Bishop Strickland's new letter: God does not and cannot bless sin

Amici,

Bishop Strickland has a new pastoral letter out; this one issued on the eve of the infamous and utterly anti-Catholic "Synod on Synodality" that is expected to change Church teaching on a host of carnal-related issues. So Strickland tackles the "same-sex blessing" insanity in his letter. Read it here at LifeSiteNews. "God does not and cannot bless sin." 

Oh, really? Someone please inform the "Pope". 

Making Himself a Target

Bishop Strickland knows this new letter will enrage the "homosexualist" (what's that even mean? Supporter? Advocate?) Bergoglio and the infamous Fr James Martin, (a.k.a. Pope Francis' pinkie finger, Francis' rent boy, and other monikers too disgusting to pass on). It will stir up a lavender hornets' nest. No other American bishop, and apparently few in the world but the African bishops, stand tall for traditional Church teaching against Sodomy.

Bishop Strickland knows the hammer will fall soon, I am afraid; thus, he "goes for broke." For as surely as the insane Argentine (and I mean nutso: he clearly believes à la "Tucho Fernández that he has oracle-prophetical semi-divine powers and can redefine "Catholic" to suit his will, and that we must all obey his every whim: see this article for details.) is especially in favor of homosexuals and sexual predators in general (like that rapist and incompetent, cartoonish "artist" Jesuit Marko Rupnik).

Bishop Strickland wrote: "The truth is, at the core of our existence is Love, and there is no power in Heaven or on Earth that can keep the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from loving us fully and completely." Right, but what does 'love' here mean? "The core of our existence is Love" – as in I guess, from the capital L, God. I don't know why Christian preachers of the Faith can't clearly say, as Fr Ripperger does, that "love" means "will the good." To say "God loves you" sounds maudlin, or squishy, or feel good: but to say "God wills your good" – which is what the phrase means – bears a clear, no nonsense understanding of what is meant. To say "God is love" is to say God is ontologically The Good. Goodness in itself, Good as such. Omnibenevolence (supremely good) is the formal term. It's one of the divine attributes, like Omniscience and Omnipotence. 

God thus wills our good because He is Good Itself, and any so-called "good" we humans pursue – like carnal satisfaction, money, fame, etc. – leads us away from The Good, and therefore into Hell. Thus, Heaven or Hell, no in-between. What's wrong with putting it this way?

Because of course the squishy Vatican II Church would get the vapors. It would pass out and need revived with smelling salts. The Vatican II three-year cycle of Mass readings took out most references to Hell, eternal damnation, all that. No doubt secular Jewish psychologists (very big in the '50s and '60s) told them that such language and imagery would turn off "modern man". Any Vatican II priest who preached "hellfire and damnation" sermons would be assigned to the local lunatic asylum or defrocked. But now a new Pharaoh has arisen, one who did not know John Paul II, etc., and this new Pharaoh is iron-handedly slapping down and defacing the squishy Vatican II Church with a sado-masochistic relish, making its conservatives squeal as he imparts homosexual blessings and the Seven Sacraments on egregious, unrepentant mortal sinners. Bergoglio says priests in the confessional must always forgive even when the "penitents" are not sorry for their sins, as most homosexual and adulterous people are not. 

• Because these "conservatives" (and even many Trads) insist Bergoglio is pope, they just must bend over in awe as he violates everything they thought they believed about Catholicism. I am sure he relishes their pain he is inflicting.

So, we go down our merry way, traipsing along to a general ecclesiastical and secular Armageddon. Be prepared for what's coming, and pray for Bishop Strickland.

    An Préachán

Hell, the Happy Home of Absolute Refusniks

Amici,

The following is a series of Comments I made at 1Peter5 about the reality of Hell to someone who seems to support Universal Salvation, a pernicious doctrine that will be getting a lot of press (literally) soon with the publication in November of David Bentley Hart’s That All Shall Be Saved: Hell, Heaven, and Universal Salvation.

It always amazes me how difficult it is for Moderns to "get" Hell. Modernism, the heresy, is utterly opposed to this basic doctrine, and the Vatican II Church has run from Hell with its (collective) hair on fire. 

But no more basic Christian doctrine exists. One can truly say that the Dogma (a doctrine that must be believed) of Hell is THE most importent teaching of Christianity, because, if there's no Hell, there's no need of a Savior. The Universal Salvation crowd, the Anti-Hell Hard Core, see the doctrine of Hell as a perversion of our (necessarily) limited understanding of God; they think we Traditionalists see God as a grumpy old sky god zapping us with thunderbolts now and again. 

And they replace the Dogma of Hell with that of Purgatory, writing that "Hell" is a kind of Purgatory wherein a "just" punishment is meted out for sins and when everyone has been cleansed, they get to go to Heaven. But as I wrote below in my Comment to a Universalist, NO disciplinary action would "fit their crimes" because their basic "crime" is their free-will rejection of God Himself and what He made them for. 

So what follows is my defense of the Infernal Regions, and their (alas) ever-growing population stats. 

Excuse me, but let me "unpack" your Comment.

1. You seem to be arguing for "Universal Salvation" and that I distort it, is that correct?

2. Who are "Those who have taught this (Universal Salvation, correct?) from the earliest days of the Church"? Please list some names and references. You sound like an avid fan of David Bentley Hart and his yet-to-be-published That All Shall Be Saved: Hell, Heaven, and Universal Salvation, to be published in November of this year. I don't know but I assume he'll dwell at length on this Pauline text.

3. You think I am distorting Universal Salvation by mockery, writing that Hitler (and I didn't mention Hefner by name) could just enter Heaven?

4. You have spoken to people who know about Eternity? That Eternity has time?

5. You quote 1 Timothy 2:4 that it is God's will all will be saved, and thus clearly, by the context of that section of your Comment, think that Hell is just Purgatory. Is that right? Otherwise God would be merely seeking Revenge, getting even (revenge again) or angry at sin? All too-human traits?

Answer to 1 (assuming I have gotten that and the rest of your Comments correctly): I think Universal Salvation a wildly out of context distortion of 1 Timothy 2:4. The context of this comment is that Christians are supposed to pray for their rulers (at that time, all pagans) so that Christians may be left alone to pursue a Godly life. Then comes the "Universal Salvation" statement, as a sub-point to living the Godly life, and then the famous Protestant "Control Quote" that there is one God, and one, sole mediator between men and God, the "man" Jesus Christ. Arians and non-Trinitarians no doubt love that phrase because of "the man, Jesus Christ" ref, but standard Protestants quote it to "disprove" the Catholic practice of praying to saints. (There are a dozen or so "Control Quotes" Prots use to interpret Scripture, to filter it -- all of it -- through them; it is called "Scripture interpreting Scripture.")

Yet the context of the entire second chapter is about the problems of discipline in the Church (a few verses later St. Paul ends up once again writing about women's hair!) and the "God wills all men to be saved" clearly is not a formal, all-important doctrinal statement. To try to make is so is an absurd proof-texting, as is what Prots do with "No mediator but Christ" verse. Nowhere else in Pauline literature does he teach anything like "God wills all people to be saved and will save them after proper chastisement." Nothing like that exists in the entire Bible, for that matter.

So just as you read me out of context, you read St. Paul out of context.

Cont.

Point 2: I will await enlightenment. But I suspect that your sources will be taken out of context, for the simple reason that in the world of "universal" this and that, the "universal" Church has clearly taught most of the Human race will be lost to Hell, and has taught the reality of Hell as Dogma, from the beginning, starting with Our Most Blessed Lord Himself, Who warned us to be afraid not of those who kill the body, but the soul, and that "Satan was a murderer from the beginning" (Matthew 10:28; John 8:44 -- these verses are clear, absolute, and central to why we need a Savior to begin with), meaning that Satan murdered the spark of Divine Grace in souls, angelic and human.

Point 3: My point about Hitler and a pornographer (unnamed) is that they would refuse Heaven because it is NOT WHAT THEY WANT. Why is Hell so difficult to understand? This isn't "rocket science"! People, like the Angels before them, must choose to submit, to serve, to obey God and God's Will for them. About a third of the Angels chose not to do that. We humans can't choose quite the way they did because we exist in time and "make the choice" for or against God in small daily increments, such that on Judgement Day we'll know clearly what we've chosen. (Occasionally, on willfully committing of a mortal sin, we make a BIG choice.)

It's simple. And as any angel, even the dumbest, is smarter than a human being (exceptions can occasionally exist about little bits of info, but that is a very small side point), and yet one-third of them chose Hell, we can logically conclude that the far dumber human race can also chose Hell, and on a massive scale.

For let's get this clear: HELL IS NOT GOD BEING VINDICTIVE, BUT GOD GIVING PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT! And if they don't want Him, He's not going force Himself on them. God wants faithful servants so he can "Theosis-ize" them into sons, to Divinize us with a portion of His Own Nature, not 'bot slaves having no free will. (Sheesh, how hard is this?)

Nor would any temporary Purgatory-like punishment suffice for those who have rejected Him. No disciplinary action would "fit their crimes" because their basic "crime" is their free-will rejection of God Himself! (Again, how hard is this to understand? Reread that previous line again, please.) Purgatory is the place for working out "just" punishment, giving the unconfessed and/or un-penanced sins of those who choose God their due; Hell exists as a Eternal Home for Absolute Refusniks.

Cont.

4. Whatever Eternity is, however we experience it – or how Angels do, and they no doubt (being pure spirit) experience it differently than we possibly could – the things that happen in Eternity are Eternal. A choice made there is eternal. One can't undo one's choices there. That's true in a sense now, for us. I can't undo an important decision or act in my life: I can repent it, I can confess it, I realize I took a wrong turn on a road trip, and can "go back and do it over" a bit differently, but so what? I can't possibly actually undo it. This reality will be much more "present" to us in Boethius' The Boundless Now.

Point 5: I've taken care to answer this at some length in the above comments concerning Points 1 to 4.

Pax.

An Préachán 

Heaven, Hell, Limbo, General Thoughts

A great essay by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has been posted at OnePeterFive.  However, just a note: Dr. Kwasniewski didn't mention Limbo. For a review of that, see this old Catholic Encyclopedia article for a discussion of Limbus patrum and Limbus infantium. Regarding the latter, after reviewing it, I was once again struck by the severity of the disagreement between the most eminent theologians in the Church's history.

Being followers of the Lord Christ isn't easy, on many levels, as all here know and have often attested. Even Dr. Kwasniewski has discussed how difficult his life has been -- has been made to have been -- for following the Traditional Faith. And in general, for a Christian, the question of Hell and who goes there is one of the difficulties. We can read Holy Writ that makes it plain those without Our Blessed Lord are Hell-bound, and He Himself plainly says the road to Hell is wide and easy. (Matt 7:13, for example.) But he also tells the Pharisees "not to judge" -- meaning not to judge specific individuals' final destination. (He clearly teaches us to judge immoral behavior and shun those who insist on practicing it: see Matt 18 about the brother who sins.) And what of all those of the human race who never heard of Him at all?

Also, if we stress Hell too much, we turn off people. Now, mind me, I don't mean the modern Vatican II Church's pablum about that; I mean in the old-time preachin' down in the hills, or among the Calvinist Orangemen: the endless focus on Hell produced serious neurosis. I've heard a number of first-hand accounts of individuals who either went mad or certainly got as far away from "religion" as they could because of it. Ironically, a successful revival, like The Great Awakening, too often left what wags called a "Burnt out" or "Burnt over" district. As in most things, I suppose, there's a Golden Mean in preaching Hell. Clearly, though, we've gone far, far, way too far into the "Don't worry, there, there" school of religion as therapy. The Christian Faith is Faith first, the Transformation in Christ, the infusion of Grace; and if there's anything "therapeutic" about that, it comes of Our Lord's boundless Grace.

But perhaps the real problem is that while it is clearly necessary to preach Hell, we can't judge individuals as to whether they go there or not. (So many of us SO want to say that of people we know, but it is as much the sin of presumption as saying a recently deceased went to Heaven!)

Oh, certain cases are plain: Hitler, for example. If Adolph went to the Pearly Gates and St. Pete threw them wide open and said, "Adolph! Come on in!" Hitler would look in and see countless Jews -- Ancient Jews, Jews at the time of Our Lord on Earth, and Jews in plenty thereafter because we non-Jews become descendants of Abraham and members of the Covenant via Baptism and especially the Most Holy Eucharist. Hitler wouldn't enter Heaven because it is full of Jews! Or take a pornographer (various names come to mind): they'd look in through the Pearly Gates and see the most beautiful, attractive people imaginable, beyond their imagination, indeed! But they'd see NO lust! "To Hell with this!" they would say and go look deep past the Gates of Hell. There they'd see infinite ugliness, but lust the likes of which they never dreamed of. Guess where they'd go. In a real way, one can say, each individual chooses Heaven or Hell for themselves, with Our Lord God on Judgment Day reflecting them back to themselves in perfect clarity, such that each of us will know upon that instant whether we really wanted to do God's will in our lives, or thwart it. (In that moment, we'll be like the angels were on their Day of Judgment, knowing what they knew in absolutely perfect clarity.)

[Note that Matt 25, starting at verse 31, would suggest everyone is surprised by their sentence of Bliss or Damnation, the opposite of this idea I mention, or seemingly so. One must remember that the dead are outside of time, in what Boethius called "the Boundless Now", so all moments are eternally "present". No one will celebrate their millionth year in Heaven or lament their millionth year in Hell: time there doesn't exist as we experience it on Earth.]
Finally, there's the question of justice. Justice is giving something its due. Rejection of God is due Hell, as a matter of justice. Without Hell -- which as Dr. K shows the Vat2 Church really isn't "into" ("We're just so NOT into Hell, peeps!" say the hip Vat2 prelates), there's no justice for those who reject Our Lord, and they deserve justice just as much as anyone else; in other words, without Hell, there'd be no justice for those who obeyed Him, either, those who entered into the Covenants He established for our salvation, and who, despite temptations, and by God's bountiful Grace that enabled us to stay in the Covenants, stayed fast. The "there's no Hell/no one in Hell" crowd have simply no answer to this argument.

Ultimately, there's one thing I certainly believe about this matter, one sure and certain thing. All the Damned and all the Saved and all the (I suspect, just an opinion, quite a host) in Limbo, will all aver with the strictest conviction what ol' Abraham Lincoln said in his second inaugural, when he quoted the Psalmist, in the second half of verse 9 of Psalm 19, "...The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Amen to that!

An Préachán

A Response to Bill Donohue About that Wretch, Theodore McCarrick

Catholic League president Bill Donohue recently wrote a response to the revelations about Cardinal McCarrick. The well-known defender of the Church (via the Catholic League) wrote, in part:

A little over a year after assuming the reins of the Catholic League, I started exchanging letters with Newark Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. He was genuinely supportive of our efforts. On October 17, 1994, he wrote to me saying, “I have been speaking to the bishops of New Jersey at our Provincial meeting and encouraging them to support the work of the Catholic League in their own dioceses.”

Now he is bearing a heavy cross. The takeaway for me is clear. ...

Mr Donohue goes on to write what I suppose would be considered a muted and sympathetic essay in Christian charity, and ends by asking us to pray for Cardinal McCarrick.

Very nice, but utterly deficient.

Why? Because: Enough of this obscenity is enough, and we're long past "enough".

First of all, Mr Donohue has no way of knowing whether a congenital liar like McCarrick (who lied for decades about what he was "into", and who lied to all and sundry, up to and including a man the current pope has canonized: John Paul II) could remotely be "genuinely supportive of our efforts". Lying and falsely representing themselves is the essential problem with homosexual clerics: one has no way of knowing how honest they are about anything. Their lives are a lie, and they lie to cover that reality up.

The Homosexual Rape of the Church

Sin makes you stupid, or as Aquinas put it, "Sin darkens the intellect." In McCarrick's case – and in the case of all homosexuals in the clergy – sin makes liars of them as well, or they would have never been allowed into the clergy in the first place. They falsely represented themselves to get in, or had older homosexuals let them in, for "favors".

Liars, and thieves, too, they are: thieves spiritual, thieves physical (rape, molestation) and thieves of ecclesiastical reputation. They've destroyed the reputation of the Catholic Church. It will take 500 years of extremely serious efforts by all the clergy to even remotely begin to restore the Church's reputation. And homosexuality has devastated Church morale. It is incredible (in a literal sense) how devastated Church morale is by these perverts, worming their way into the vitals of the Church, like maggots or parasites. (They've gutted the "Vatican II" Church, certainly, and hastened its collapse.) Were the Church not divinely inspired and sustained, truly, it would die. Read the disgust and anguish of Michael Brendan Dougherty here, for an example:

An excerpt:

There is an undeniable psychological tension between my religious belief that I cannot have hope for salvation outside the visible, institutional Church and my honest conviction that of all the institutions and societies that intersect with my life, the Church is by far the most corrupt, the most morally lax, the most disillusioning, and the most dangerous for my children. In that tension, personal prayer will dry up like dew at noon.

That's how bad this situation is. But let us put it in historical perspective:

• The Protestant Reformation has been with us 500 years. It has gone a long way – via the "Vatican II Church" and the alterations of the Mass and all our other devotions – in turning the modern Catholic Church into a Protestant denomination (despite occasional claims otherwise).
• Islam has been with us 1400 years. It, too, is the "gift that keeps on giving". 
• And now we have a homosexual mafia burrowed into the heart of the Church, a true parasite apparently resisting every effort to remove it.

Make no mistake about any of them. All three of these crucifixions directly attack the central Christian revelation of the Incarnation.

• Islam is Christianity's "kill shot", denying the Incarnation root and branch, insisting that God is one person, not three, let alone not allowing one of them incarnating Himself to save us from sin.
• Protestantism accepts the Incarnation, certainly, but takes the reason for it away. All one has to do is call on the Lord and one is saved, having accepted God as one's Savior. (Romans 10:13; the most Protestant verse in the Bible).
• But Protestantism teaches this salvation requires no change of one's nature. We are, as Luther said, Simul Justus et Peccator, simultaneously justified before God but also still a sinner, or as he metaphorically put it, we are each a manure pile covered with snow, the snow being God's grace and the manure pile our permanent human (fallen) nature. (This is, of course, grotesque; see C.S. Lewis' questioning of this teaching in his 10th Letter to Malcolm, in Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer, for one example of a push back against the notion.)
• This foundational Protestant idea denies the New Testament doctrine that Christians are now a new creation in Christ, that our nature is changed; indeed, that we are "born again" by the Holy Spirit through baptism and reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, which changes our nature through what the Greeks call theosis, and the West, Divinization. For example:

·   St. Athanasius: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460]

·   St. Thomas Aquinas: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]

·   This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Examples:

·   John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation)

·   2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.

• It is because of this change in our nature that Catholicism has always been adamantly set against sin. Sin can have no place in a Christian's life, as St. Paul teaches throughout his writings. (Example: 1 Cor 6:9-11) But because the modern (and Modernist) Church is essentially Protestant – Luther famously wrote that he could sin many times a day and it not affect his assurance of salvation – it now teaches that we cannot live up to the moral law, and must accept moral failure and yet have no fear of our salvation, because the Church essentially now accepts Simul Justus et Peccator.
  

What Homosexuality Demands

Now, what homosexuality does is to create a third cross for Christianity to bear: whereas Islam denies the Incarnation essentially, and Protestantism denies the Incarnation as necessary for our theosis, and denies theosis essentially, so "GayChurch" now embraces "incarnation" in a wholly prurient, carnal, and libidinous sense: we are sex objects to violate. Isn't THAT what the homosexual clergy do? They violate: they violate their vows and the Ten Commandments as much as they violate altar boys and seminarians. And of these three crucifixions: denying the reality of the Incarnation, misunderstanding the salvic nature of the Incarnation, or literally buggering the Incarnation, which is obviously worse? (N.B. Traditional Arabic Islamic culture is one of the most homosexual on Earth, despite Koranic teaching; and Protestantism never had any relationship to homosexuality except to condemn it, until the latter 20th century when "mainline" Protestant Churches embraced it. More traditional types of Protestantism continue to reject it, of course. The Catholic Church is torn between these positions; Traditional Catholicism continues to uphold the ancient teaching, with Progressive Catholics going the mainline Protestant route.) 

So, therefore, with all this in mind and reminding everyone I am not God, and do not make final judgements on anyone's soul's eternal fate, I answer Mr Donohue thusly, (and certainly do not think it is "over the top"): Pray for Cardinal McCarrick? I myself pray for Cardinal McCarrick, alright. Indeed, in an utmost earnest fervor, I pray that he go to Hell quickly – if that is his destiny. I am not God and I cannot send him there, but he ought to go. Few deserve it more. Why? He has spent decades upon decades lying, bearing false witness, coveting the bodies of young men in his charge, imposing himself on them, perhaps murdering their salvation, and blaspheming and directly insulting God Himself, all Three Persons, but especially the Second and Third. (Allegations that these evils were few in number or long ago are irrelevant: it happened, and it no doubt happened many more times than reported; and McCarrick lied about it for decades.) Theodore McCarrick is a soul vampire, an undead who recreates his hideousness in the young men he's violated.

Dante put homosexuals in the Seventh Circle of Hell, below even murderers and suicides. Considering what McCarrick and those like him have done over long lives, it is, simply, quite apropos.

He can go join "Franny" Spellmen in the bottom of the seventh circle of Hell. At least he won't lack for company.

N.B. Not I do not say McCarrick is unforgivable. Were he to "come out" and admit all, instead of hiding behind the Church's lawyers, as he is doing right now – were he to "name names" and finally, for once in a long life of soul-damning deceit, be honest – maybe he can avoid the serious possibility of Hell that he now faces. But don't hold your breath. "Sin darkens the intellect", indeed. And the last thing the GayChurch wants is true conversion.

An Préachán

"No Hell" Bergoglio and the Fall of the Modernists

Looks like Bergi caught plenty of backlash on his "There's No Hell" comment to old Scalfari. Here's a long article at Onepeterfive that details it all:

An excerpt:

If true, this is a significant moment for the papacy of Francis. If a cardinal was, in fact, able to force the so-called “Dictator Pope” to back down, it indicates that the balance of power in Rome is shifting, and Francis, who is often seen as autocratic and difficult to rein in, may now find himself in a much more precarious position than we’ve previously seen.

And an article from Lifesitenews about an upcoming conference in Rome that's sure to be, shall we say, interesting.

The basic take on all this is that once the St. Gallen Mafia ousted Ratzinger and set up their preferred stooge, their preferred stooge turned out to be such a disaster that he's set back the Modernist/Progressive program massively, and perhaps killed it.

Once an opposition party is in control of a government, after years of "back bench" guerrilla war, they usually make themselves so obnoxious that their ideas end up repudiated once they're in power. It's a reality the Democrats experienced when they took over Congress in 2006 and the the presidency in 2008, and the Republicans in the last couple of years (they showed themselves unable to govern; if it weren't for Trump, they'd be doing nothing at all).

So it has been with the Modernists/Progs: once they had complete control of the Church, they immediately ran it into the ground. Confusion reigns, homosexuality is rampant, and the Progs look incompetent. Most average, everyday Catholics are sick of this mess, to the extent they know of it at all, and Trad Catholics go their own way. Meanwhile, there's no question now that Modernist/Progressives want to Church to go the "Full Anglican" route, with women priests, bishops, and the whole litany of progressive causes.

On the other hand:

As the Trad movement grows, it is obviously the successor "government" to the Progs. The Trads aren't large in numbers but they're like an elite military service, ready and able to take control, not least because they know what they want and what the Church ought to be like. They have a coherent program. The Progs have had that too, in the past, but they couldn't talk too openly about it because a majority of the Church was opposed to it. EVERYONE knows what Traditional Catholics want.

And it is also true that having been in control now, more or less, since Paul 6 was elected, we've all seen how bad the Progs are. Want more of the same? Elect another Prog pope, but then, the Church can't stand much more of this, either. Like a ship on a sandbar on grounded upon rocks, if it doesn't get off soon, it'll break apart.

Time has just run out for the Modernists/Progressives.

I note that Cardinal Sarah has been quietly surviving in the Vatican now under Bergoglio for some time, and he's clearly angling to be elected the next pope. We'll see. How things will actually develop depends on so much: will Bergoglio somehow NOT be deposed? And if he is, how ugly will it be? Will a "serious conservative" like Sarah be elected pope, and then ally with the Trads against the sure-to-be-had Prog counter-attack, or will Cardinal Tagle be elected pope, and try to do a JP2 balancing act for a decade? There's probably no chance a full Progressive can be elected pope now, not after Bergi. Schism hovers over the whole mess, with the Germans ready to go into Schism if a Trad or Conservative is elected pope, and large parts of the non-Prog Church ready to go into Schism if another Bergoglio is elected.

We'll just have to see. But it won't be long now, and ironically, the long discarded, unmentioned doctrine and dogma of Hell might well be the catalyst to bring it all tumbling down.

Some examples of where the Progs are trying to take the Church:

This article from a couple of years ago is very succinct in explaining the move toward women priests

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/female-deacons-priests-vatican-pope-francis-traditionalists-new-testament

And Francis is already pro-contraception, and there's been a lot of discussion on whether he'll try to overturn Humanae Vitae:

https://onepeterfive.com/argentinian-nun-says-pope-advocates-contraception-again/

Of course, movement in these areas would necessitate civil war within the Church, on a much larger scale than what happened within the Anglican Church.

Fun times.

An Préachán