Are We All "Kakure Kirishitans" Now, or What Exactly Is the Catholic Church?

Happy New Year, Friends,

After all the recent controversy in the Church (and the general world mess), it is time to truly raise the question we now find ourselves in a position to ask:

• What is the Catholic Church, exactly, and has it self-destructed? Or are those of us who follow the Faith as it was taught pre-Vatican II all now "Kakure Kirishitans"? 

Are we Traditional Catholics not hiding out from the Shogun Bergoglio and his murderous pagan sodomite samurai? "Kakure Kirishitans" is the term for Japanese Catholics who went into hiding when the pagan Japanese government tried to wipe them out in the early 1600s.

Something odd is going on.

Look at old news reels of any Church event pre-Vatican II. Old Masses, processions, you name it. Not hard to find. Check out this British Pathé Newsreel of a minute or so. An excerpt:

(0:36)...Honoring of this centenary the apostolic delegate Archbishop Gregory as celebrant sings the Mass in the presence of seven
visiting Cardinals, eleven Archbishops and forty-six bishops at Wimbly celebrations, climax with a pageant of catholic history in Britain followed by Pontifical Mass and a hundred thousand Catholics applaud...(1:08)

Wow. Just wow. Atlantis. A totally lost world. All that, then! Now? I suppose you might find some carnal deviants getting "blessed" by a "priest" sporting a meretricious rainbow alb – maybe. Or a tourist taking photos of a particular structure that hasn't been gutted via "Wreckovation". It's like we've gone through the Protestant Reformation all over again: i.e., churches gutted, vernacular worship services not mentioning Christ's sacrifice (or Christ), a "presider" facing the assembled, in short, a very horizontal "Humanism" replacing the old vertical "Divine Liturgy". One wants to ask, "When did the Anglican Church replace the Catholic Church?" Or really, maybe we're the Methodist Church now?

Before and After Vatican II photos, news reels, whatever. These have been played before because the contrast is so staggering. Where has all that CATHOLICISM gone? Don't you want to know? I know, I do. It seems to have to hide, to become hidden, like the Japanese Catholics had to hide.

Roots of the Disaster

I read a revealing article about Josef Ratzinger giving a speech back in 1964. It has extracts from Ratzinger's December 1964 sermons to students at the Cathedral of Műnster, apparently found in the book What It Means To Be A Christian, which is to be published soon. These talks reveal Ratzinger to have been a Modernist non-Catholic from the git-go. The author of the piece wants to laud him: instead, the author unintentionally reveals a heretic. An excerpt; Ratzinger himself:

“God cannot be found except by going to meet him as the One who is coming, who is waiting for us to make a start and demanding that we do so. We cannot find God except in this exodus, in going out from the coziness of our present situation into what is hidden: the brightness of God that is coming.”

Er...what? Ancient Egypt wasn't "cozy". And what's this: "The One who is coming"? Didn't He come? Didn't He establish a Church? What the tarnation is all this about, exactly? The author of the piece writes:

And yet many “traditional” Catholics also found and still find Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI hard to swallow, because his leadership and vision did not square with the picture of the Church that they have made for themselves: he refused to accept the idea of a Church whose essence was the preservation of the status quo. Instead, Ratzinger relentlessly called the faithful to undertake a pilgrimage – an exodus – whose essential prerequisite is a readiness to make ourselves uncomfortable in order to go forth and meet the Lord.

This is, in a word, idiocy. Look folks, we didn't "make the picture ourselves"! Absolute lie. The Catholic laity only believed what the Church taught, and taught assiduously for 2,000 years: that Jesus Christ IS the answer to everything, that he founded His Church on the Rock of Faith (and St. Peter, apostolic succession, etc.). Be secure and grounded in this belief! The Church taught us THAT THAT IS EXACTLY the "STATUS QUO". Forever. We are not on an Exodus except from confusion and sin, because we've entered the Promised Land of the Faith and Christ's Church. 

1. We're not the blind leading the blind, as Ratzinger clearly suggests. 
2. We don't "find God" by wandering around dazed in a new directionless "Exodus", looking for Christ Who is somehow "Hidden". What sort of guano is that? Age of Aquarius claptrap. New Age "walkabout" fantasy. 
3. A medieval pilgrimage was to a KNOWN place, an established House of God, a font of miracles that had been proven over time via tons of witness, as had Canterbury or Walsingham or Santiago de Compostela. 
4. Medieval pilgrimages were NOT "off into the blue" to "find I know not what is true". 
5. The Post-Vatican II theologian hotshot Josef Ratzinger had it exactly backward, and so do all the Modernists who so infest the Vatican II Church.

No wonder we have what we have now.

Right now, the biggest Church news is that creepy homosexual Cardinal "Tucho" "Kissy" Fernandez backpedaling and even name-calling over his disgusting magisterial document "Fiducia supplicans" about blessing "irregular unions" and the false "pope", whom I just call "Bergoglio" (when I'm being very polite) grunting out his displeasure at that document's reception, when he's not snorting out his hatred of just about everything else that's Catholic. 

• This is the great shock of the Vatican II Church, that its episcopacy would tolerate such an obviously anti-Catholic ogre as "pope" at all, simultaneously with supporting homosexuals – going to great lengths to support and coddle homosexuals – a group have collectively cost the Church literally billions of dollars (many times over) and who have lashed the Church with the whips of lechery, extracting from it an incalculable amount of respect, honor, and credibility. Not to mention, sanctity.

Honestly, Bergoglio and his regime in control of the Church have reduced the One, Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to utter humiliation. It's a laughingstock. Orthodox and Protestants howl with glee as it stumbles and wallows, indeed, crawls, like an amnesia-afflicted hobo through a swamp it cannot find its way out of.

Too harsh? I check a number of conservative political blogs that run a pretty tight reign on Comments, and the contempt is palatable even there. On blogs not so tightly controlled, Protestants delight in disparaging all things Catholic. And of course "mainstream" blogs and "liberal" Leftist blogs are worse. 

• I can honestly tell you that after nearly 70 years of trying so desperately to be "liked", to be "a popular girl in school", the Catholic Church is reviled and hated far worse that it ever was before Vatican II.

On the Traditional Catholic side, unfortunately, we've got those who insist, against every iota of common sense and observation, that Bergoglio is an actual pope, but one who must be "resisted" and that the powers of the papacy have to be highly curtailed hereafter. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski typifies such. In contrast, you have the "Hard Sedevacantists" (as at Novus Ordo Watch or AKA Catholic) who insist that not only is Bergoglio not a Catholic, but that this entire Church isn't Catholic; i.e. that the entire Vatican II Church is a fraud. 

• Delving into their position, which they're thorough to explain in detail – though it's far more difficult to find what solutions they propose – they argue that the only "true" Catholic Church is to be found where a priest who was not ordained by a Vatican II-consecrated bishop runs an outfit of some sort that offers Mass. And you just have to ferret him out. (Novus Ordo Watch helpfully provides lists.)
  

Considering how bad Ratzinger was, or John Paul II with his plaintive calls for a "New Pentecost" – the Polish pope apparently had NO IDEA of how blasphemous that was (What? God didn't do it good enough the first time?) – one is strongly tempted to agree with them. Though, of course, that would make us all Kakure Kirishitans.

• I've written here where I think that tempting though it is, the "Hard Sede" position is impractical, to say the least. It essentially entails going out into the Wild to find a Kakure kirishitan bishop or priest. Since I wrote that earlier post, I'd say now that once people, i.e. general Catholics, got the Hard Sede critique of the Vatican II Church fully absorbed, they wouldn't go on "walkabout" to try to find those rare "Churches" that fit the Sedevacantist bill; oh, no. No, no. No. They're not going out into the hills and hollers to find a Kakure Kirishitan church: they'd just walk away entirely.

Bottom Line

What solution do I propose? What equation do I formulate? I'll write about that in my next, what I call Our Jonah Reality. But for now, consider this:

1. Remember how the Vatican II Church has always, ALWAYS been against what they call "Triumphalism"? Look at the Pathé newsreel again for a minute. Pure Catholic Triumphalism. 
2. THAT was the Church pre-Vatican II (except for the Modernist Underground waiting in the wings to destroy it). We were all Traditionalists then, and all Triumphalists. 
3. We were full participants in The Seventh Covenant, the Most Holy Eucharist. We were full participants in Christ's Salvic Offering of Himself on Calvary. 
4. We were certain sure we were right, and not lost (while avoiding the "I'm Saved!" presumption of certain Protestants). 
5. The Protestants loathed us for it, and importantly, so did the Jews. (Islam just hates, pure and simple; nothing new there.) The Jews never ceased their work to get the Good Friday liturgy changed, which they accomplished in 1955 (during the reign of "the last pope" Pius XII, ahem). 
6. But we WERE Triumphalist. we belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Our Lord Himself founded. 
7. We were NOT the blind wandering around following blind shepherds and falling into the Pit of Modernism, as Josef Ratzinger would have us do. No. Not at all. 

And so "The Powers That Be" stole it from us, using a flashy stage show called The Second Vatican Council to bemuse and befuddle even stalwart Catholic leaders, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (for a short time). They drowned us in a torrent of words, more words in Vatican II than in all the previous Councils put together! They mixed their poison in with orthodoxy so carefully that they stole our inheritance. They stole our spiritual and religious inheritance, and they stole our cultural and philosophical inheritance, and replaced it all with what? Meretricious navel gazing. By degrees, not all at once, but steadily, till Bergoglio has essentially "made it official" they threw us out into the highways and byways, the hills and hollers, to make us Kakure Kirishitans.

Enough! We want it back. Let that be our New Year's Resolution: We want it all back, and since they're so fond of wandering around on endless "walkabout", they can get out of our way, and take their anti-pope Ogre and his Sodomites with 'em.

An Préachán

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

Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

"The True Spirit of Vatican II and Apostasy"

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

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

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

Modernism = Evolution

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

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

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

Doesn't that sound Masonic-like? Hmmm. 

           AnP