The New Dubia and St. Paul's opening to the Galatians

 Amici,

Five Cardinals have issued a new Dubia to Bergoglio. They first wrote a letter and when "Tucho" Fernández responded in Bergoglio's name, they formally arranged their questions into the "Yes or No" Dubia format and re-issued them publicly. They're still waiting for an answer.

How hard is this? 

St. Paul himself laid it out as plain as it can be. 

From Galatians 1, starting at verse 6:

• 6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
• 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
• 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
• 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
• 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
• 11 For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
• 12 For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

All this is obvious. It's "Biblically obvious." Bergoglio is promoting, and has promoted, has never ceased to promote, a "gospel of man;" it is not the real Gospel. 

What more needs to be said? "Pope Francis" is anathema. Since his "election" (an installation, of course) a decade ago, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has shown he is only interested in teaching another Gospel. The first set of Dubia questions asked Bergoglio directly whether he was a heretic or not. He just ignored them. Chances are he will ignore these, or get the loathsome "Tucho" Fernández to do his usual verbal snake dance. Either way, Bergoglio is anathema. Can't we all quote St. Paul's Galatians opening together? "I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel."

Bergoglio is anathema. Period. Full stop. So why do we call him "Pope"? Why do we tolerate this farce? He has condemned himself as anathema, "accursed" or however one wants to translate "anathema".

As I have written before, and I'm sure many others have observed, nothing happens without God allowing it. God even uses the Devil to bring about the Divine Will. The Lord God is doing so with Bergoglio. "Bergi" is flaying the Vatican II Church alive, just doing a Viking "red eagle" on it, and he's got the Traditional Catholics back into the Catacombs.

Good. From this terrible trial, the True Church will emerge all the stronger and Faith-filled. Why? Because we'll realize what we're losing, what's at stake in this struggle. Bergoglio is forcing us off the fence. At last. He's closing down the Great Pilgrimage that is the Faith, tearing down the great shrines and turning the churches into shanty barns abandoned in forgotten fields. So much about Catholicism involves a losing, and then a finding again, doesn't it? Think of Our Lady of Walsingham, its loss and restoration. So it is, and will be, with the larger Church. Amen.

 An Préachán

Modern heraldic achievement

for Our Lady of Walsingham 

Ordinariate

Bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate in revolt against Bergoglio?

Beannachtaí Dé oraibh!

Friends, this is an important article (and 17-minute video) about the Bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate (of Asia and Australia, apparently) finally having enough of Anti-pope Bergoglio and his Synod on Synodality and how it is part of the homosexual mafia that runs so much of the official Church. (A pederast mafia runs much of the New World Order and World Economic Forum, too, so far as that goes. Jeffrey Epstein was the tip of a very foul iceberg of evil, you know.) The article and video is here at The Gateway Pundit. 

For some time, Cardinals Burke and Müller have been protesting that this synodal business is NOT Catholic, and the best voice against it is Archbishop Viganò's. Now the Byzantine Catholics – in some degree, at least – are calling out Bergoglio's Armageddon scheme to devastate the Church via "Synodal Councils". Basically, the heretics in the Church have been pining for a new Vatican II Council for some time, and this "synodal path" is their sly way of getting it.

The Byzantines cover a lot of this synod scheme; for example, the "German pilot project to introduce a new body, the synodal council, [which] will be extended to all territories as early as autumn 2023 and gradually until autumn 2024 as a draconian tool of the apostate Vatican." The Byzantines assert that "It will gradually eliminate true Catholic bishops by establishing a dictatorship of LGBTQ activists in the Church."

Excellent and righteous rant by the Byzantines and I encourage everyone to read it. I've not seen much about this is "the usual suspects" of Catholic news, so, we'll see. Maybe it has no official Byzantine rite sanction, yet it is a beginning. But it is time to declare a crusade against what's going on. Past time.

The Byzantines ask Catholic bishops:

"Dear bishop, successor of the apostles, how will you stand when you soon appear before God’s judgment seat? How will you justify your passivity and your neglect of authority and power entrusted to you to save the souls in your diocese and in your nation?"

How, indeed?

           AnP

Bergoglio receives Pelosi, ignores the Dobbs decision. The Ogre has "jumped the shark"

Friends,

When the Dobbs v. Jackson U.S. Supreme Court decision was announced last Thursday, June 24, it was the biggest Supreme Court decision in decades, probably since the original Roe v. Wade (that itself was subsequently followed by a decision removed what restrictions Roe had imposed (Doe v. Bolton, also 1973), and then by Casey decision (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 1992). N.B. For good review of what the Dobbs decision argued, see Margot Cleveland's comment at The Federalist in this article.

Bergoglio and Dobbs

But Bergoglio, the false, fake, fraudulent pope, the flagrant anti-pope, the Ogre, didn't publicly acknowledge it. Didn't even say, "Thank God that abortion will be at least a bit more restricted in the U.S. than it was." Didn't even say, "I heard something from the U.S." Nothing. Crickets. Actually, he response gives a new meaning to "The Sounds of Silence".

Or, at least that was so until "San Fran Nan" came to town. Nancy Pelosi visited Bergoglio in the Vatican. She went to Mass where the anti-pope was officiating, and a bevy of "con-celebrating" priests. (Sorry, I detest those clown shows.) Apparently, she received Holy Communion. In fact, her own archbishop, the Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone, back in San Francisco banned her from receiving Holy Communion mainly because of the old witch's over-the-top support of abortion. So, "Pope Francis" gives it to her. By this act, the scapegrace sticks his crozier in the eye of the archbishop Cordileone , and pretty much all Catholics everywhere who worked to stop abortion.gives it to her. (I hope the good SF archbishop has a large, private, retirement fund, and wasn't expecting to be made a Cardinal, at least in this life!)

Notice how Bergoglio has alienated one section of the Church's ranks after another. Certainly, he's gone out of his way to alienate the Trads, but also the JPII "Conservative" Catholics, and every shade in between. He's seems to actually LOATHE real Catholics, i.e. Catholics who adhere to the Faith as taught for centuries and who worship the traditional way. As I say, he does the same to middle-of-the-roaders. The only people he seems to like are the deviants and Leftist government bureaucrats.

But the anti-abortion crowd contains all kinds, every shade and hue, except the most Leftward, anti-Christian "Catholics" that exist. He's backhanded everyone but the Hard Left. He's an awfully confident ogre!

Church online commentator Taylor Marshall has an interesting take on all this here. He says Bergoglio DID indeed, comment. How? By publicly receiving that future denizen of Hell, Nancy Pelosi (in theory, she can repent, but as with Fat 'Arry 8, or a skirt-chasing manager I used to have, the more one sins the less likely a repentance can be expected), in a public Mass. Marshall is outraged. Myself, I'm too Irish and jaded. It's what I expect these evil people to do. As soon as I read about it, I said to my wife, "Of course she did; just the thing for Pelosi and Bergoglio to arrange!"

Bergoglio is evil, plain and simple, and that's obvious by his actions, regardless of whether his election was valid. Pelosi sold her soul so long ago her face already looks like it's been gone since Jack Kennedy was president. And anyone, anyone, who tells you "It doesn't matter" or some sort of "God wills it" who (or what) the "pope", smack 'em for me.

But Marshall goes on a fine rant!

12:20 in: Taylor Marshall speaking initially in a alternate voice: "Yeah, but Tailor, you're so hard on Francis." (And then in full voice) We gave him a chance. 2013, 14, 15, 16, amoris, scandals, financial, sexual, McCarrick, lies, hiding, Pachamama, restriction of the Traditional Latin Mass, restriction of traditional sacraments, suppression of beautiful, holy, cloistered nuns, suppression of budding, beautiful, traditional religious orders, (smashes right fist into left palm repeatedly). Francis is constantly, constantly beating against the life and the growth of good things in the Church. And it is absolutely shameful.

"Yeah, but Taylor, just give him..." NO! We have given him chances. He has taken off his mask. He has shown us who he is. This is his response to you, right here. (Shows photo of beaming Nancy Pelosi and crazily grinning husband being greeted by the Ogre.) (13:20)

I pray to God his shames me. He comes out with – someone in Rome watching watching this right now, show this bit to Francis right now. I pray to God he says, "You know what? I'm going to troll those Trads. I'm going to troll Taylor Marshall; I'm going to come out and praise it (Dobbs) and praise it." Please do. I would love to eat crow on it. But as of right now, Wednesday after everything has been going down, this is what we get? This is a PR stunt. It is all over social media. (14:00)

(Later) "See, you can be a devout Catholic and be pro-Abortion." That is what this is all about. That is what this is all about. Total wickedness." (16:21)

AnP again:

Yes, indeed. Total wickedness. Of all the nasty, stupid, idiotic things certain popes did historically, this has to rank with Maffeo Barberini, Pope Urban VIII, (reigned August 1623 to his death in 1644), infamous today mostly for the Galileo affair, but actually, his siding with the French and Cardinal Richelieu, who sported the Protestants in the Thirty Years War, lost the Counter-Reformation. All because Barberini hated the Habsburgs.

In something of the same vein, Bergoglio is trying to lose the entire Church. So, I suppose he's even worse than Urban VIII! "Amoris, scandals, financial, sexual, McCarrick, lies, hiding, Pachamama, restriction of the Traditional Latin Mass, restriction of traditional sacraments, suppression of beautiful, holy, cloistered nuns, suppression of budding, beautiful, traditional religious orders, (smashes right fist into left palm repeatedly). Francis is constantly, constantly beating against the life and the growth of good things in the Church." That's is the wretched Bergoglio's legacy.

Can we all finally agree that this monster is no pope? He is vile, simply vile, and intolerable. Look at his latest ploy to eradicate the Latin Mass: new papal apostolic letter Desiderio Desideravi: On the Liturgical Formation of the People of God. Read about it here at OnePeterFive. 

It just never ends with "Bergi" and his gay and Commie creatures and hangers on.

No, no, infinitely no: the Argentinian is not pope and we're no more obliged to obey him than were we members of a very conservative anti-abortion Protestant congregation, should our minister invite an abortionist politician to our church to promote abortion. We'd toss both o them out. On their ears. Regarding Pelosi, it is as Taylor Marshall put it, "Pelosi, you didn't move the needle, you pulled the level, on making abortion on demand."

Marshall ends his talk with this observation:

"We need cardinals in Rome to like Cardinal Burke, and continue admonishments and to call for a trial, a system, to address tyranny and heresy those two questions have to be resolved." (36:50) He quote the famous 16th-17th century Cardinal Bellarmine, who wrote about how to go about formally removing a bad pope, who could be removed over heresy and tyranny (and Bergoglio has racked up multiple examples of both!

But I can't see them doing it. They blew their chance. They could have smacked Bergoglio down earlier, "reigned him in" when they owned the corral, i.e. when there was more of them above ground and not in the next life. Not many of that type are left: Bergoglio has been naming reprehensible replacements at every level. All the remaining orthodox Cardinals are waiting now for Bergoglio to grunt out what's left of his life in sinful mental squalor, and they'll not try to get him to convert. They would not dare to try to save his porcine soul, miserable as that must be. No. Let him croak. They're jockeying for who to replace him.

But unless the Lord God of Hosts Himself intervenes, Bergoglio 1 will be replaced by a younger Bergoglio 2. The old devil himself has seen to that. Although I strongly suspect that by dissing the Dobbs decision in the way he has, Bergoglio has crossed a line where the next stop is true schism.

         AnP

The Heresy of Modernism, and Catholic Progressivism, Explained

As the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church slides ever deeper into chaos, and Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider enjoin us to fast, it might be helpful to review just what "Modernism" (in theology) is and why it is so deadly to the Christian Faith.

Christianity, as with Judaism and Islam, the three monotheistic "Abrahamic Faiths, are "revealed religions". With sundry variations, all three believe God has revealed them – their truths, form, worship, etc. – from on high. God has reached down to us, as it were, dumping in our laps the totality of His Revelation for us. We can accept it and "deal with it", struggle with it, be like Job or Israel (God renamed Jacob "Israel" or "He Who Wrestles with God) or we can reject it and go elsewhere, but the one thing we can't do is modify it, change it around, develop and "evolve" it. 

Revelation teaches us that God is Eternal, indeed, totally outside of time. He's complete in Himself, pure Act. No Potential exists in God. He's the Absolute Being God of the great philosophers and that God of Aristotle and Co. is clearly the God of ancient Semitic Revelation. "Jesus Christ yesterday, today, and for ever," as it says in Hebrews 13:8). And long before that, from Psalm 90: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God!" And of course the all-time great: 'God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:14) [It is often said that that verse is the most astounding line ever penned; but the second is like it: "Before Abraham was, I am." (St. John 8:48-49)]

Now, Modernism, ginned up by German Protestants back in the mid-19th century, when Charlie Darwin was scribbling away, is all based on the idea of Evolution. When Darwin was writing up his theory of Natural Selection (an oxymoron, since unless "nature" is a deity of some kind, it can't possibly "select" or "chose" or filter, or decide, or judge anything), he wasn't some lonely genius who came up with Evolution all on his own, like Athena from the forehead of Zeus: his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (what a name!) worked up, I've read, an Evolution theory similar to his grandson's. "Evolution", as it were, was just in the air, sort of like the American Chestnut blight.

Evolution was an idea the 18th century Age of Reason / Enlightenment "Philosophes" (like Erasmus Darwin) promoted to explain existence. And thus when Darwin rushed his Origin of Species into print (to beat publication of Alfred Russel Wallace's evolution book), many Materialists of all stripes were "waiting to pounce" as it were, and defend the theory against thick and thin. Darwin was going to provide their "kill shot" to religion, their "white plague". Therefore, it is no surprise that grumpy, grim, dour, depressed and depressing German theologians, direct descendants of Martin Luther, were only too ready to apply Evolution to God.

Thus, the basic, underlying idea of Modernism, and therefore of Progressive Protestantism and Progressive Catholicism, is Evolution, specifically that our understanding of God evolves, and so the Bible isn't Revelation revealed to the Sacred Authors (who wrote in their own words in their own style what God inspired them to inerrantly write), but instead it is something we've conjured up on our own, something we "evolved" over the centuries. So, too, the Church "evolves" not under the infallible, inerrant guide of the Most Holy Ghost, directing the popes and the bishops in Communion with him to guard and preseve the Doctrine of Faith, but rather the Church is in constant evolution itself. (It's sort of like taking the Church doctrine that it is in perpetual need of moral and spiritual renewal and reformation – small r's to both of those, of course – and applying it to its basic doctrines and most fundatmental dogmas.

And finally, Modernism – not in so many words, not up front and in 72-type, not until it is ready to pounce – teaches that God Himself evolves! That is, of course, if He even exists Himself, which many Modernist mavens doubt. But then, an evolving God is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, nor is He the God of Exodus 3:14.

And that right there is the entire enchillada. These two fundamental ideas, that God is Absolute Being, who reveals Himself through Divinely given Revelation, Who is "everlasting unto everlasting", or contrary, that God, and our understanding of Him, and we ourselves, naturally, are continually evolving – these are absolute opposites and utterly incompatible. 

Oil and water don't mix. These two foundational ideas about God (and us) are mutually antagonistic, like matter and anti-matter would be. They cannot exist in a single individual, let alone a Church. And of course this is what we see happening. As Modernism took over – and is taking over – Protestant demoninations, groups break off of the mainline denominations, desperate to cling to what they understand Revelation to be; meanwhile, the Modernists continually advance, just like the Chestnut Blight. Unstoppable. Remorseless. Murderous. 

In the Catholic Church, then, we're facing the same problem Protestants are. Our "mainline" Church is being eaten alive from within, as with maggots or termites, and those who reject Modernism find themselves ever the more curtailed, the more restricted, the more hounded. 

Now, also, Modernism as evolution explains the perverted sex abuse scandals. That's because if our understanding of God evolves, etc., then most certainly our morality evolves as well. And so it is that grotesque parodies of healthy, spiritual courtship and marriage fall to pieces because each individual who is tempted to carnal sins says at some point to himself (even if he's a priest, after all, because he's a Modernist), "Well, maybe prohibitions against physical intimacy were upheld in the past, but that was then; this is today!" Or "Maybe homosexuality was forbidden ages ago but we've advanced so far in our understanding, that now we realize the importance of "love" and its manifestation in this manner." 

And so on and so forth. It is no great space from the acceptance of that sort of thinking – mere rationalization, of course – to the most obscene, bizarre, and perveted acts.

Modernism. Absolutely deadly to Revealed Religion. Oh, it may seem interesting the those of weak faith; it may seem even to be dynamic, bold, imaginative. THAT'S HOW IT ATTRACTS SO MANY! A theologian no longer needs to wrestle with the Deposit of Faith in Modernism, but he can actually reinvent it! How dynamic! How challenging! How worthy of an otherwise pointless academic make-work job!

And of course the Laity: they, too, no longer need to be "Israel", "He Who Wrestles with God", as God renamed Jacob. Oh, no. No need for Job, either! Job just didn't understand. His understanding didn't evolve enough. Now none of us has to be either Israel OR Job! 

Modernism. It is absolute σκύβαλα. (See Philippians 3:8.) Absolute. And it is spiritual Cryphonectria parasitica, Chestnut tree blight. If you believe nothing else I ever write, trust me in this: if you are naturally inclined, or are somehow persuaded to think, the following: "Yeah, we are evolving with religion, and it does make religion more dynamic and attractive!" or "Unless we change with the times, keep up, keep abreast, embrace Aggiornamento to evolve to meet the current needs of the 'Pilgrim (in this usage: Evolving) People of God'..." – If you ever go that route, it won't be long before your Faith has wilted and fled and you are an atheist, even if consciously you suppose yourself to still be a believer. 

Modernism. Revealed religion's kryptonite. Absolute Cryphonectria parasitica-laden σκύβαλα. 

And it is the most dominating idea in Jorge Bergoglio's mind, and the mind of all "Progs" everywhere. 

(If nothing else, after all, it at least offers the excuse they stand on as they pull the Church down on their – and our – heads.)

An P

What Will Trigger a Formal Schism? Anything?

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

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

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

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

Would Pope Francis wash Cardinal Burke's feet? Easter Tridiuum and so the Foot Washing is upon us again...

Easter. Bunnies. Eggs. Feet washing. 

Our Caudillo, Jorge, made headlines in the past with washing the feet of Muslims and so on during this strange "rite". I suppose it is too much to hope for any sort of real understanding about what it is for – or should be for.

The whole foot-washing thing is a simple example of our hierarchy's not following Our Lord's example, but rather reinventing Him to serve their own self-identities.

The feet-washing thing is for the hierarchy, with bishops washing priests' feet and the pope washing bishops' feet. It is symbolic of their "working relationship", with the superiors acknowledging that they're there in service their fellow clerics who are below them on the Church's totem pole. Washing parishioners' feet therefore misses the point that this is about Church leaders' relations to each other. Our Most Blessed Lord did not wash the feet of just anybody, of course. Somehow our current leadership seems to just not be able to read (or think) clearly about either Holy Writ or Holy Rite.

But ask yourself the simple question: would Francis was Cardinal Burke's feet, or Cardinal Sarah's? Haha, to ask the question is to answer it. But clearly THOSE are the feet he should be washing, and which he never will. Bergoglio's washing Muslim feet (and etc.) obscures the whole thing hopelessly.

I think this whole fiasco sums up Bergoglio's papacy: confused, misdirected, and most definitely misdirecting.

An Préachán

Why don't Cardinal Burke and the surviving Dubia Cardinals Issue a Formal Correct of Pope Francis?

There's been a LOT of speculation on when the Dubia Cardinals will issue a formal correction to Jorge Bergoglio. Lifesitenews has this:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-heres-what-the-formal-correction-of-pope-francis-will-look-l

And Onepeterfive also has an article on it, but many of the bloggers there have had enough of "talk". They doubt the "Dubia Brothers" will do anything at all, now.

As I wrote there, I'm sure the good cardinals are praying fervently, fasting, even wearing hair shirts (and I'm not mocking; they might well be). But I would suspect that most of all they're not acting because they know if they do what they have to do, as blogger Michael Dowd suggests, formally issue a formal correction and all that entails, then I suspect they're thinking they'll damage the next pope. They're thinking "political damage" and "damage control"; that taking "El Bergo" down will — sort of like what happened to Republicans after Bill Clinton's impeachment — damage the Magisterium Catholic position (the Great Catholic Middle), and in effect, produce a papal George W. Bush, a guy continually mocked and derided throughout his tenure, hounded from every side. They're reasoning that the next pope would have a pall cast over him, ESPECIALLY if he's a "conservative" Magisterium-type JPII "come again".




(A Traditionalist pope, a Gregory VII, a new Hildebrand, wouldn't put up with such criticism: he'd excommunicate anyone who attacked him, disenfranchising over half of the world's bishops, university professors, and so on. But no Magisterium pope would DARE act thusly.)

Cardinal Sarah, for one, is clearly angling to be elected the next pope, and I wouldn't be surprised if he took the name "John Paul III". (If he took the name Benedict XVII he'd meet Caesar's fate as he walked toward the loggia. Same if he took the name "Pius XIII".

I've been rereading this Onepeterfive's excellent articles and came across the "Revolution in Tiara and Cope" series from last year (and 2015) and it really is ASTOUNDING the lengths the "Deep Modernist State" back at Vat 2 went to in order to create the "Vatican II Church". Just incredible. They worked like Trojans (or devils) at endless length to pull every lever, punch every button, jerk every string, to bring about the Revolution in the Church that they did. They have NO INTENTION of letting go. They won't "go quietly into that good night." You don't go to those lengths, that level of effort, unless you're ALL IN.

And Cardls Burke and Sarah know that too, my friends. They're the French Army in 1940 and they don't even have a Maginot Line. They got God on their side, the Holy Spirit, I believe that because I'm a Trad Catholic, but they're balancing that out with the potential carnage, especially for the next pope, and they're therefore very, very hesitant.

That's the level of problem they're facing.




Pray for 'em.


I myself suspect that the next conclave will elect another Progressive. The only Magisterium they'd elect would have to be the definition of milquetoast. Paul VI come again. If they do elect a new Paul 6, we're in for another decade or so of misery. If they elect a Prog, I shouldn't be surprised if a few Cardinals "walked out" and elected their own candidate, rather than see an "El Bergo Dos" keep turning the One, Holy, Apostolic Church into the Anglican Communion.

An Préachán