Part II Dr. Bryan Ardis accuses Catholic Church of running the Covid Scam

Friends, 

Part II on Dr. Bryan Ardis

Jack Chick redivivus?

This interview Dr. Ardis gave that I am quoting from in Part I was recorded about the end of January of this year.

A lot has happened since then, mainly the continuously breaking news about how the powers-that-be grotesquely and fraudulently increased the official Covid mortality rate while they erased the deaths Remdesivir caused and the insane mortality and increased illnesses the "vaccines" caused in 2021. "Breaking news" on the fraud is never-ending. And, unbelievably, the CDC, FDA, NIAID, NIH, and so on, along with such organizations in the rest of the "Western" world, STILL promote Remdesivir and this diabolically insane "Standard of Care" forced on doctors.

• But the big news I took away from this interview with Ardis consisted in him pinning the cause of the entire Covid fiasco squarely on the Catholic Church.

Once Ardis starts on this explanation (at time 38:23 into the video), he suddenly sounds like Jack Chick redivivus (the late Chick was notorious for his incredibly absurd, idiotic anti-Catholic "comic books"). Ardis' interviewer, conservative commentator and radio host J.D. Rucker, didn't challenge Ardis on this, but I would have let him have his rant and then I would have simply said, "Oh? The Catholics? I thought it was the Jews. Didn't the Jews cause Covid? Or maybe it was the Freemasons?"

Yes, I ridicule; I'm sarcastic. Just too Irish. But there does need to be a serious answer here.

Now, one might be naturally tempted to disregard everything Dr. Bryan Ardis said previous to this accusation of his. After the accusation, one might be similarly inclined to totally dismiss the man. But A, he's been around arguing manfully against the homicidal Covid regime since May 2020, and he associates with some of the greatest names in the anti-Covid movement, and B, he's obviously VERY angry and enraged at how this fraud has been perpetrated. SOMETHING huge and powerful had to be behind it since this occurred all over the planet at the same time and in the same degree, with the only three heads of state opposing the Covid tyranny being killed or overthrown, it makes sense to wonder!

Jesuits

But the Catholic Church? If Ardis, a Texan, has a certain type of Protestant background, he naturally would go after the Jesuits and Francis Jesuito Bergoglio, a Jesuit pope who ordered Catholics to take "the Jab"; in essence, he did exactly this. At Lifesitenews, this article reports:

A Westminster diocese spokeswoman told The Sunday Times, “The Catholic Church’s position is clear that take-up of the Covid vaccine is to be encouraged for the good of all. This has been clearly stated on a number of occasions in correspondence from Bishop Sherrington to Mother Marilla, in which he shared the Pope’s comments and the guidance from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in support of the vaccine programme.”

I personally cannot overstate my horror and disgust at this. It is insane. It was mad to begin with, forcing anyone to take experimental (truly jut out-of-the-box untested) medical technology for a "virus" that they ALL knew, by the time the "vaccines" appeared, to be no more deadly than the annual flu; since then, we know how obscenely the Covid mortality rake was inflated. But to keep this up, NOW, is an utter, and wholly damnable, insult to God and our fellow men. I personally know, as I've written before, seven or eight men and one woman who became very ill with bloo-clot type sickness, and shingles, after taking the injection. Me, myself, I personally know these folks.

Anyway, Bergoglio, sans medical or science degree, certainly so peremptorily ordered everyone working at the Vatican to take the Jab. And as noted, recommends it to all the laity, along with hundreds of his brown-nosing bishops. And never forget, most of these Devil's potions in some degree use aborted baby parts or genetics. As for the Jesuits, they have a rotten, and rotting reputation today, but they had a bad reputation with Protestants initially because, during the Counter-Reformation, they served as secret agents much of the time, working with great élan. At that time, even Austria was described as "a Protestant country with a Catholic ruling dynasty." But the Jesuits reversed a great deal of that and restored southern Germany, Poland, part of Lithuania, and other areas to the Faith. Their efforts in the British Isles were significant. Beyond Europe, they nearly won over both Japan and China. They enabled large areas of the Orthodox regions to align with Rome, as well, and that is where the Eastern-Rite Catholics come from (much in the news now with the Ukraine war). They made great advances for the Faith in the New World, too, north and south. No wonder the Protestants loathed them and the godless of the day hated them. Regarding the latter, the various Bourbon dynasts in Europe (either atheist themselves or employing atheist ministers), eventually saw to their total destruction. A later pope, Pius VII, after Napoleon fell, tried to restore them but they were never the same; today, they are infamous as the most irreligious and 'gay' of all Catholic religious. (They're so gay that, as Patrick Coffin says of Gay Germany, "You can see it from space.")

• And I wrote earlier, Ardis asks what medical degree does the pope have. I would ask what theological degree or doctorate in Ethics has Bergoglio that he would so crassly, wantonly deny people's right to free will. Oh, right; how could I forget: Marx taught there is no free will.
  

Any truth to some of this, remotely? Where did it come from?

• Ardis points out that the Vatican is tight with the Chinese Communist Party, which is true.
  
• He points out that the Vatican is getting a lot of Chinese money, which is true. He points out that China is making huge profits from "human trafficking" for body parts and prostitution, which is true.
• And Ardis discusses this from the perspective of a previous interview in which he talked to a man who tries to rescue Asian children from being shipped to China for rape or their body parts. I'm sure all that is true.
  
• We know the horrors the Chinese are perpetrating on Uighur children, women, and men. (See this VOA news article). 
  
• And Ardis discusses the child rape and sexual perversions of many of the Vatican II's clergy. (The Vat 2 Church sex scandals for the past few decades has given every Jack Chick wannabee or anti-Catholic atheist endless ammunition and almost irretrievably damaged the Church's reputation among Christians and other religions.)
  
• But Ardis insists that the Church is actually the originator of all this, and the banker of China to whom the deadly Chicoms owe allegiance. He doesn't think China is manipulating the ever-broke Vatican; rather, he thinks the mismanaged, perceptually broke Vatican orders Red China around!
  
• He insists the pope controls all the evil men like Soros, Schwab, and Gates, rather than them being Bergoglio's puppet masters.
  

How absurd is this fantasy?

Of course, anyone who knows anything of the Church knows how incompetent it is, in general, and how it would make a very poor "Deep State on the World's Stage" conspirator or éminence grise behind the "Great Resent" world domination. Also, historically, the Catholic Church has had very little power to influence the European nations since The Thirty Years War. That war destroyed the Counter-Reformation Church and high-level Catholics made that happen: i.e. Cardinal Richelieu and Pope Urban VIII, the notorious Maffeo Vincenzo Barberini. (If Dante had been alive then, he'd have them both roasting deep in his Inferno.) In both World War I and II, the Church might as well have been on Mars. History continuously demonstrates its weakness. The inexorable rise of Communism, despite all the efforts of Popes Leo 13, St. Pius 10, Pius 11, and Pius 12, along with the Russian Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet seizure of eastern/central Europe after WWII, demonstrates that; the three-year Cristero War, also known as the Cristero Rebellion or La Cristiada, in Mexico (1926-1929), demonstrates that, copiously. The rise of pornography and sexual dementia to the level of world domination after World War II also demonstrate that. The Vatican II Church's surrender to the world's zeitgeist demonstrates that. I could go on and on.

• John Paul II, however, is the exception that tests the rule. Because Karol Józef Wojtyła was from Poland, and because he had fought with Communists for decades, he could, via collaboration with Reagan and Thatcher, effect an extremely significant influence in Poland; Wojtyła led by heroic example, however, not ruthless power. It was not through the employment of cunning, secret agent-type Jesuits, such as the Counter-Reformation popes employed, that brought Communist Poland down, but intense, saintly moral power, and prayer. (Not to mention the Solidarity movement and the Soviet Union's bankruptcy.)

Today, Bergoglio himself rules as ruthless, brutal, merciless as any Renaissance pope, and is becoming comparable to the truly disastrous popes of the 10-11th centuries. He's hell and death to Traditional Catholics, certainly, as well as to traditional morality, millennia of prayer, and saintly religious formation; but could the Vatican's own modern-day Juan Peron be the true manager of this crazy world, of all this evil? Besides, he plays second (or tertiary) fiddle to Bill Gates, George Soros, and Klaus Schwab. He's turned the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church into just another sleazy NGO run by pro-aborts. This guy is behind Covid?

For myself, I know the Vatican is thoroughly reprehensible since Bergoglio took over, and I agree whole-heartedly with all the criticisms put forward by the great Archbishop Viganò. And I remember when Bergoglio called for everyone to receive the "clot-shots" and demanded everyone working in the Vatican take them. All evil. Dr. Bryan Ardis is right about that. And I agreed completely with Bishop Athanasius Schneider's critique of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's complicated, wheedling regimen for Catholics trying to decide whether taking these damnable and evil "vaccines" was moral. (When One Peter Five still took comments, myself and a few others arguing strenuously against the CDF's weasel words, and I wish I could noe see the faces of those who argued against us.) Bishop Schneider is a saint; "Bergi" not so much.

We live in an age of filth and degradation of all that's true, good, and beautiful. Is it any wonder that a new spiritual-holocaust is upon us?

I'll finish up in Part III with a discussion comparison of the Church in general and its hierarchy to the Jews; the parallels are fascinating.

An Préachán

Part II Why a Diocese Should Have No More than 100,000 Catholics

Cont.

Bottom Line

Yet, one man has to captain any ship. So, how to manage. 

One way to do it is to give the bishop an auxiliary, such as Los Angeles have five such. Giving him auxiliary bishops is like tag-teaming them. Who is the guy we really need to go to when we have problems? Who's the boss?

Another way is in the wretched Vatican II Church, we have these miserable "National Bishop Conferences", where a bishop's authority goes to die in a miasma of bureaucracy. Bishops, and their office, are (to coin a phrase) Biblical. Peter as chief of the Apostles, is Biblical. St Paul discussing with Timothy and Titus what to look for in men who are to be ordained bishops, that's Biblical. 

National Bishop conferences are not. Nor are synods, not in the sense of synodal government, such as Russia had from the days of "The First Peter" (Peter the Great) down to the Revolution in 1917, or the Republic of Greece has today. That's apparently what Bergoglio wants to turn the Catholic Church into. 

On the other hand, a synod or Church Council that meets to hammer out a particular solution to a particular problem, that's Biblical: The First Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. But governing the Church, managing it and running it via a synod, that's not.

What the National Bishops conferences are is a long stride toward Synod rule, and what they offer is a chaos of confusion, for leadership is buried in a bureaucracy and no actual bishop seems to have any power or authority. Bishops Conferences fail the basic point of leadership: one man, a general of an army or a captain of a ship or a president of a nation, one man has to be responsible for what happens. Bureaucracy negates that.

Tradition Solution?
Meanwhile, Ohio has one archbishop, in Cincinnati, in an archdiocese has 472,000 Catholics. But what is an archbishop? Well, the title now is basically an honorific, but historically, the pope, in far off Rome, would send a pallium, a special long, thin cloth, to a bishop of a far-off nation and that made the recipient an archbishop. The archbishop thereafter governed things in that local Church as a stand-in for the pope. He was the pope's vicar, essentially. Medieval England had two archbishops, in Canterbury, the primary one, and in York, for northern England. Ireland had four archbishops, one for each ancient Irish kingdom (Armagh, for Ulster, Dublin, for Leinster, Cashel for Munster, and Tuam for Connacht). 

However, as noted, today the archbishop title is pretty much merely titular. Technically, has a suffragan bishops, bishops under his direction -- but as they all report directly to Rome, this is window dressing. Cincinnati's Ohio suffragan dioceses are Cleveland, Columbus, Steubenville, Toledo, and Youngstown. Steubenville is the most interesting of these, as it was created in 1944 because some rich family or other wanted a bishopric for their son. Had it not been for that, its territory would have stayed part of the Columbus diocese. Currently, Steubenville has about 38,600 Catholics, which is very manageable, though it is mostly Appalachian territory; hardly a "Catholic" region at all. 

The diocese of Cleveland, on the other hand, has 677,000 Catholics, out of a diocesan territorial population of 2,774,000 people! Toledo has 322,000 Catholics and 123 parishes. (That averages to over 2,600 people per parish -- how is a parish priest going to manage that?) And finally, Youngstown has 198,000 Catholics. and it has 94 parishes, or over 2,000 people per parish, again. 

Now, in Protestant terms, a church with over 2,000 members would be a "mega-church" with a huge staff running it. In Catholic terms, none of support Protestant mega-church support network exists for the parish priest.

Therefor it is fair to ask how is any of Ohio's dioceses are really manageable, on any sort of "personal" basis, by any of the bishops -- except in Ohio's case, Steubenville?

But if we reconfigured the Church in such a way that the bishops were directly responsible to the archbishops only, and the archbishops were directly responsible to the pope in Rome, we'd end up with a system wherein the Vatican still had about 5-6,000 "bishops" to deal with, but they'd be archbishops. The pope could hold each archbishop responsible for managing his bishops, and they in turn would be focused on their people, whom they'd be expected to know much better, letting the archbishop handle the big problems.

100,000
Some considerations: because there are 1.3 billion Catholics in the world, having a rule that each bishop can only have about 100,000 or so people, would end us up with 13,000 bishops, instead of the 5,100 bishops (Latin rite and Eastern) currently existent in the Catholic Church.

Using Ohio as a guide, we'd have to break up all the dioceses except Steubenville (we could add a few counties to it, actually). Cleveland and Cincinnati would be broken up into three dioceses apiece, and Columbus, Toledo, and Youngstown, into two apiece. That's 13 dioceses altogether. 

The archbishop of Cincinnati would have to manage 13 bishops, unless it was deemed necessary to break the state up into two archbishops, one in Cincinnati (southwest corner of the state) and one in Cleveland (north coast of the state). The actual Catholic laity would be better served by their bishops, and the archbishops could deal with the pope -- directly, because we would eradicate the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops! No more big hotel ballrooms full of prelates voting at long banquet tables! No more bishop voting at all. Just responsibility "personified" in the local bishop and then his archbishop. 

Now, I would think the Vatican would want to appoint the archbishops, but the local bishops could (and should) be elected by their cathedral chapters -- something most Cathedrals probably don't have. And the laity could have some input in that, too. Laity could suggest men for ordination as bishop, and the Cathedral chapter choose from among them, with archbishop approving. 

Besides this, every nation would have a national Primate or Patriarch. In a huge country like the U.S., it is probably necessary to create a "Major Archishop" position, as well, someone who managed a team of 20 or 40 archbishops. 

Of course, Bergoglio rather wreck the Church than save it, and he would never implement such a plan; and the bishops themselves would be terrified. They actually be publicly accountable! They couldn't palm it off to the national bishop bureau shop! 

But something has to be done. It is probably too late to save the Church from breaking up into National Language Churches in any event. In another 50 years, there will be a plethora of "National Language Catholic Churches" on the Orthodox model, a bunch of essentially "linguistic ghetto churches" supposedly in Communion but actually loathing one another. There will be, of course, a Latin Mass Latin-Rite Catholic Church existing throughout the world, and everyone, Christian or not, will naturally see that Church as the really only truly "Catholic Church". 

I don't think one needs to be a divinely inspired prophet to foresee that!

AnP

The Vatican Issues a Martin Luther Stamp? C'mon!

And after I wrote my two-part essay on the Herr Doktor, too.

Honestly, though, this is absurd.

An Préachán

A Conundrum To Be Addressed: My letter to OnePeterFive

N.B. The excellent OnePeterFive website has a strict policy of banning anyone suggesting that the current pontiff is not really pope; i.e., OnePeterFive doesn't tolerate sedevantism, the teaching that the Chair of Peter is not presently occupied. One of the Moderators wrote that that is "potentially damaging to souls".

I myself am not a sedevacantist. It's one of the "Church things" high-level Churchman have to decide. Ultimately, only a pope can declare another pope "anti-pope" and that's after the fact, obviously. That is, unless we recreate the Great Schism, as it is called, which existed 1378 to 1417, ending with the Council of Constance; during that "Great Schism" we had THREE popes concurrently!

No, my concern is that we're fighting a bunch of political revolutionaries, a "party", the "Modernists", and while they use political weapons (organization, a "war of position" and a "long-march" through the Church's institutions, dis-information, and God only knows what else, we're fighting over Canon Law and the fine points of theology. To address the situation directly on, we'd have to stop pretending Francis is confused, or proud, or whatever other spiritual failings he may or may not have, and address it not spiritually (although, naturally enough, it is spiritual in the sense everything is, one way or the other).

Here's an email I composed for them, FWIW.

May I make an observation here about this and not be banned? I'm in all seriousness: In the old Vatican I Church, certainly, this site would be condemned and put on the Index (of course it would hardly need to exist in the old days to begin with, or be something quite different) because it speaks of a reigning Pontiff in – shall we say – unflattering terms. Indeed, Fr RP wrote that the errors of AL are "Legion", the allusion to the devils would not be missed by the censors of yesteryear, but even to assert that a papal document had errors would have resulted in his banishment (were we in Ireland about 1880) to the Gaeltacht in the West, doomed to preach in English to monoglot Irish speakers!

I mean this: Vat I Catholics had it drilled into them that one NEVER, EVER questioned a priest, let alone a bishop, let alone a pope. That idea was simply inconceivable (yes, Indigo, in the original sense of the word!). And that is precisely why the radicals, the Progressives, the Modernists, were able to bring about the Vat2 Revolution in the first place! They counted on that iron law of Church "Omerta". And like some who've been banned here, vanished to lonely oblivion, the post Vat2 result was half of the Catholics in the U.S. (and probably more so in the other countries) just left the Church. I say being "banned" because they couldn't accept the obvious falling away from Right Doctrine, so they "voted with their feet" as Comrade Lenin said. What else could they do. They couldn't protest. "Act out" or do anything but simply take it or leave.

Ok, so today we have a pope who teaches heresy. Fine. Sure, it is the first time in Church history (other popes with questionable teachings or acts never questioned the basic moral dogmas). And this article above says he's planning to extend his heresy into other areas! In the old Vat 1 system, there was no Canon 212, and we would be bound to keep our mouths shut and our fingers off the keyboard. But here is this excellent site (it IS excellent and I don't want to be banned from it) but just about every day its excellent contributors contribute more and more excellent evidence that PF is a heretic, and leading the Church toward disaster (well, he's not the only one: I think the sex scandal was the worst thing to happen to the Church since the combo of the Thirty Years War and then the "Bourbon Church", which choked the spiritual life out of the people the Bourbons called "les dévots" (if I have that right in the plural). And remember, the Bourbons – by their awful policies – brought on the French Revolution and all that followed.

This pope too, can say, "Après moi, le déluge".

So how do you-all "square that circle"? By that I mean, anyone reading this site regularly would quickly become convinced – were he a dévot, of course – that the conclusion you refuse to to tolerate is yet preached here daily? You write you don't want to be "potentially damaging to souls", but the old Church, the Vat I Church, would say you are – and so, ironically, would Pope Francis. ("You rigorists, you!" :)

Again, I don't want to be banned. From my personal perspective, we're on the wrong tract. We're using Holy Water against King Tiger tanks! The Church is dominated by a political party, a "faction" as James Madison would say. This faction is using politics to wreck the institutional Church and the defenders of the Institutional Church are "quoting Star Fleet regulation and Vulcan philosophy", as Spock's mother told him in Journey to Babel. Les
dévots are not using the tools to counteract that sort of attack.

This I wrote because I give a hoot about you-all here. I'm not saying Steve should close the site down. Aquinas would tell him to do so, most certainly and instead pray earnestly for God's help. But then St. Catherine of Sienna and certainly St. Columbanus (I'm a fan of his) would not do so: but then, they weren't Vat 1 Catholics, you know.

An Préachán

corvinescatholiccorner.blogspot.com

William Friedkin at Venice Film Festival on Shooting a Real Exorcism: "It Was Terrifying"

I believe it was Trotsky who said, "You may not be interested in the Revolution, but the Revolution is interested in you."

Same goes for the Devil. 

http://variety.com/2017/film/festivals/venice-william-friedkin-on-shooting-a-real-exorcism-1202546386/

I'd recommend the whole article, but also I'd point out this bit:

You have subsequently consulted with scientists in the U.S. about what you witnessed and filmed. What did they say?I consulted with neurologists, brain surgeons, some of the best in the United States. The brain surgeons had no idea what her affliction was and none of them would recommend an operation. They believe that everything originates in the brain but — and they say this in the film — they have never seen anything quite like these symptoms….Then the psychiatrists…all described how psychiatry now recognizes demonic possession. It’s called dissociative identity disorder/demonic possession. And if a patient comes in and says they are possessed by a demon or a devil, they don’t tell them that they are not….They do whatever psychiatric treatment they think is necessary, including medication. And they bring an exorcist in.

An P again: That's quite amazing, actually. One would think they'd dismiss it out of hand. No doubt some do. But that dissociative identity disorder/demonic possession is "recognized" is astounding in itself. But then I remembered this article from last year, by Dr Richard Gallagher. 

Of the many negative comments, this was one of the politer ones: 

bestseller19
7/14/2016 10:23 PM GMT+0200
Perhaps Dr. Gallagher should consider this a good time to surrender his license.