What is love?" is a question that first must be answered in order to understand how cloyingly mawkish, just plainly over-  sentimental, Hahn's comment is. 

• But first of all, please note he is speaking of bishops using their full Apostolic powers. In my original essay, I reported Hahn as saying, “All bishops and priests ought to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.” 
• I have now watched the MOTA3 movie, and at 39 minutes in, Prof Hahn's full quote is, "I think bishops need to really stretch themselves to move from the natural to the supernatural. The bishops ought to be in persona Christi in a way that corresponds to Vatican II defined as the plenitude of holy orders. They ought to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's the only safe way they can lead us."

A bit of a jump there, a bit tangled too, though now I understand his comment in context. (And for me, any reliance on anything Vatican II produces an immediate headache.)

Yet my initial observation in my original critique STILL stands: I wrote then that the majority of (at least the Western World's) bishops are chosen for their "hard-nosed" unbelief in the supernatural. All of Vatican II, especially the Novus Ordo Mass, is a desacralization of the Faith. That was exactly what the 16th century Reformation was, and Vatican II is exactly that revolution come again. In other words, the Modern Church Catholics who don't know what the Eucharist is regarding the Real Presence, they are a FEATURE of the Vatican II Church, not a BUG!

All this is because a non-Catholic "junta" or "deep state" runs the modern Church, and has done so since Pope John XXIII let his people he chose to manage the Vatican II Council be removed when the Council opened and "young Turks" took over.

This is self-evidently obvious. To deny it is to go cross-eyed with cognitive dissonance. And I mean that. The junta running the Church since the '60s has never relented in its goals. It wants no-nonsense materialist financial and "bottom-line" managers; it does not want "men of Faith". That's why Bergoglio dumped Bishop Strickland (and others): they obviously believed. That's why Benedict was deposed (and he was deposed.) That's why the Vat 2 junta remains at war with the Traditional Latin Mass: that ancient liturgy creates and inspires believers. Ergo, they want it G.O.N.E.

 

So, with that observation reinforced, I also note again how cartoonish, written in thick crayon and felt, like decorations for kindergarten, Prof Hahn's statement is. Therefore, here's a quick discussion of what love actually is.

Love

First of all: love, real love, is to "will the good of another", and it is to will their good without demanding or even wanting a return on that investment. Fr Ripperger so defines it in one of his online talks. How simple, how direct. And so of course the Vatican II Church never uses it. 

Christians use the Greek word "agápē" for this love. It was a Greek word originally employed as just a generic term, and Christians used it to denote their new love revelation: God is love. This sort of "real" love is different fundamentally from other kinds of love. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."; John 3:16. Translate that as "For God so willed the good of the human race and His creation that He gave Himself...". 

Love in English

In English, we can say anything from "I love you" to a spouse or a child, or "I love ice-cream" or "I love the old Twilight Zone show" or "I love baseball" to "I love God" or "I love my country". The Greeks had a different word for each of those. Many languages invest in different words precisely to avoid confusion. But English doesn't. The word "like" is no substitute: "I like ice-cream" is quite different from "I love ice-cream." But idiomatic phrases like "fall in love" specifically refer to romantic love, and that's the phrasing Scott Hahn used. Note he used "hopelessly". That's clearly used of romantic love.

But romantic love is the cheapest and silliest of all "loves". It didn't exist for most human beings for most of the human history. There's an old joke about a Greek and an Italian arguing over who had the better civilization. For every thing the Greek came up with, the Italian had something to match it. "We created democracy" said the Greek. "We had a republic" the Italian countered. "We had the Parthenon" said the Greek. "We had the Pantheon" said the Italian. Finally, the Greek boasted, "You must admit, though, that it was we Greeks who created romantic love." The Italian thought for a bit and countered, "Yeah, OK, I'll have to admit that. But you have to admit one tiny fact about it." "Oh," said the Greek, "and what is that?" The Italian said, "We Italians first gave it to women."

This is funny precisely because it is true. What we call romantic love was a homoerotic creation, first by the Ancient Greeks, and later by the Muslims of Moorish Spain, where it was transferred via the Cathar heresy to Southern France and the famous troubadours. Only later did it become a standard affectation of average people. And of course, fiction writers and playwrights like Shakespeare made it a nearly de jure icon men and women were supposed to experience.

Maybe Scott Hahn didn't intend for his comment to be read this way, but he's supposed to be a professor, a knowledgeable man. As I wrote in the original essay, "We Catholics have the problem of too few men in the Catholic world. The world itself has that problem."

And so it is. The most important types of love: i.e. married spousal love, parental love, patriotic love, can never be just strong emotion and "desire". It HAS to be rational, founded in Faith in God's Creation and in the Will, and it must be selfless, a product of the rational mind, as the soul is itself rational. We get our emotions from our bodies, rationality from our souls. It's our bodies that get all passionately "love crazy." Careless "idiomatic usage" does NOT help clarify all this. 

AnP

She's the August Mother of God, Scott Hahn. She's NOT your girlfriend!

Amici,

Why are modern Catholic men such saps? Sappy. Dopey. Squishy. Too many of them – and I refer to the non-degenerate, non–perverted actual men, still act sappy. "Gushing." Just not very masculine – not remotely.

Example: In an article at his padre peregrino blog, Fr. David Nix wrote a bit about the new Mass of the Ages movie, or MOTA3. He says in the article:

'But the most moving line [in the film] came from Dr. Scott Hahn. Hahn rarely weighs in on politics, but in reference to the Church crisis, Hahn said the only answer was for “all bishops to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.” I think he is exactly correct: Imagine if every priest and bishop in the world “fell in hopeless love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.”'

I wanted to shout at the computer, "She's the August Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. The greatest created being in all existence! She embraced every suffering God assigned to her AND to her Son without the slightest demure. She's NOT your girlfriend!"

How sappy can you get? First of all, most bishops in the world, and a very large proportion of priests, are apostates. Or perhaps they never believed to begin with. Time will reveal yourself to yourself if you let it do so. They have allowed an absolute monster and papal imposter root and rut and spiritually (and not so spiritually) rape his way through Holy Mother Church for the past eleven years. John-Henry Westen seems to agree. Yes, he most certainly has. And many of them knew what Bergoglio was in the beginning! Read this description of Bergoglio from eleven years ago. Bergoglio the Tyrant has fulfilled all the predictions made of him there in that article.

So even remotely imagining that bishops and priests who don't believe to begin with can "fall in love" with God's Mother is senseless from a purely pragmatic angle. How much more sappy – and indeed, creepy – it is in and of itself the way Hahn expresses it. Do you "fall in love" with your own mother? Hahn is talking romantic love, that unmistakable. It's sick, but it is also revealing. 

So often so much of Vatican II-era Catholicism is sappy, mawkish, juvenile, silly, sentimental and shallow. Very little "mainstream" Traditional commentary seems written by grown-ups, by the spiritually adult. No wonder tens of millions of Catholics have left the Church since all things Vatican II manifested, because since then everything seems wrought in children's fat crayon and cheap polyester. Its art is cartoonish – very much in the pathetic style of that rapist favorite of Bergoglio's, Marko Rupnik's – and its theology is tasteless baby food that babies would reject. I was recently in a modernist Catholic church shaped like a "cow patti", a lump of manure in a pasture, and was being showed around. Same sick Rubnik-like "art" but they also had a totally creeped-out statue of Padre Pio, life-size, standing on a stair corner, sculpted like he was coming forward to grab you with both arms, his face frozen in an "evil-clown" grin. It actually made me jump. How utterly, utterly opposite anything the actual saint represented!

Scott Hahn, a professor, a Ph.D. teacher of theology, often seems just like this. So does his University of Steubenville, which for decades was a Catholic "holy-roller" hothouse. (I've been to a couple of Catholic "Charismatic" events over the years, dragged along by friends: nothing, I repeat nothing, is more fake and pathetic.)

Now, decades ago I used to read and listen (via tapes) to a lot of Scott Hahn. He comes across as a "nice guy" in the earnest American fashion, and has had some good theological insights, especially regarding "Covenant Theology"; but I now understand Hahn to also be Opus Dei. As far as I am concerned, Opus Dei is a cult, more Freemason than Catholic, certainly so in its cult-like secrecy and manipulation more than any regular Catholic order ever remotely was – except the Templars. Like the modern-day Jesuits, it needs squished out of existence.

But Hahn in his old age is certainly acting the gushy, sappy contemporary Catholic man here in this movie, from what I can tell. And the "insight" Fr. Nix praises him for I find mawkish and cloying. Little boy-like. A living Rupnik cartoon with more human eyes, as it were.

We Catholics have the problem of too few men in the Catholic world. The world itself has that problem. Look at the average American political leader (Trump being an exception, and thus loathed) or European leaders (Emmanuel Macron or Olaf Scholz, for example) and compare them to Vladimir Putin. You may hate Putin, but he's a man's man, at least. Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyła, was very much a man's man. Review his life. Amazing what he went through. And he single-handedly made the Vatican II Church seem at least plausible – for a while. (I believe Hahn initially converted after being inspired by JPII.) Compare him to Paul VI, very much the emotional effeminate "metrosexual" type we are inundated with today.

What Our Mother needs

The Blessed Virgin Mary, the August Queen of Heaven and Seat of Wisdom, Mother of Our Eternal Lord and King Jesus Christ, doesn't need boyfriends or cloying teen "groupies". She needs sons who will put on the armor of God and do battle for her and her Son. But the time seems to have run out. Review this prophetic article from John-Henry Westen.

As Anthony Stine says, get to Confession as soon as possible, or at least make a serious act of contrition. The Ides of March, after all, are come.

  An Préachán

Important article about what disasters Americans can expect this year

Friends,

When the handwriting appears on the wall, you'd better take it seriously.

The article is 'America’s Destruction and the Ghosts of Revolutions Past', by Vince Coyner at American Thinker. And see also this article, which is another version of the same idea. Highly readable. I encourage all Americans and Europeans of good will to read both. Even if this shocking revelation was based on the Soviet agent Bezmenov, and even if he had somehow been a double-agent/"disinformationist", what he described many decades ago is just too mirror to what we're experiencing now. Handwriting on the wall, indeed.

In the article linked, Coyner writes about one Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet Defector from obviously before the USSR fell, who explained in detail the KGB's plan to bring down the U.S.A. It dovetails exactly what we're experiencing today. This has all been long planned and we can expect an American Armageddon, most likely before this year is out. Further below, I suggest how the sequence of events might play out. It will be bloody, at the very least.

For myself, I notice how closely what's happening affirms the prophesies of the Blessed Mother over these past many years and decades, and I always thought it just too coincidental that the Second Vatican Council, which ran from October 11 1962 to December 8, 1965, occurred simultaneously with upheavals in the U.S.A.'s government. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred between October 16 to 28 of 1962, and the American CIA used Vietnamese military bosses to assassinate South Vietnam's Catholic president (cum dictator) Ngô Đình Diệm on November 2, 1963, and (quasi-Catholic) Jack Kennedy himself on November 22 of the same year, with the insane and utterly corrupt Lyndon Johnson thereafter sending U.S. regular ground forces into Vietnam. Fifteen months later, on March 8, 1965, 3,500 Marines of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed to protect an American airbase at Da Nang. Some 20,000 American military advisors were in Vietnam by that time, and 400 Americans were already dead.

Vatican II only ended in December of 1965.

Then we suffered an endlessly stupid war – look, I challenge anyone to read a Korean War history, say Max Hastings' The Korean War, An Epic Conflict 1950-1963, and tell me that after what they obviously learned at GREAT COST from that fiasco, why we were then entering into an even WORSE scenario in Vietnam only a dozen years later. You can't. It was insane. Utter madness. 

• Lyndon Johnson made a killing, however, off his fat Defense Contract kickbacks. (The famous Huey helicopter – Bell UH-1 Iroquois – was made by a crony of his in Texas, Larry Bell, who had courted Johnson early on in Johnson's congressional rise – precisely, as Bell himself said, to get lucrative government contracts, Bell Helicopter became one of "Johnson's Companies" profiteering hugely from the Vietnam War.) 
• It took no less an individual than Dwight Eisenhower to (secretly but clearly) threaten the Chinese and Russians with nuclear war in order to get them in their turn to force the North Koreans to negotiate.

Anyway, again, notice the parallels? Utter social and political and cultural chaos erupted in the U.S. during the later 1960s and early 1970s exactly mirrored in the concurrent religious, theological, and faith crisis in the Catholic Church. Afterward, John Paul II and Ronald Reagan seemed to restore a bit of sanity to both Church and Country, though subsequent to them, the rot returned until we wallow in the Satanic madness of Bergoglio and Biden.

Clearly, none of this is happenstance. Simultaneously, Communism's greatest secular enemy and its greatest religious enemy are both crippled exactly when they are so desperately needed the most? We all know of the dire warnings about Communist infiltration in the administrations of both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Also important to know are the revelations Bella Dodd publicized about Communist infiltration on the Catholic Church; Dodd testified to the Joe McCarthy HUAC committee in the 1950s, and wrote about it in her book "School of Darkness", while today a new book on this, titled "The Devil and Bella Dodd: One Woman's Struggle Against Communism and Her Redemption" (2022). And some of you might remember an earlier book, "Good-bye Good Men", which charts a dolorous tale indeed.

So, all this is some coincidence, all right.

Possible Scenario 2024

Below are my very pessimistic predictions for 2024. I'll give one caveat now: everything that's happening points to some combination of events developing as below, yet I hope and pray there exist enough Patriots in the U.S. to fight what's coming. The federal and state "Deep State" security combines definitely think there is. Should a true shoot out start, myself, I'd bet on the Patriots, except for Point 7 below. That's the kicker. The tie-breaker. The unimaginable. So, we'll see.

Assuming President Trump gets to November 5 alive, what with his recent primary wins showing him to be a popular vote juggernaut, the Democrat-Communists will try to steal the election to prevent him from taking office. They may be able to do so, and the feckless Republican Party (Establishment-branch) hate Trump and seem to be sitting on their hands.

1. But before the election actually occurs, there's 110 percent chance of more race riots, à la George Floyd/summer of 2016. These will be much stronger this time, and with Democrat-Communists in control, not the federalist-minded Donald Trump, martial law might get declared with the election "postponed", as in Ukraine recently. Any excuse to postpone it will do: banking crisis, etc.
   
2. Or a new mass "contagion" might be declared, as well. Same result as with Covid: Lockdown: Vote counting fraud. People isolated and driven from their jobs.
   
3. If they can steal it, they'll strengthen their police state grip on power (that's one reason to let in millions of ignorant illegals, to turn the entire U.S. into one-party California).
   
4. If they can't actually pull off a steal this time, and should the Democrats be in control of Congress in January 2025, they shall do a Jan 6 2021 in actuality and refuse to verify that Trump won the election. Tables turned.
   
5. Conversely, if the Republicans manage to hold on to the House of Representatives, look for the RINOs to side with the Democrat-Communists to not verify Trump's election. Believe me, they can't wait for that betrayal if they can pull it off.
   
6. If either option 4 or 5 eventuate, expect the Democrats and the media to whip up the fury of average Americans into large protests, which will give the Junta (whoever is actually running the country) the excuse for martial law.
7. The Elephant in the Room For each of these levels, foreign mercenaries are ready to deploy and seize control of the U.S.A., including its nuclear arsenal from the current feckless "Woke" military. Remember: the Democrats-Communists have imported 30 million or more illegal aliens under Biden, over 10 million of which, maybe 15-20 million, are military-aged men. Chinese, Iranian, Latin Americans, you name it. We really don't know how many they are, and have released them to roam about freely. Expect this mob to suddenly show up armed and ready to seize the works, especially a good part of the nuclear arsenal. With that Armageddon weapon in their pocket, how can we fight them? They can blackmail the entire nation into abject servitude.
   
8. If the question was who would win between the feckless, feral masses of the Blue cities, using Antifa idiots and Black Lives Matter thugs, and a Tranny military that has sent all its ammo to the Ukraine, the average Americans would soon win. There's at least a 100 million of us. No question. But if the Democrat-Communists unleash a terror army, their "Sardaukar" terror troops – and of course they're going to grab the nukes; they'd be fools not to – then they win.
   

Addendum A: Notice how George Soros has been buying up U.S. radio stations? Naturally he would because the radio station is the first thing a junta takes over when they seize power. It makes perfect sense for them to do so now.

Addendum B: Something not often thought about: Mass starvation. Food delivery will soon cease to the Blue cities. (To any urban areas of any size, of course.) I think even now large urban areas, especially those that are "war zones', have only a week's supply of food on hand. If that. Any sort of food delivery interruption will begin the starvation of tens of millions. They shall try to swarm locust-like out of the cities, only to be killed by rural people or the mercenaries.

Addendum C: I know it sounds insane, but many "signs of the times" exist. For example, the super rich of all stripes are building retreats and underground bunkers, state-of-the-art, in Hawaii and many other remote places. If the bad guys win, then (whatever type of Communist they are) they will kill all the idiot super-rich, cement their bunkers shut, or pour gasoline and then grenades down air shafts. They also certainly kill the "Useful Idiots" (Lenin's term) for the "fellow-travelers"; i.e. the Trannies, the Gays, the Black Lives Matter people, certainly Antifa. Democrats and RINOs of all sorts will be high on that death list. Lenin and Mao stood theirs against the wall and shot them once they no longer needed them. All of those Red-Guard, true-believing Commie students of Mao's "Cultural Revolution". All of them. No quarter. Expect no less now.

So much for my guessing. Read the articles, think for yourself, and prepare as best you can.

        AnP

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

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 here. It 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

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

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