Give Bergi a little credit, him or his "creatures and hangers on"

Friends,

Regarding this news that indeed, the Traditional Latin Mass will be widely banned, essentially outlawing it for any non-FSSP or ICKSP priest to say it  –

Give Bergoglio and his henchmen (Andrea Grillo, Tucho "Kissy" Fernandez, Vittorio Francesco Viola, & Arthur Roche) a little credit. They know full well they can't have the pre-Vatican II TLM Mass being offered because it shows – wildly, unmistakably – that the Vatican II Mass (more specifically, the Hannibale Bugnini "Spirit of Vatican II Mass") is definitely NOT Catholic, or at the very least "Catholic Lite". They can't allow the TLM to exist because it accuses them manifestly and continually. It shows them up. They want to finally "fulfill" or "complete" what they allege Vatican II started, and the TLM is a roadblock to that.

Also, remember, the Bergoglians are working on a new even more "ecumenical" liturgy that won't have a consecration. Little mentioned in the mainstream Catholic press, it has been written up and they're going to use it for the Synodal Church.

In this context, you can see why Bergoglio is pushing this right now – or his imps Grillo, Fernandez, Viola and Roche might be pushing it, as Tio Jorge himself doesn't celebrate liturgy at all and seemingly couldn't  care less. (How ironic that the champion of the Novus Ordo rite is obviously bored with it!)

Of course, trying so outrageously and stupidly to ban the TLM will ironically even prove all this to all but the most unhinged papal supremacists. Their own acts will reveal them. 

So in the Libyan fable it is told
That once an eagle, stricken with a dart,
Said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft,
"With our own feathers, not by others' hands,
Are we now smitten."

Aeschylus

Only these clowns are not eagles. They're dodos.

Kinda like the Biden administration, actually. 

  An Préachán

No to the TLM Grab: Catholic Ecumenicism with Vatican II Church Devilry Has to End /with Update

Update Note:

News of the Vatican's 'extrajudicial penal trial' against Archbishop Viganò is hardly surprising, and just confirms what I've written in the essay below. 

Amici,

One usually thinks of Ecumenicism as a "dialogue" (whatever that overused word means outside of drama or narrative) between Christian denominations, but it actually primarily occurs, I think, within the Catholic Church, and there only between the Traditional Catholics and the "Novus Ordo" Vatican II Catholics. It is NOT a dialogue, however, but a tyranny, as we've all seen these past 60 years.

It is time – long past time, but now SO obvious – Traditional Catholics ended the ecumenicalism we've had with the Vatican II Church. Yes, to be Christian is to suffer for the Faith, but it is not Christian to suffer heretics lording it over us. The secular world already hates us; we have no need to let so-called Churchmen hate us and force us to suffer their wickedness. Souls are being lost, and it has to stop.

Abrogating the TLM?

Word is out that Bergoglio and his peeps will be cracking down on – as in eliminating or banning – the Traditional Latin Mass. This will probably consist, as Anthony Stine suggests, of Rome banning the TLM in diocesan parishes. (But it could be worse, he notes.) Rorate has the initial article here. Anthony Stine provides a thorough review of it here. Stine quotes Prof. Kwasniewski discounting the rumor, but Dr Stine explains how, with Bergoglio's Vatican being what it is, we can expect literally anything to manifest. I agree. Commentator Kennedy Hall, for his part, offers a very insightful understanding of this mess. Mr Hall points out that this has happened before. This is, after all, what they forced on us in the 1970s. A billion Catholics were worshiping in the TLM, Hall reminds us, including the pope, the cardinals, bishops, religious, and the laity, and even so the Modernists dropped the hammer on it.

In this, Mr Hall makes an excellent and indispensable point. Astutely, Hall points out that Pope John Paul II (God have mercy on that confused soul) only allowed the TLM because he and his Vatican team insisted hardly anyone except old folks wanted it, as though from some sentimental attachment. And the Polish pope insisted it would not be allowed at all if any Traditionalist thought that the Novus Order slop was somehow inferior to the TLM. For JP2, attraction to the TLM was a "problem", Hall notes, reading from a JP2 document, that needed to be "solved". 

This insight says it all. For the Modernist heretics, devotion to the Traditional Faith, the handed-down Faith ("I give you what I have been given", as St. Paul says twice in First Corinthians), is merely a psychological condition that needs "solved." Or we are just plain heretics. As one Modernist wrote (referenced below), we are "not in a relationship of fidelity" to Rome, but we are "at odds" with Rome. Of course we are, you fool, because you are "not in a relationship of fidelity" to the Faith as it has been handed down from the Apostles! Duh! 

To them, the New Mass is infinitely better; we see it as infinitely inferior. To insist the Novus Ordo is better is to fry our brains on the skillet of cognitive dissonance. I, myself, grew up with the new Mass and I testify about it thoroughly in these pages; I repudiate it. It's horizontal, not vertical, secular not sacred. If nothing else, it simply prays for a lot less – literally asking for less from God – and therefore naturally far fewer graces accrue from it. Of course far fewer graces accrue from it. We've copious proof of that over the last half century, have we not? I won't go back. 

Now, clearly, these are diametrically different viewpoints between the Modernists and Traditionalists. They can't both be correct. If the Modernists (technically "post-Modernists") running the Church since John 23 called Vatican II could disregard what that impotent and flaccid Council actually recommended for the liturgy; i.e. the calls for Latin to be retained in the Mass and Gregorian Chant be given pride of place, they could get away with anything they wanted to. And they did. This despite the Vatican II Council supposedly being a "Pastoral" Council, so its teaching consists of recommendations on pastoral outreach rather than dogmatic definitions, as Vatican I and most other councils promulgated. But the Modernists use it as a dogmatic sledgehammer to smash us actual Catholics all to bits. We live in the ruins.

Whatever Bergoglio, the Anti-Pope extraordinaire, and his lavender imps and cross-eyed hobgoblins are planning for the TLM, they obviously hate it. They hate actual "bead counters" and "breeders". They obviously do not understand the Traditional Liturgy. So, therefore, surely, now it is time to say enough, as in "Good-bye to you, get out of our house!". Yes, long past time. I could list all the devilry Bergoglio has imposed on Holy Church, but you-all know most of that already. Funding the drag tranny at the children's gathering was the slap in the face many needed to wake up. The Argentinian is just the icing on the Vatican II cake.

This is why I write that our ecumenicalism with the Vatican II tumble-down disaster has to end. Yes, our Catholic engagement with Modernism and the Modernist Church has to end. 

The Apostolic Faith

There exists the Catholic Faith, the Apostolic Tradition, the Deposit of Faith that has been handed down from the Apostles, and as St. Paul wrote of it, if he himself or an angel from Heaven dare teach another, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8-9) Then there exists a wide variety of Churches teaching versions of this Deposit of Faith, affirming this bit while discounting that bit, picking and choosing. Some are less heretical than others, certainly, such as the autocephalous or self-headed 14 Orthodox Churches. These are separate from Rome but they have valid sacraments and Apostolic Succession. Then there are the Oriental Orthodox. Many Eastern Rite Churches exist that are indeed in communion with Rome. (Though Bergoglio is putting absolutely everything under mortal strain by making "Rome" heretical.) Then there are the Protestant Churches, 20,000 or so – some say a lot more – who are not Apostolic-founded Churches, but denominations separating themselves in profound ways from Apostolic Christianity.

Failure to Stop the World Wars

Ecumenism was a big thing post World War II, as the various theologians and church leaders tried to deal with their being totally impotent to affect such a abrutal horror as either World War – or for that matter, the looming World War III. (That's something Bergoglio could be raising Cain about, but he is too busy coddling homosexuals.) During the Covid fraud, the Vatican II Church went belly up entirely. Though the pre-Conciliar Church was quite healthy generally speaking, these disaffected leaders during Vatican II and after pushed the idea to make the Church relevant again by refounding it as more modern, more "with it", more mundane and less "religious' or "spiritual". A key to this Modernist self-inflicted murder focused on Modernists trying to attract mainly the Protestant sects into rejoining the Catholic Church via negotiations – the idiot idea being to make Catholicism more like Protestantism so Catholicism would be less objectionable to Protestants. 

• That was the origin of the Novus Ordo, the New Mass as Annibale (Hannibal) Bugnini – the toad who wrote the new Mass up – himself said. No wonder so many Catholics left the Church after the Church imposed it on them.
  
• But the basic idea on its face is asinine. 
• No Protestant can respect it, as it is so craven, and no true Catholic can tolerate it, as it most definitely isn't Catholic. 
  
• For hundreds of years now, Protestantism has defined itself in thousands of ways, but common to all its emendations stands its refusal to be Catholic. Ecumenism is as dumb as trying to "reunite" with the Jews by adopting kosher laws when Jews have spent the last 2,000 years being Jewish precisely by rejecting Christ, the point of Christianity. 
• Finally, trying to be "Protestant-lite", Catholics only succeeded in insulting Protestants by "getting into their lane". Of course they're insulted. They staked out their ground years ago and don't want us invading it. So imbecilic is all this that perhaps it is true this is all a plan of the Freemasons to bring down the Church.
  

Ecumenicism

Ecumenicalism is a falsity in and of itself. It's founded not on reason but emotion. ("Wouldn't it be nice if we could all agree?") It's not about faith but negotiation. Christianity is not – and never has been – about negotiations with other religions. Even within itself. From the beginning, Christians saw all other religions as at best false, at worst diabolical. And as one can see from St. Paul, they continually policed themselves. Christians could have saved their lives by burning a pinch of incense to the emperor; it would have been easy to "negotiate" that. Yet they would rather die. That's because they had FAITH in Christ and knew via God's grace that all else was a lie. And now we are reliving exactly this situation, with our pinch of incense now required abandoning the Traditional worship. 

This is essential to understand. While paganism is about ignorant superstition or tribal identity ("I swear by the gods my people swear by" Cú Chullainn used to boast) and Judaism is about inheritance and Islam is about submission (Al-Islam literally means The Submission), Christianity is about Faith in Christ, and Faith is more than belief: it is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is supernatural, and definitely not up for negotiation.

Besides: Individuals convert. Institutions do not. Individual pagans can become Christian, as can Jews and Muslims (though the latter might be killed for doing so). Catholics can convert to other religions or become atheists. That's the Mysterium Fidei of God's gift of grace and the vagaries of human free will. None of that is arrived at by committees negotiating minutiae – or by elite bureaucrats imposing their diktats on the Faithful.

Ecumenism, if it is anything other than being "nice" to folk of other religions, is a negotiation: "Well, if we give up this teaching, will you join with us then?" Or "If we accept your teaching on this, will you join us then?" And that is exactly how John Paul II and Benedict saw easing off on TLM restrictions. A negotiation. Offering crumbs to dumb birds to keep them from flying the coop. But they imposed a time limit from the beginning, as Kennedy Hall asserts. Their patience with us has run out. Our Traditional time is over, this new Vatican ruling is saying. Pinch the incense or else. They fully intend to force the issue. We must refuse their entire gambit.

In short: WE CATHOLICS have had to give up so much of the Traditional Teaching of the Faith to the Modernists who took over the Church just in order to "stay Catholic" and not be called Schismatics or Sedevacantists. But it was never enough, was it? It never is with terrorists, and that's what the Vatican II Reformers were. Now, with Bergoglio bringing to birth this demonic "Synodal Church" of his, they're demanding even more! The Ape of the Church is come. And it is a baboon.

What Modernists Think

No. Just no. Of course Modernists think the Traditional Catholicism isn't true, or THE Faith is just a mental condition explained by psychology. Remember the fundamental idea of Modernism is that life evolves, our understanding of things evolves, and even God evolves. And they are the elite who see all and know all and we have to evolve as they tell us to. 

Of course they think they can manipulate us, push us around, consign us to some reservation in a school gym somewhere. Until they terminate us. Remember, to them, we have a psychological condition that needs "solved." Or we are just plain heretics. Anthony Stine in a followup podcast in which he reads from an interview with Andrea Grillo, the Vatican's "leader of liturgical progressivism": it is Grillo who asserts we are "not in a relationship of fidelity" to Rome, but we are "at odds" with Rome. Grillo also callously dismisses the Chartres Pilgrimage, saying,

"What are 18,000 people compared to the great multitude of the Catholic Church? Little more than a sect that experiences infidelity as salvation, as is often linked to moral and political positions, and very concerning customs. Tradition and Traditionalism cannot be equated."

That's exactly what they think of us. This is 180 degrees opposite of Tradition's understanding of the Faith, of devotion and the innate human desire to worship God as God has laid down.

We must break with these people. They are not Catholic. Bergoglio has defected from the Church, and this Professor Grillo, a VIP in Bergoglio's Vatican speaking though the Argentinian's mouth, is a truly blind guide. Grillo is a callous ideologue whose heartlessness is as plain as if he had horns and a forked tail. Fr James Mawdsley presents an excellent explanation of why Bergoglio cannot stop priests from saying the TLM starting at 12:06, "A word about obedience".

Millions have left the Church and the Holy Sacraments necessary for Salvation – to them the Sacraments are just juju, magic superstition for mental degenerates exactly like some Protestants have so long alleged. No wonder the Vatican II Church is so "Protestant"!

Raising Christ's Royal Standard

Suffering is a part of life, and sometimes we must suffer: accident, heartache, disease, tragedy. We Catholics can carry it too far, as did Luisa Piccarreta of the false Divine Will cult within the Church. (For details, see Fr Mawdsley.) The Blessed Virgin Mary as Our Lady of Sorrows is the all-time exemplar of true Christian suffering. She endured all that God sent her after her Fiat without the slightest demur, and is therefore the greatest created being, and our Mother and Intercessor. See what the demons testify to this.

In terms of the Faith, however, the world will always hate Christians because it hated Christ. We suffer when we must but it is sadomasochistic to suffer needlessly. We instinctively draw the line at a certain point. 

1. We couldn't let the Jews kill off Christianity in the first forty years of the Faith.
2. We couldn't let the Gnostics bury it alive in its infancy.
3. We couldn't let the pagan Roman state snuff it out, the Germanic barbarians or the later Mongols crush it.
4. We definitely could not let Islam – yet another Gnostic legalistic system – swamp it and tax it to death. 
5. We couldn't let the Cathar Gnostics kill it with their homosexual cult in the Middle Ages any more than we can let perverts destroy it now. 
6. And we couldn't let Protestants dissolve it into initial confusion, then empirical irrelevancy and finally the modern all-pervasive secularism.
7. We cannot let Bergoglio and Grillo and so many others destroy it from within, either, any more than we can allow the One World Government or Communism or Consumer Capitalism or Freemasonry to throttle it. The challenges from "the world, the flesh, and the devil" never end.
   

For our children's sake, we must preserve the Faith. We must fight. Therefore I repudiate Bergoglio, and have done so for some time. If that makes me a Sedevacantist, then at least I am not suffering from Cognitive Dissonance. What we need is a bishop, just one, to start the avalanche that has been building pressure and is about to burst. Bishop Strickland, for example, or Bishop Schneider to name another, who would formally declare by their Apostolic Authority that Bergoglio and Grillo and the rest have clearly defected from the Catholic Church, and that Catholics need to anathematize them.

We need to raise Our Lord's Royal Standard, the Sacred Heart, and not take it down until God triumphs.

        AnP

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. 

What Is Love? Follow up on Scott Hahn and "She's not your girlfriend".

Friends,

Following up on my earlier criticism of Professor Scott Hahn's assertion in the Mass of the Ages 3 movie that every bishop in the world should "fall in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary", I received a number of comments that make me realize "What is love?" is a question that first must be answered in order to understand how cloyingly mawkish, just plainly over-  sentimental, Hahn's comment is. 

• But first of all, please note he is speaking of bishops using their full Apostolic powers. In my original essay, I reported Hahn as saying, “All bishops and priests ought to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.” 
• I have now watched the MOTA3 movie, and at 39 minutes in, Prof Hahn's full quote is, "I think bishops need to really stretch themselves to move from the natural to the supernatural. The bishops ought to be in persona Christi in a way that corresponds to Vatican II defined as the plenitude of holy orders. They ought to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's the only safe way they can lead us."

A bit of a jump there, a bit tangled too, though now I understand his comment in context. (And for me, any reliance on anything Vatican II produces an immediate headache.)

Yet my initial observation in my original critique STILL stands: I wrote then that the majority of (at least the Western World's) bishops are chosen for their "hard-nosed" unbelief in the supernatural. All of Vatican II, especially the Novus Ordo Mass, is a desacralization of the Faith. That was exactly what the 16th century Reformation was, and Vatican II is exactly that revolution come again. In other words, the Modern Church Catholics who don't know what the Eucharist is regarding the Real Presence, they are a FEATURE of the Vatican II Church, not a BUG!

All this is because a non-Catholic "junta" or "deep state" runs the modern Church, and has done so since Pope John XXIII let his people he chose to manage the Vatican II Council be removed when the Council opened and "young Turks" took over.

This is self-evidently obvious. To deny it is to go cross-eyed with cognitive dissonance. And I mean that. The junta running the Church since the '60s has never relented in its goals. It wants no-nonsense materialist financial and "bottom-line" managers; it does not want "men of Faith". That's why Bergoglio dumped Bishop Strickland (and others): they obviously believed. That's why Benedict was deposed (and he was deposed.) That's why the Vat 2 junta remains at war with the Traditional Latin Mass: that ancient liturgy creates and inspires believers. Ergo, they want it G.O.N.E.

 

So, with that observation reinforced, I also note again how cartoonish, written in thick crayon and felt, like decorations for kindergarten, Prof Hahn's statement is. Therefore, here's a quick discussion of what love actually is.

Love

First of all: love, real love, is to "will the good of another", and it is to will their good without demanding or even wanting a return on that investment. Fr Ripperger so defines it in one of his online talks. How simple, how direct. And so of course the Vatican II Church never uses it. 

Christians use the Greek word "agápē" for this love. It was a Greek word originally employed as just a generic term, and Christians used it to denote their new love revelation: God is love. This sort of "real" love is different fundamentally from other kinds of love. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."; John 3:16. Translate that as "For God so willed the good of the human race and His creation that He gave Himself...". 

Love in English

In English, we can say anything from "I love you" to a spouse or a child, or "I love ice-cream" or "I love the old Twilight Zone show" or "I love baseball" to "I love God" or "I love my country". The Greeks had a different word for each of those. Many languages invest in different words precisely to avoid confusion. But English doesn't. The word "like" is no substitute: "I like ice-cream" is quite different from "I love ice-cream." But idiomatic phrases like "fall in love" specifically refer to romantic love, and that's the phrasing Scott Hahn used. Note he used "hopelessly". That's clearly used of romantic love.

But romantic love is the cheapest and silliest of all "loves". It didn't exist for most human beings for most of the human history. There's an old joke about a Greek and an Italian arguing over who had the better civilization. For every thing the Greek came up with, the Italian had something to match it. "We created democracy" said the Greek. "We had a republic" the Italian countered. "We had the Parthenon" said the Greek. "We had the Pantheon" said the Italian. Finally, the Greek boasted, "You must admit, though, that it was we Greeks who created romantic love." The Italian thought for a bit and countered, "Yeah, OK, I'll have to admit that. But you have to admit one tiny fact about it." "Oh," said the Greek, "and what is that?" The Italian said, "We Italians first gave it to women."

This is funny precisely because it is true. What we call romantic love was a homoerotic creation, first by the Ancient Greeks, and later by the Muslims of Moorish Spain, where it was transferred via the Cathar heresy to Southern France and the famous troubadours. Only later did it become a standard affectation of average people. And of course, fiction writers and playwrights like Shakespeare made it a nearly de jure icon men and women were supposed to experience.

Maybe Scott Hahn didn't intend for his comment to be read this way, but he's supposed to be a professor, a knowledgeable man. As I wrote in the original essay, "We Catholics have the problem of too few men in the Catholic world. The world itself has that problem."

And so it is. The most important types of love: i.e. married spousal love, parental love, patriotic love, can never be just strong emotion and "desire". It HAS to be rational, founded in Faith in God's Creation and in the Will, and it must be selfless, a product of the rational mind, as the soul is itself rational. We get our emotions from our bodies, rationality from our souls. It's our bodies that get all passionately "love crazy." Careless "idiomatic usage" does NOT help clarify all this. 

AnP

Anglicans Are Thieves, and So Is Bergoglio (and Vatican II in toto)

Amici,

Bergoglio the Thief has stolen another important Traditional Latin Mass in the U.S., this one in Texas. Anthony Stine reports thoroughly on this theft here: "The Vatican Just Crushed One Of The Most Iconic Traditional Masses In The US".

Why do we Catholics tolerate this deprivation of our ancestral spiritual inheritance? Take the example of the "CofE", a.k.a. the Anglican Church.

Anglicans and the Anglican Church are thieves. Why? Those beautiful, massive piles of rock in England that are known as Medieval English Cathedrals do not belong to them. They belong to us, to Catholics. They were built by Catholics for Catholic Traditional Latin Rite worship of God (sometimes in ancient local variations) and funded via Catholic donations. The Anglicans, a false hodge-podge mess created by Fat 'Arry 8th and his (most likely non-genetic) daughter Elizabeth, stole OUR family heirlooms AND WE DEMAND THEM BACK. Well, not so much, alas.

Historical Perspective

As with the devastation of "Ape of the Church", Jorge Mario Bergoglio, it all came about via the exercise of power politics. After the death of Henry VIII's Catholic daughter, Mary Tudor (Protestants called her "Bloody Mary" but her sister was Godzilla in comparison!), the English government aggressively shut down Catholicism in England, on a more bloody scale than what Bergoglio is trying to do. Scholars estimate that by the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651), the country was still half Catholic. Cromwell put an end to that. (He certainly tried to do so in Ireland, the murderous servant of Satan. Thousands murdered.) It wasn't until September 1850 that Pope Pius IX issued Universalis Ecclesiae, which re-established Catholic diocesan hierarchy in England. Of course, the English government, officially Protestant, officially allowed this to happen. The Church created new dioceses and began building new buildings. BUT except for rare bits and pieces WE NEVER GOT BACK WHAT WAS STOLEN FROM US, and from whatever I've read on it, we never dared ask. (What we did get we bought.)

1. The official Protestantism was too strong (though the "non-conformist" Protestants were supportive in many ways). 
2. This process of hierarchy restoration was extremely drawn out over a century, and constantly frustrated by English State Protestantism. 
3. The French Revolution served as a turning point: the relocation of thousands of Catholic clergy from the continent massively affected the situation. Even though most eventually returned, they left a strong impression, inspiring such as the "Oxford Movement". 
4. So, too, did the constant Irish agitation for ending the Penal Laws against Catholics. 
5. It is an incredible story and it owes a lot to Cardinal Nicholas Patrick Wiseman, a Spaniard of Irish descent who came to England and worked tirelessly for it.

But what another 100 years have done! By 1950, a mere century later and almost four centuries after the death of Queen Mary in 1558 (392 years), Anglicanism slid downhill on a fast decline to irrelevancy. Except to ecclesiastical thugs like Bergoglio, today Anglicanism is dead. A true revenant. A Leftist, Woke "Church", with women priestess and bishops; a majority of practicing "Anglicans" are actually evangelicals of various kinds. Whether silly woke idiots in "fancy dress" (bishops and clergy pretend) or as born-agains who eschew the Anglican fancy-dress tapestry, Anglicans have no need – and have no money – for their Medieval Cathedrals.

So, if only we had a pope, we should unanimously demand them back. Or maybe we would have by now except we have Bergoglio the Defendor Perverti Omnia and the rest of the Vatican II crowd of imps and over-aged catamites who apparently like to kiss Anglican derrieres (even female ones). The utter spectacle of Anglicans in Rome, having one of their Protestant services in a Catholic Church and all that footage of Bergoglio being blessed by them – including a woman "bishop" – should remind us that all of Vatican II is essentially a "Stealth" Protestantism. It always was. Or actually something not religious at all.

Thus when I say the Anglicans are thieves, I mean it literally. But then, so are the mavens of Vatican II, culminating in the pestilent revenant that is Bergoglio. WHAT IS Vatican II but theft? Didn't Paul VI and John Paul II and Bergoglio simply say, "You Catholics cannot be Catholic any more. You have to be quasi-Protestant." We'll excommunicate you if you try to be Catholic. (Be Anglicans, basically. Or a sort of mainstream Lutheran or generic Calvinist.)

Think about it. Didn't Paul VI simply say, "Alright, you recalcitrant Papists, no more Catholicism for you! We're getting rid of all the golden rulings and Deposit of Faith, in a word, the Tradition handed down to us over the past two thousand years, and replacing it with a glop of goop. A big, steaming porridge of equal parts orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and wishy-washy pablum. Goop! AND you're going to like it!" And didn't they say of the Traditional Latin Mass, "No more of this! We're going to replace 2,000 years of prayer tradition and Holy Ghost guidance with a committee-derived wishy-washy narcissism where you stare at the priest for 45 minutes and read his facial expressions."

Anthony Stine has an excellent podcast here titled "The Next Phase Of Banning The Traditional Latin Mass Has Begun". Stine details a great deal of what the putrefying Bergoglio is up to regarding the TLM, and he mentions how Arthur Roche, a Cardinal-flunkie toady of Bergoglio in charge of basically destroying the Traditional Latin Mass, has plainly said the old Mass does not reflect modern Church teaching. The Novus Ordo Gloop Mass does. Which, of course, is all the more reason to reject the Novus Ordo as it reflects some new (i.e. "novus") Church or other. 

• I repeat: the new Mass represents a new religion; they acknowledge the Old Mass does not and cannot reflect that new religion, so it has to be damned.

And that's my point. We've had our actual Catholic Church of 2000 years stolen from us. The Anglicans did the same in the 1500s. Unlike say Baptists or Methodists who "start from scratch" (or at least they intend to) and create their own Churches – and certainly their own church buildings – the Anglicans and Lutherans take OUR churches and OUR ecclesiastical vestments, and "ape" OUR religion. And hasn't the Vatican II Church done exactly the same thing? This insight gives new meaning to the phrase "Ape of the Church", doesn't it?

The Catholic Cathedrals of England should be returned to us because they were stolen, yes, but also because the pathetic Anglican Church can't pay for their upkeep. Canterbury Cathedral came up in the news recently because the Protestant administrator there, the "dean" of the Cathedral, ran a "silent disco" in the Cathedral's nave. Hence the erroneous name: "Rave in the Nave"; apparently it isn't technically a "rave", whatever that is, but a booze (and no doubt drug)-fueled dance party wherein the participants listen and contort to carnally inspired music through their headphones, not amplifiers, so neighbors can't complain. 

This caused a good bit of controversy, as thankfully actual believers still exist in England. Indignant protestors called it desecration, and it is. This article has details. Catholic Herald columnist Gavin Ashenden has an excellent reflection on all this here: "Rave in the Nave at Canterbury: if the Church of England doesn’t know what its cathedrals are for, can we have them back?" Ashenden knows the Cathedral very well. Lots of lovely and pious reflection on the spiritual presence of the great Cathedral, with the prayers of Catholics for centuries radiating from its very stones. Indeed, since the Anglicans plainly have no clue what to do with their ancestral Catholic inheritance, give it back to us! 

And as we see with Bergoglio's actions involving the Anglicans recently, he, himself, Bergoglio – and really the whole dying Vatican II apparatus – is just as much a thief as the Anglicans. Imagine someone in the British government forcing the hapless Anglicans to give back to us Catholics just one or two of these magnificent medieval ziggurats. After clearing out the Protestant stuff and reconsecrating the returned Cathedrals, what's the first thing the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales would do? 

Offer the flaccid, floppy, faltering Novus Ordo in them. Now, THAT's desecration!

   An Préachán

Catechism of Schism from Church Loonies

New Catechism

Catechism of Schism from Loonies

Sometimes we need to laugh at it all.

N.B. "Schism" is the dreaded "S" word in the Church. Let's put it in context, for once. Hence, this new catechism of Schism.

Question: Are you in schism with anyone who teaches that God evolves?

Answer: I am.

Question: Modernism is founded on God evolving. Does God evolve?

Answer: Definitely not! See Exodus 3:14; Psalm 89:4 / 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8; Hebrews 1:12, 13:8.

Question: Then you are in schism with all Modernists in the Church?

Answer: I am.

Question: Many prestigious Bible "scholars" say the Holy Texts "evolved" and were composed by some creative scribes a couple of centuries B.C. in a suburb of Babylon. Are you in schism with them?

Answer: I thought those experts said Mormons printed it up a hundred and fifty years ago in Albuquerque?

Question: Are you in Schism with all secret, occult organizations, including (but not limited to) the Freemasons, Mormons, Shriners, the St. Gallen Mafia, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, the WEF, the USCCB, Opus Dei, the Democrat Party, RINOs, and all UniParty politicians of any country? 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with loonies, frauds, heretics, the demented, "sex fiends"; i.e. the prurient, the homosexuals, the "I got this info from a 16-year-old" creeps, and dopamine or adrenaline addicts?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with Argentine heretics in white who frown a lot?

Answers: Always.

Question: Are you in schism with any clergy who bring in shamans, witches, and sorcerers, and who worship their devils?

Answer: Vade retro satana!

Question: Are you in schism with all "pope-splainers" and papal idolaters? 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all Ultramontantists? 

Answer: Weren't they a '70's punk rock band arrested for public nudity on stage?

Question: Are you in schism with all popular music used in Mass, or folk music, or banal lyrics in general used liturgically? 

Answer: Palestrina, Tallis, Byrd, and Bach are my quartet; them, or Gregorian chant. (Bach should be baptized for his Mass in B minor.)

Question: Are you in schism with all "Church ladies" and parish "Karens"?

Answer: Yep!

Question: Are you in schism with every aging Hippie of any denomination?

Answer: Every single one.

Question: And any clergy whosoever sporting polyester vestments?

Answer: I am, massively. Especially ones who hang felt banners from the rafters.

Question: Are you in schism with Vatican II Council Humanism, the one that masqueraded as an Ecumenical Church Council, and generally the "Man is the measure of all things" crowd?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with "Religion exists for Man" and "the Mass exists for Man" theorists"?

Answer: Manifestly.

Question: Are you in schism with a pope who supports Communism?

Answer: Trad laity of the world, unite!

Question: Are you in schism with priests standing behind altars looking at you like clerks from behind a store counter?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all priests who begin the Novus Ordo with "Good morning!"?

Answer: Bet on it.

Question: Are you in schism with parishioners who stare constantly at a priest's face while he says Mass?

Answer: Yuck! Creeps me out! I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all Cranmer tables, non-stone table altars, and Jewish supper prayers said in the Novus Ordo?

Answer: Definitely.

Question: Are you in schism with all "Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist"?

Answer: Who?

Question: Are you in schism with any liturgy that replaced the Offerendum with Bidding Prayers?

Answer: Yikes! Absolutely.

Question: Are you in schism with the "All Religions are good" commissars, the "Islam is better" Moonie worshipers, the "Buddhism is really a Western religion that ceaselessly affirms me, myself, and I" sects?

Answer: Buddhism teaches that the self doesn't exist, so, yes to all three.

Question: Are you in schism with all self-realization gurus, Health and Wealth Gospel Protestants, and the Shinto emperor of Japan?

 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with any Jews, especially those who got the Church to drop the prayer for Jewish conversion from the Good Friday prayers?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with anyone who blames Christianity for the world's problems, headaches, and nausea?

Answer: Tediously so.

Question: Are you in schism with the Deposit of Faith, also known as Catholic Tradition?

Answer: That's the one thing I'm not in schism with.

Inquisitor: Congratulations! You're orthodox!

Me: I thought I was Catholic!

-End-

  An Préachán

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