Prof Kwasniewski's Futility, Pius IX, and Pope Francis' Criminality - Updated

Amici,

It's been all over the Catholic news, Professor Kwasniewski's Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis. (Read its full statement here at Lifesite.) I think it is not exactly an exercise in absolute futility, but it is badly flawed, and even actually incoherent, as Louie Verrecchio explains in great detail and insight here at AKA Catholic. 

If it has any value besides grandstanding for the ridiculous and anti-Catholic "Resist the Pope" movement, of which Prof Kwasniewski serves as the great cheerleader, I think that value lies in its listing the crimes of Bergoglio. And I mean actual civil law crimes. The document details crime after crime. Bergoglio is a monster. Period.

The Papacy

Look, the Catholic (Universal) Apostolic Church has spent 2,000 years strengthening the pope's role. The Orthodox autocephalous Churches prissily dismiss the obvious. The Protestants do too, all so they can be their own popes. Whatever. But the Church probably went overboard at Vatican I regarding the importance of the Papacy. 

• I never had the feeling Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus was quite correct, and Pius IX himself haughtily said, "I am the tradition," like Louis XIV said "I am the state". What hubris! But who am I to pick and choose? 
• Pius chose his poison and thus now we have to swallow it via a (I believe anti-)pope saying, "I am the Church, and I am changing it into something totally different, and there's no going back!" 
• Bergoglio pretends to be a Mormon Prophet President who can remake anything Catholic at a whim. It's insane. His toadies and creatures make out Bergoglio to be a prophet sent from God. Forsooth! 
• Yet what does Prof Kwasniewski want? The cardinals to be able to impeach a pope by two-thirds vote? Or a Supreme Court set up somehow, independent of the Papacy?
  

The great saints and doctors of the Church long before Pius IX made it plain enough: a formal heretic can't be Catholic, let alone pope. Should one manifest, we should refuse him obedience. (Hear that, Bishop Strickland?) Bergoglio clearly teaches heresy. Has done, is doing so. He's literally Hell-bent on it. Ergo, ipso facto, he is not now, and probably never was, a valid pope. You do not "resist" such a person, you utterly ignore him. He has no validity. 

Crimes

Beyond all that, however, my friends (and anyone reading this), Jorge Mario Bergoglio is guilty of actual civil crimes, specifically (but not limited to) protecting child molesters and rapists. And of course that nun-rapist "artist" Marko Rupnik. All of these monsters are obscenely evil. Bergoglio protects them. The 'Call for Resignation' goes to great lengths to list in some detail a large number of Bergoglio's crimes. Finally! The man ought to be arrested and imprisoned. 

1. In America, bishops in favor in Rome need not worry about covering up such evil. They can do as they please, as we see every day.
   
2. A bishop who is orthodox, however, finds "covering up sex crimes" a perfect way to be "cancelled", as was Bishop Robert Finn, forced out in 2015 for a minor situation that – compared to today's filth – was insignificant. 
3. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, whom apparently everyone in the U.S. hierarchy knew for decades was an insane seminarian Xōchipilli, god of Aztec homosexuality, raping seminarians, who got away with it till Archbishop Viganò and Pope Benedict put him on ice, only to have the evil Toad-Ogre generalissimo from Argentina rehabilitate McCarrick and send him to China to sell out Chinese Christians.
   
4. BTW, Bergoglio needs to be charged with simony, as well, for he certainly betrayed the Chinese Catholics for filthy lucre.
   
5. Bergoglio only removed McCarrick finally when the putrid stink of it all began making his own toady press corps vomit. 

What I find astounding is how Bergoglio so clearly exhibits being a product of a Vatican II rotten Church hierarchy that allowed the sex scandal to metastasize for so long. Way back in 1985, a certain Father Thomas Doyle raised the alarm of clerical sex abuse but the hierarchy in the form of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (which ought not to have ever existed; thank you Vatican II for a wholly useless "teat on a boar hog") ignored Doyle. Then a few cases occurred until 2002, when all hell broke loose with Fr. John Geoghan exploding the clergy sexual abuse hell-on-earth in Boston. (The local bishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, had to admit receiving a letter in 1984 about Geoghan which, of course, he "round filled". It was Bishop Joseph Strickland whom I remember reading – in an article I cannot find now, since his cancellation dominates the news – told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual meeting that nothing had really been done about this mess, which sealed his own "molestation" order (being cancelled by Bergoglio).

• This was probably in or shortly after 2016, when the National Catholic Register reports 'In late 2016, the plainspoken prelate changed his approach, from what he calls a “management bishop” to teaching the Catholic faith aggressively, including its controversial parts. He eventually began calling out others publicly when he considered their actions deficient, including Pope Francis.' 
• But Bishop Strickland didn't add two plus two together, and STILL says Bergoglio is pope, and thus abandoned his flock to Hell Hounds on the order of an anti-pope.

In any event, Bergoglio is part and parcel of this sex abuse mess. He became an Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires in 1992. His higher career parallels the trajectory of abuse allegations. True, he himself has never personally been linked to sex abuse EXCEPT in covering up predators; obviously, he has no excuse about being ignorant of what was going on. It probably has something to do with Juan Perón's dictum, "For our friends: everything. For our enemies: not even justice." (Isn't that exactly how NY Judge Juan Merchan is treating Trump? Merchan is a Colombian ex-pat!) A priest compromised by abuse allegations is a much more useful tool and toady for an unscrupulous ladder climber like Bergoglio than one having a sterling reputation.

The Kicker

Whatever the case, the Kicker is that just as the horrific, insane abuse allegations and then the evidence of actual crimes became manifest, Catholics experienced tremendous difficultly accepting the reality. It was just too horrible. And now we have a "pope" who embodies the worse aspects of Vatican II, the modernist heresy, and grotesque repudiation of everything that is actually Catholic, ESPECIALLY the most Catholic thing of all, its Traditional rites. AND HE IS A CRIMINAL TO BOOT!

Thank you Pius IX for making this mess, you and your arrogant "I am the tradition". Had you just left it the way it was, a good pope would in no way be hindered in doing his job – defending and teaching the Deposit of Faith (i.e. Tradition) and "strengthening his brothers" – while a bad pope wouldn't be so "teflon" as to escape all consequences of being a tool of Satan. Which is what we've got now.

Bergoglio is a minion of Satan, and his new Synodal Church from which he and his cronies insist there's no going back from, is a Satanic anti-Church 'Ape of the Church', and I for one reject him and all his works, root and branch.

I categorically refuse to be driven mad by the obvious cognitive dissonance of trying to believe Wild Boar Bergoglio is a valid Pope. The modernist heretics behind Vatican II and the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" manipulated the gullible John 23rd, elected the feckless Paul 6, killed John Paul I and hindered and misled John Paul II, and kicked out Benedict. These popes all had modernist tendencies but bore nothing in themselves of the outright apostasy Bergoglio evinces every hour of every day, seven days a week.

Enough of Bergoglio and his madness!

AnP

Update: from Lifesitenews

Vatican invites Gavin Newsom, other pro-abortion, pro-LGBT Democrats to speak at climate event

As with everything else regarding Bergoglio, nothing about this is Catholic. NOTHING. Bergoglio is favoring "Catholics" who are abortionists and the unrepentant sexually deviant and therefore damned – about a fake "climate crisis" that only exists as an excuse to depopulate, to 'cull", humans from the Earth! Bergoglio is insanely evil and he just keeps going and going without major opposition. 

This must be the Great Apostasy. 

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

We must practice "Subsidiarity" ourselves, if were to survive the demise of the Vatican II Church

Amici,

In a Comment here at OnePeterFive, a Commentator name "Michael" wrote an eloquent plea for help dealing with the insane, paradoxical current Church situation, wherein the pope is a heretic, and how do we be Catholics when the top hierarchy (and so much of the lower) is no longer Catholic in teaching or practice? I wrote the follow to Michael. 

You write an eloquent and pleading Comment, Michael, but I'll focus on one line of it: "It's a circle which cannot be squared."

Then don't.

Since Vatican I (yes, the Council in the 1860s, not the one in the 1960s), we've been – mainly because of technology, actually, the first TransAtlantic cable was laid before the U.S. Civil War – ever more and more under the Pope, directly under the pope, something the vast majority of Catholics never were historically. Popes were far off and only the final court of appeals capstone to a hierarchy that was mostly local and self-governing. Bishops were locally elected by Cathedral chapters (or appointed by religious orders, or by archbishops who were the pope's representative in far-flung nations, and even by secular kings). Popes picked archbishops, who sometimes were from Italy and personally known to the pontiff, though often they were local bishops elevated from Rome. They ran the Church locally, through their suffragan bishops, who in turn were much more like local archpriests and nothing like the modern never-seen corporate managers of today.

(This is the way it ought to be – must be! – again, though such reforms could only come after a total collapse of the existing order.)

So, in this specialized way, all the regional churches were in essence "national" -- though the concept of nation took longer to develop in France and Spain, say, than England, with Germany and Italy not being "nations" till the 19th century! So by "nation" I mean region, more or less. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was practicing "Subsidiarity", in other words, long before the concept itself was defined! The nature of long-distance communications made that a reality.

Then technology altered all that, what with world cable communications, and Pius IX began turning bishops, wherever they were in the world, into his local "secretaries". After Pio Nono, under the great Leo XIII, we got used to expecting a brilliant papal encyclical with breakfast, as one Englishman put it. But of course, it couldn't last. So much depended on the character of the pontiff. Great pontiffs made for great times universally, as they were basically our actual local pastors, thanks to technology. But along with that, a bad pope could bring utter disaster upon the world, as we've seen in spades.

Thus, were in the pickle we find ourselves in, Michael. Those of us who know the Faith need to practice "subsidiarity" ourselves, working locally as best we can to being true Christians, Eucharistic Christians, and making a difference in our own little circles. That's our place in the hierarchy. For now, at least.

RC

Reflections on Modernism in the Church, Cardinal Wuerl, the March for Life

It is said Cardinal Wuerl will be speaking at the upcoming March for Life.

He should be run outta town. 

If any of the these defenders (or enablers or fellow-travellers) of the "GayChurch" can be said to "Believe" at all, they believe in the Modernist conception of God, and the Modernist conception of God is based on Evolution. 

Yes, indeed. The behind-the-scenes core idea of Modernism is that everything evolves. Everything evolves -- including God. So they smugly think their understanding of God is far higher and more "evolved" than our own.

An article at OnePeterFive quoted a report that 'Wuerl has consistently denied knowing about McCarrick’s activities, expressing “shock, confusion, anger and frustration” about the allegations against his predecessor.'

He was shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment. Of course, Captain Louis Renault had more class. AND he preferred the ladies. (Well, not a question of "prefer" -- Cap'n Louie was a heterosexual. Full stop.)

Look, this upcoming March for Life might turn out to be a new Pilgrimage of Grace, a "March for Life" in another sense -- a march for the life of Holy Church. It's past time. And remember: these people are Modernists, and the essence of that essentially Protestant thing -- Modernism is essentially Protestant, hence our modern Protestantized liturgy -- is Evolution. Modernism came into being in Germany during the time Charles Darwin's teaching was becoming known after the publican of D's Origin of Species (ironically, D didn't believe in species!).

Modernists believe our understanding of the Bible evolves and our morality evolves, all because our understanding of God evolves -- AND they believe God Himself evolves.(Think of the Modernist idea that Jesus didn't know who He was as a Child, or that early Christian "faith communities" didn't believe Joshua the Nazarene was God, etc.) Now, with that in mind, reflect on the attitude of these cats, from Wuerl to Francis and on beyond: at the very least, at their very best, exercising all they can of whatever charity they can muster up from their muddy souls, they hold the laity in a sort of avuncular amusement: we laity are just children who don't understand. Notice how smug they are? The smugness of someone tolerating the ignorant and childish. And this is at their very best!

Once you "get" Modernism/Progressivism's inner clockwork, then you comprehend where they're coming from. And it ain't Historical Christianity.

Also:

Wuerl and so many of his ilk are so used to -- or have it so bred into their psychology -- the laity being just lumps to be pushed around on the Modernist-Progressive pottery wheel as they see fit, and at whatever speed they feel like pushing it. Bergoglio is the same. Making that "Tucho" Fernandez a bishop! C'mon.

And that was the whole driving force of Vatican II. We are "sheeple" to them.

Something like OnePeterFive -- founded by a layman, etc. -- is nothing to them. And of course any bishop who opposes them will find himself bumping like an old India-rubber ball down a mountainside so fast he'll never even feel the boot hit his backside.

A blogger at OnePeterFive wrote: 

"We are ' sheeple' to them because the vast majority of laity have been lulled to sleep over many generations."

I answered: 

Well, not lulled so much as ordered. Keep in mind that on one hand, the Church has always in some degree been the preserve of the educated clerics. Average folks couldn't read for 100s of years because paper wasn't invented, and teaching reading and writing had fallen out of use. 

(Important to note: the Ancient Roman world's "paper" was papyrus from Egypt -- hence the name "paper" -- but the Muslims cut off all Mediterranean trade of that commodity after their conquests -- except for slaves, they traded in nothing; Islam is basically a slavers' religion. So without a fresh supply of "paper", all the books in Western Europe disintegrated in 100 years time, or by about 800 or so. Only vellum, calf skin, could be used. It could endure the Western climate.)

After the horrors of the French Revolution (the Vendée, etc.) the "Vatican I Church "laid down the law" and became a sort of Festung Katholika, a Fortress Catholicism. The laity were told to "pray, pay, and obey". And it was the Vatican I laity that got used and abused by the Reformation II, the Reformers of Vatican II. These "Reformers" mercilessly and callously preyed on up to 100 years of "pray, pay, and obey" training to force us laity to bah-bah our way to the shearing pens, where we they sheared us down to the dermis and even subcutaneous fat.

But today the "bloom is off that ruse".

An Préachán

Church History, the last thousand years -- condensed!

Here's my condensed History of the Catholic Church, The Last Thousand Years:

In the High Middle Ages Church, from about 1054 to 1300: (i.e. from the final split with the East to a couple of decades after the death of Aquinas in 1274), God was pleased with us and He gave us Saints Francis and Dominic and Norbert, and capped 'em all with Thomas of Aquinas. Then in the Later Middle Ages Church, we embraced William of Ockam and Marsilius of Padua, and were cowardly enough to let the Kings of France hijack the papacy, so God gave us Luther & Co. as Chastisement. Learning our lesson, we prayed for mercy and He gave us the Jesuits (the original version; perhaps, pound for pound, the best religious order we've ever had) and the Counter-Reformation Church(1540-1648) full-flowered! We nearly retook all of Europe.

But then we threw it all away because of two Catholic Churchmen (the Prots weren't a real enemy: they were routed whenever faced with Truth, Faith, and Tradition). No, we shot ourselves in the collective foot again by idiotically electing that ass Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII, a braying donkey who promptly made a fool of the Church in the Galileo affair (because Galileo insulted him -- sure, let's make the Church into a harlequin for that reason! /sarc), and then Barberini wrecked the entire Counter-Reformation by betraying the Habsburgs in the Thirty Years War! How'd he pull off that feat? Barberini supported the French who were knifing the Habsburgs (also spelled 'Hapsburgs") in the back by supporting that atheist Richelieu! Idiota!.

So God kicked us off the porch and let us stew in the mud puddle bordello of the Bourbon Church, from 1648-1789. The Bourbon Church was summed up by the wry comment of Louis XV, when some cronies of his tried to foist one of their own on him for a lucrative Church post, "Gentlemen," Louis said languidly, in that droll way of his, "Gentlemen, the archbishop of Paris must at least believe in God."

We barely survived the following Great Chastisement God inflicted on us by means of the French Revolution and then Napoleon. Barely. The Vatican I Church was a desperate attempt at survival, a Festung Katholica, from 1846 to 1963, when it was morally defeated by World War I and World War II. The Modernists were already, like termites, eating it out from inside, but the coup de grace was that no one was interested in what the Church had to say about either world war, and the Church was impotent (and had been, since the Thirty Years War, actually) to stop either war, or stop the Darwinian-based slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, Capitalists, entrepreneurs, or whoever didn't fit the Nazi and Soviet-Man ideology. (Today, its de-masculinized and can't even fight off the lavender Mafia types who infest it!)

So it was merely washed away by the Modernists, who clandestinely organized before the Vat II Council and seized control of it in the first session. Therefore, ironically, what started out as German Protestants in the 19th century, incredibly, are German Protestants today, although dressed in Catholic colors, who fully and clearly desire to murder the Church entirely.

By "murder" I mean turn it into a 21st century Anglican/Lutheran Mess, Spaghetti Version.