More info on Bergoglio's pectoral cross, the official explanation?

Amici,

A friend sent along this link to a website that explains the symbolism of Bergoglio's pectoral cross. Many thanks to my friend!

I have reviewed the link and include here the relevant part, which explains the cross's symbolism, i.e.:

Let's review:

Of this explanation, I note there isn't much here, actually. The explanation, such as it is, does not remotely address the Cross as symbol of the blood sacrifice of Christ's that He offered the Father. A shepherd saves his sheep, yes, indeed, but Christ Himself IS the Lamb of God, He's the sheep, offering Himself to the Father as Isaac (one supposes) didn't resist Abraham's tying him up and binding him on the wood of the sacrifice in Genesis 22. And strikingly, the offering continues in Heaven, outside of time, as illustrated so graphically in Revelation. Ergo, what struck me in the explanation is how Vatican II it all is; i.e. how NOT a vertical sacrifice but rather a horizontal Help-Along-the-Group message it proffers. Interesting. It definitely represents a "new ecclesiastical era", alright. (Isn't this whole fight with Bergoglio and so many other Modernists about exactly that? Them creating a "New Church"?)

And importantly, the one serious photo close-up doesn't include the figure's feet, you-all will notice. Curious! Also, there's no explanation of the folded arms, although it is obvious the figure is carrying a lamb. I grew up on a farm and although we had few sheep, and rarely lambs, I can't imagine carrying one like that. (My father used to manage the sheep dept at the county fair, so I've seen lambs carried around a few times.) It would be quite awkward. If the lamb is on the back of your neck with its forelegs over one shoulder and its back legs over another, and you're holding animal's the feet, you wouldn't cross your arms to do that. You certainly could not pick it up that way. How would you? Such crossed arms would give you a lot less control of when you wanted to put the lamb down, or if it jerked a leg free, and in fact, you would have to pick up the lamb without crossed arms, drape it over your shoulders, and then at that point somehow let go of the lamb's feet to cross your arms. How would that work? (I've no doubt the "frolicsome" lamb would make a break for freedom.) Try it with a heavy bath towel or some such object. 

• Caveat: However, I'll freely admit that though it seems quite awkward, maybe that's how it is done (for reasons I don't know). It's just as Ann Barnhardt points out, what a coincidence that certain satanic cults worship with such crossed arms, and she has a photo of Church prelates making the same exact gesture as they worship – what else would one call it – that miserable Pachamana idol Bergoglio set up in St. Peter's – an amazingly shocking replication of the Ancient Israelites setting up statues of false gods in Solomon's temple!

Beyond all this, the history of this cross offers some interest: it was a personal creation of an artist, then replicated by a metalsmith? How nice. But the backward-turned foot is still a satanic symbol, whether the artist who created it knew that or not. Yet the "kicker" (pun intended) is what artist, even an avant-garde type, would turn an entire leg backwards? Maybe a forward-facing leg bent slightly back at the knee to represent walking, or striding, with the other leg forward – sure. One could produce that easily enough. But this isn't that, not remotely.  

You-all can make your own interpretations of Tio Jorge Mario's pectoral cross. Were he a basically orthodox pope – I mean that loosely, like someone along the lines of JP2 of B16, maybe a little more Paul 6 than otherwise – that'd be one thing. Goofy enough, true; eccentric in a Catholic "tumbledown" way, one might say. But he's not. 

It is said that at some point most (not all) Germans came to the realization that Hitler wasn't their lover, but their murderer. Bergoglio and his peeps are definitely out to kill what remains of the Catholic Church as it has always existed, and replace it with something else. What else do they have to do to prove that? An individual might want that, but no one should pretend it isn't happening. Recently, I heard Taylor Marshall say something astounding on one of his podcasts: a priest told him that in his diocese, just about every week, a homosexual couple comes to a Catholic church with a baby they have adopted and whom they want to baptize in the Church! And the priests have to agree to that, per their bishop's orders.

Folks, that ain't Catholicism.

Neither is the vast majority of what's being pushed now. We see and can say the same thing about the U.S. wherein stormtrooper battle-armed police can break into your house at any time for any reason, and presidential candidates and those associated with them, past or present, can be arrested and charged with sedition. This is our reality today, secular and ecclesiastical. But we must not pretend all this pork is kosher.

I thank my friend again for the help and his getting involved! We need everyone involved these days, that's for sure. Fulton Sheen, go ndéana Dia trócaire air, foresaw this time. We're in the pot now. And the temperature is turning up exponentially. (Guess Pius XI or Pius XII should have consecrated Russia when Our Lady asked them to, eh?)

   An Préachán

Bergoglio's Pectoral Cross – Photo evidence of his true allegiance

Amici, Friends,

What's happening in the Catholic Church is so tragic, and unnecessary, and more than anything else, so crazily odd, that is is incredible. (And how peculiar it mirrors what's going on in the U.S.A.'s secular government.) But it's been a long time coming, after all. We've seen it developing for years. Or we should have seen it.

• Ditching the TLM was the most glaring sign 50-some years ago, and the current war against it serves as another. 'Tradition is the Deposit of Faith," as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrote. Didn't they see that? Yes, many of them did. The revolutionaries of Modernism knew precisely what they were about.
  
• Indeed, the take over of the Council at the beginning of its first session from the men Pope John XXIII had set to moderate it served as a portent. A "gob-smacking" one, forsooth. The "Young Modernist Turks" who seized control ditched all but one of the proposed documents that John's Curia had worked on for years for the Council to adjudicate. Out went the one against Communism, the one on the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc., and they cast the one they kept in a very different light than it was intended to have.
• John lost control of his eccentric "pastoral" Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI could only shut it down. Before he did, he took away from it the teaching on contraception that it was going to consider. He didn't want the Council in that minefield.
  
• In 1968, three years after Pope Paul VI shut the lurching, unstable Council down, he promulgated Humanae Vitae, which taught the Tradition on contraception. It resulted in a very large portion of Catholic clergy, laity, and educators rejecting it, thereby rejecting the Traditional teaching that HV (rather lamely) proffered. That stood as a tremendously significant auspice, too. An "in your face" one. A new Church, essentially, was aborning. Now today the rumor wafts about that Bergoglio intends to "redo" Humanae Vitae in some manner, allowing artificial contraception: (A rumor begun by no less than the Pontifical Academy of Life!)
  
• Bergoglio's insistence that capital punishment can no longer be countenanced is in itself mortally significant, because in 2,000 years the Church has always accepted the right of the secular authority to impose the death penalty. St. Paul preached it. Bergoglio is changing such a Tradition as that.
• And pretty much everything Bergoglio says and does offers yet more signals; e.g. surely his constant support of homosexuality and blasphemers like Fr. James Martin, S.J. (what else but an S.J.?) remains one of the stakes that this upcoming "Synod on Synodality" will drive into the Catholic heart, one of the whips he intends to flay us with.
  
• Now the latest Bergoglian Imbroglio involves his new chief at the Holy Office (Doctrine of the Faith, with some sort of yet newer name or other). This boss, "Tucho" Fernández, about to be elevated to the cardinalate, spouts that "Bergi" has Gnostic powers and his will looms paramount over both the Church in general and Tradition in particular. No, I'm not kidding. See Who are you to judge the Holy Father and its followup here: Quite Obvious to a Catholic.
  

So, in the midst of all that, the redoubtable Ann Barnhardt has a column about yet another, extremely obvious sign: Bergoglio's silver pectoral cross he wears. The corpus on it not only sports an ugly death-mask face, but it also has crossed arms – crossed arms! – and just unbelievably, its right leg is turned around backwards! Heel to front. Go see the photos Ann has. (And follow the link to an earlier article on Joseph Bernardin and Wilton Gregory. Must reads, all.)

It's clear. It's unnerving. And it's the same style "cross" the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin wore, the Satan-worshiping prelate that Malachi Martin wrote about in his novel Windswept House, and that Wilton Gregory – a protege of Bernardin and now archbishop of Washington, D.C., canceling Latin Masses everywhere there – wears now. And guess what? Tucho Fernández wears the same pectoral cross!

Ann B. details how this corpus is a Satanic code sign. She lists various Satanic groups signified and proclaimed by it.

So, the "pope" has been openly sporting Satan's Insignia since he was an archbishop, though then it was a gold one. Look at the photos of the one today and get "gob-smacked". Here's a close-up:

This is an augury, folks, a massive one. A plain omen. A warning. An exclamation mark.

What more does Bergoglio have to do to proclaim his objectives so that we get it?

It's one for all of us to see, if we look. And it appears in literally hundreds of photos. It's no joke (unless the joke is on us).

May God have mercy on us.

AnP 

Bergoglio about to remove Bishop Strickland? Ramifications

Friends, a chairde, 

A widely reported rumor now circulating hints strongly that Bergoglio will "ask" Bishop Joesph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, to resign. See LifesiteNews for details. 

Should this prove true, you-all can know for certain that no matter how holy and faith-filled Bishop Strickland is, and no matter how carefully he's run his diocese (which is flourishing, and with a full seminary, etc.), they can find something or other, even (as with Roe v. Wade) a "shadow of a shadow", i.e., a penumbra, of something that could be critiqued and "cried up". I won't be surprised at how shrilly they decry him. The truth is, of course, that he's "America's bishop" because he really believes the Catholic version of Christianity, lives it and promotes it, and in short simply does what every other bishop in the U.S. ought to be doing, and is increasingly (slowly but steadily, too slowly for some, to quickly for Bergoglio's Clown Posse) growing in opposition to the Beast Bergoglio. And therefore he makes the other bishops out to be time servers and bench sitters.

Should Bergoglio make this damnable move – and it is damnable: just look at how badly the American bishops govern their dioceses, closing churches, dioceses empty of aspirants to the priesthood, swamped with homosexual and other deviants in their clergies – then the moment has come. If Bishop Strickland refuses to resign, then the revolution against the tyrant Anti-Pope has begun. Bishop Strickland will have raised Our Lord's Royal Standard for us all to support. If the Bishop knuckles under to the Ogre, however, well, that's about it for the official American Catholic Church, a.k.a. the Vatican II Church. Out with a whimper, as began to collapse earlier under the Covid fraud.

Fundamental Point: Bergoglio is moving forward with this ridiculous and heretical "Synod on Synodality" and the ordination of women and the formal recognition of the German bishops blessing "gay unions", etc. That Bergoglio is taking a wrecking ball the the Catholic Church is manifest, as mainline "Conservative Catholic" commentator Fr. Murray wrote about back in February! Well, Fr. Murray, guess what? Bergoglio hasn't "stopped it" as you demanded (yes, demanded) in that article; he's sped it all up!

Observation: Why is it so hard for Fr. Murray and Dr. Taylor Marshall and so, so many others not to simply say, as Ann Barnhardt says, Bergoglio is not the pope. Ann has great reasons. Fr. Altman gives 20 examples of reasons why Bergoglio can't be pope in his wonderful sermon here: Bergoglio is not the Pope; Fr. Altman Talks. As I keep saying, what does "Bergi" have to do? Add Martin Luther to the calendar of Catholic saints, or maybe Muhammad? Does Bergoglio have to declare a "Holy Duality" and nix the "Holy Trinity"? What? What does the man have to do to get it into their heads that he is destroying their Church, full stop? 

Review this article on a little commented on or observed move Bergoglio has done. It's about

the Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini of January 2021, in which Bergoglio universally changed canon law for the whole Church regarding the so-called “lay institutes” of Acolyte and Lector. 

• It's about women doing SSPX,those jobs, of course, setting them on the way to priestly ordination. That ordination of women gutted what was left of the Anglican Church; you would think the Catholic Church's Modernists would know that; however, my friends, I suspect they know it all too well. They want to create a New World Order Church.

"The Church", the True Church, will survive, because of Our Lord's solemn promise. It'll be underground, found here and there, and in the SSPX. It will use the Trad Latin Mass, teach the Deposit of Faith (i.e. Tradition) and will survive the coming horrors long foretold by the Blessed Mother, and others. Assuming there's a post-Apocalyptic future, it will be here, doing what's it's done for 2,000 years (sans the Vatican II Interlude).

Dáil trócaire orainn, a Dhia.

         AnP

Why women cannot be Catholic priests: three reasons, and Adam's choice

Amici,

Why can't women be ordained to the Catholic priesthood? Bishop Joseph Strickland recently sent a pastoral letter to his flock explaining why women cannot be ordained deacons. In 1994, Pope John Paul II wrote in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that women can't be ordained priests, saying the Church had no authority to do so: "The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".

Here in this essay I'll give three reasons women cannot be ordained to the priesthood – or ordained deacons for that matter, and certainly not bishops. May it be of use to those interested.

Preliminary: These reasons are rooted in Biblical Revelation and Church Tradition. Essential Point: As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrote so succinctly, "Tradition is the Deposit of Faith." Christians should accept the Deposit of Faith because God reveals it and the Church has affirmed and defended it for two millennia, at least until Vatican II began to wreck it, and subsequently, in small pieces, cast it into the gutter. (After 70 years of that, the Church seems to teeter on the edge of oblivion.) A Modernist like Bergoglio, therefore, i.e. someone who thinks "God evolves" as we "evolve" à la Darwinism, and that morality evolves, that dogma evolves, that everything evolves, really, will not find these reasons to be sufficient in themselves. They won't even understand them. They have to believe "we've evolved past all that!" to think according to the Modernist paradigm, which molds their rationality in strict confines. This is true of Modernist Church leaders in Protestantism as well as Catholicism.

• So, if you don't think that "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same for ever," (Hebrews 13:8; see also 2 Peter 3:8), then forget about it. You're in the position of a modern scholar of Western Philosophy (from Descartes to Hegel and Darwin), or one steeped in Symbolic Logic, trying to understand St. Thomas Aquinas.

First reason: God wants it that way. John Paul II, so widely and snidely ignored today by the Bergoglian Anti-Church, sort of touched on this in 1994. The Lord God, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God of Moses and King David, God the Father of the Christian Trinity, was always served by a male priesthood, and what's more, a celibate male priesthood. Abel, Adam and Eve's son, served God as a priest whose blood offering was accepted. Melchizedek is the archetype, the precursor of Christ's eternal priesthood, a mysterious figure and a mystery in himself, yet "priest of the Most High." The ancient Levitical priesthood God established from Moses's brother Aaron, and when individual Levites on duty in the Temple (they served on a rotational schedule), they had to be celibate during their service. Although in Early Christianity some bishops and presbyters were married, like the Orthodox today, they didn't marry after ordination. (In Orthodoxy today, a bishop must have never married.) But eventually this sorted itself out in the Western Church with compulsory celibacy for all priests. Practice varied, but from early on it was understood how superior it was was to have a fully celibate priesthood (something it took the Irish a bit longer to figure out than most of the others!).

But of course, women were never ordained, at any time. Why not? Because of the ...

Second reason why women aren't ordained: The actual role of the priesthood and the human nature of men and women.

God created us to serve one another, and through that service, learn to serve Him. We exist to serve, not to amuse ourselves, giving our wills free reign. But common experience and the study of Anthropology show that men "serve" less well, are less inclined to it, than are women.

• It's in the nature of women to serve, but men don't do it naturally; i.e., women are designed (whether you are a religious believer or a Darwinist) to bear children, offspring who take years of care to flourish. 
• It's a manifestly false narrative to say men can be as nurturing of babies and young children as mothers. 
• It's one of the conceits of the Modern Age, indeed, one of its petulant rebellions against nature that defines this expiring age. And it produces effeminate men and dissatisfied women. That reality is all around us.
  

Note also that men have traditionally complained of talkative women, but to the extent women are so, God has provided this faculty to them in order to raise children who can speak. Linguists have long realized that it is the mothers of the human race who form language and pass it on. One of the medieval Holy Roman Emperors, following the true Scientific Method (developed in the so-called "Middle Ages") collected some newborns and commanded their nurses not to speak to them; this great advocate of the Scientific Method wanted to hear what language they would speak on their own. The experiment only proved that such children died.

• Somewhere in his Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis had Screwtape observe that the most saintly man who cares for others couldn't match the care level an average woman offers on a daily basis. 
• This is just anthropology. Theologically, men need to be given extra grace to do what women do naturally: serve others. 
• And serving others is what deacons, priests, and bishops do. They are servants of the Deposit of Faith, Tradition, to help us all toward salvation.
  
• This is obviously opposite of the idea of priests and bishops as lords of "power relationships" over the laity. Hence, Our Lord and King said, "Feed my sheep" and not "experiment on them, still less, "enslave them."

However...

• If one is some sort of "feminist" who looks at human relations as nothing more than anthropological power plays, a who gets to boss whom game of who rules, who is ruled, and so on, then we live in what they call a "patriarchal culture" that they loathe and want to destroy, thus confusing men as to "what women want" men to be and do, and maddening women who simply cannot find a "real man".
  
• This is the root of the current "War on Masculinity" in the mainstream culture.
  
• But you can't go against God's order, His hierarchy of being and roles. (Satan tried it; it didn't turn out well.) There's an old joke: one feminist asks another, "Where are all the kind, sensitive, caring men?" The other feminist answers, "They all have boyfriends."

A priest is servant of his flock via serving the Gospel and the over-all Tradition, i.e. the Deposit of Faith. A bishop is servant of the servants, his priests. This is why bishops wash their priests' feet at Easter, imitating Our Lord and Sovereign Christ, who washed His disciples feet in order to drive the whole service point home to them, and to us. Idiotic, and I mean truly stupid cretins like Bregoglio and his imps and hobgoblins, wash the feet of strangers, non-Catholics, etc., in a puffed-up, meretricious and wholly narcissistic and unctuous sanctimoniousness that is sickening to behold. In this, and in so many other ways, they reject Tradition.

Women, many "modernistic" ones, want to be priests because they think it is a power position over others. They want in on that action, in on the "club". Yet it is a service job where the servants can expect to be killed, as Christ was, and as so many others have been. Being a clergyman is like being a soldier ordered to protect a group of civilians – at all costs. Including dying for them.

Which brings up the ...

Third reason: Adam's failure.

• This reason dovetails into the Second Reason, itself manifesting the will of God.
  

When asked why women cannot be ordained priests, the answer usually given is that a priest represents Christ at the altar, and thus must be a man. He "stands in" for Christ on earth, in persona Christi, and thereby "channeling" or representing or serving as the living intermediary of Christ's eternal and ongoing propitiatory and expiatory blood sacrifice (see Revelation 5&6, etc.; Revelation is largely a description of the Heavenly Liturgy). They used to say, "At the Holy Mass, the veil between earth and heaven is drawn back." We see the eternal reality of Christ's incarnation and sacrifice and resurrection.

For the feminist, who sees everything the mundane, profane viewer as a cruel power play, this does not suffice. So far, as basically stated. But here's the kicker: 

• Christian worship does not consist merely adoration, thanksgiving, and petition. 
• Christian worship is not Protestant, to put it simply. 
• Christian worship is a true propitiation, meaning a direct involvement in Christ's propitiation to the Father for the sins of the human race that Christ offered up at Calvary. 
• Protestants, hearing Catholics try to explain this Mysterium Fidei, accused Catholics of sacrificing Christ a second time, not understanding that heaven and now Our Lord Christ is outside of time entirely, and that He is still incarnated into our "space-time continuum" via the Holy Eucharist. 
• He is present physically now, and always. The world is changed essentially; nature is changed, forever – transformed by the Divine Presence. Trying to explain the Most Holy Eucharist and the Divine Presence, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine only served for Protestants to accuse us of idolatry, i.e., that we "worship a piece of bread and a drop of wine".

The Catholic understanding is true, however; it's the Deposit of Faith. It's Tradition. It's the ancient, consistent belief of the Apostolic, Seven-Sacrament Churches. And there's a deep level to it. The reason only men can be priests goes all the way back to Adam. Adam was made to cultivate and defend the Garden of Eden. "And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it." (Genesis 2:15) "Keeping it" meant defending it. From what?

From the Dragon that confronted Eve. The Hebrew word usually translated as "serpent" or "snake" can also mean "dragon", and if translated this way, then the Bible opens and closes with a dragon. The same Dragon, in fact. So, Eve had to face the dragon alone. Adam was nowhere to be found. The text does not mention him as being there. We can be sure Adam wasn't tending the tobacco patch in the "back forty". We can surmise, indeed, deduce, that he was in hiding. Therefore, when God incarnated into the human race He did so as a man in order to be the New Adam, as the Blessed Mother was to be the New Eve, and to make up for Adam's cowardice. Our Lord and Sovereign redeemed Adam's failure and the Fall of Adam and Eve by His Final Perseverance on a Tree, reversing our first parents' sin at a Tree.

And so, to bring that eternal sacrifice ever present into the world we live in, Christ's "stand in" must be a man.

Adam's choice

I've not seen this following idea anywhere. It's pure speculation on my part. But I think Adam knew with certainty that the Dragon was hunting him to kill him. God assigned Adam to be sergeant of his two-person squad, and defend Fort Eden, "at all hazard". The Devil wasn't coming for the corporal. He wanted to sink his teeth into the leader, Adam. Adam had named the animals and was lord of the physical creation, as the Devil had been of the angels. No wonder Satan was not happy with Adam. He came gunning for his "rival". So, Adam "did a bunk", he split. Ran for it. High-tailed it to the hills. And perhaps it was the shame of this cowardly behavior that then caused Adam to later eat the forbidden fruit. He might as well be hanged for a pound as hanged for a penny.

• And this in turn would explain why the Incarnation of Our Lord was not enough. 
• His Death was required, the blood sacrifice Adam failed to provide.

True or not, it makes sense of what information we're told, and what we're not told but left to speculate on.

Summation

These arguments clearly do not lend themselves to 30-second soundbites. They're not easily boiled down. Their answers involve knowing a number of things that bear on them that it would take a book to delineate. For example, have you ever wondered why God didn't just snuff Adam and Eve after they fell? The answer is He had made a Covenant with them and with all His creation on the Seventh Day. See Genesis chapter 2, the first two verses. Then verse four is a signature line on a cuneiform clay tablet. "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth." God Himself, apparently, signed this tablet. (Curiously enough, Genesis 1 and first four verses of Chapter 2 would fit on a cuneiform tablet!) And because of this First Covenant, God was "on the hook" to fix the mess Adam and Eve had made.

See how complicated it can be?

I pray this helps those who wonder themselves, or have loved ones or friends who raise this ordination question.

 An Préachán

About Bishop Michael Burbridge and the TLM procession in Washington this Saturday, September 9, 2023

Amici, 

LifesiteNews has an excellent report on this weekend's Traditional Latin Mass pilgrimage in D.C. protesting against the Bergoglian restrictions on the TLM. 

Arlington's bishop, Michael Burbridge, curried favor with Bergoglio by reducing the Latin Mass locations from 21 down to just three (parishes, with five alternative locations hither and yon). Of course, the Gay Blade archbishop of D.C. decimated the TLM in the District.

Burbridge could have shown courage. He caved. He could have shown his Faith in the face of the papal lions in the circus maximus that the Church has become. Instead, he burned a pinch of incense to Bergi. My guess, and it is just a guess, is that Burbridge didn't do worse than he did simply because so many TLM's existed in his diocese in the first place. We must not pull punches. What Burgoglio did was illegal AND immoral, and utterly ANTI-Catholic. As Kennedy Hall reports, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrote, "Tradition IS the Deposit of Faith", and its obvious today that the Vatican II Church is in the process of "cancelling" that Deposit. It is what all the Bergoglian excesses are about, plainly.

But what had Burbridge refused, making arguments against this draconian rule – and there are a host of arguments against it – what was the worse that could happen? Bergoglio "dismiss" him? Oh, the terror! (/sarc) So what? Burbridge could have taken it to the Church's judicial system and tied it all up for years. It could have been a true cause célèbre. It could have been a turning point. Instead, crickets.

I just pray Bishop Strickland fights when "Bergi" dismisses him, which is almost certain to happen. Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres should have refused to be stampeded back in May 2022, but he caved to the Bergoglian idol. Bishops wear purple to remind them of their possible (and increasingly probable) martyrdom. We've no better a "bishops' bench" than the English had when Fat 'Arry broke in with Rome. They only had one bishop, St. John Fisher, stand up for Christ. We have Bishop Strickland.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

A final observation about the TLM pilgrimage: it is happening the a high-profile venue, in the national capital. It will get Bergoglio's attention. He loathes American Catholics in general and Traditionalist (i.e. Deposit of Faith) Catholics in particular. The recently published interview he had with Jesuits in Portugal is a classic "eye-opener" in that regard.

        AnP

Abortion, the Jewel in Satan's Crown, and the Novus Ordo Mass

Friends,

Abortion is the jewel in Satan's Crown. It's a "twofer". It damns the people involved in it and it kills a human being in the womb. Why, why do we allow it at all? In the U.S.A., that murder rate since 1973, comes to about 65 million dead babies now. 

Think of that. It's nearly unbelievable. But it is true.

If nothing else, abortion conveniently saves the demons from having to temp yet another human to go to Hell. (In the U.S. as noted, 65 million fewer temptations.) But it also spreads, metastasizes cancer-like, a thick, nearly impenetrable damnation through the human societies that tolerate it. It damns from the people immediately involved all the way through to legislators and judges who give it their (dare I say it) "blessings". 

Background

The human condition in the Western World was going from bad to worse previous to the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. U. S. Supreme Court decisions going back the 1950s, such as the 1957 Roth v the United States, began to give pornography a leg up in the culture wars, and the following year's, One, Inc. v. Olesen, is considered "landmark" in the ascent of homosexuality's rule over us. One ignorant Supreme Court justice's idiot comment about pornography, "I know it when I see it" (in 1964's Jacobellis v. Ohio) conclusively demonstrated that America's highest lawyers were moral numbskulls. 

Note: It was Justice Potter Stewart who wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...". Dead Justice Stewart, porn, like propaganda, is easily defined. They have no ambiguity. "Art" ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning, thus causing one to think, to ponder, to wonder. Propaganda exists to indoctrinate. Porn exists solely to titillate, however, to arouse the carnal appetites, and for no other reason. 

Today we see many of the nation's lawyers are amoral mountebanks, or simply Communist apparatchiks. The Roe v Wade decision conclusively proved they were utterly, wholly, metaphysically ignorant, as well. And I remember seeing a talk show, Peter Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge, in fact, wherein the late Justice Antonin Scalia said that natural law had absolutely no place in Supreme Court decisions!

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

All the flooding Sexual Revolution guano of the later '50s and all of the '60s culminated in abortion being given carte blanc in the U.S. Satan's jewel in the crown had been a long time being excavated and then polished, but with its enthronement, "everything went to Hell". The Church, the modern Church, the Vatican II Church was then fully born. The new, awful liturgy was enacted at the beginning of Advent in 1970. Can it be a coincidence that abortion followed exactly three years later, in January 1973?

As Fr. James Mawdsley so aptly put it, the Holy Mass suffered a horrible "transgender mutilation". That's what the Novus Ordo Mass is, a transgender mutilation of the ancient, God-grown Traditional Latin Mass, a liturgy God began founding before He created the world, and which was foreshadowed and planned and shaped for throughout the Old Testament. Now we are so far down the well that we have an anti-pope charlatan promoting (ceaselessly, desperately), what Fulton Sheen called, "The Ape of the Church", our Vatican II anti-Church. Its a "Church" where the Holy Spirit speaks, but only through committees staffed by Communist cronies of the "pope".

As for myself, I cannot help but think the Novus Ordo Mass paved they way and steam-rolled the pavement once it was embraced, of abortion. Just one example: In the old Mass, the TLM, the priest makes the Sign of the Cross 70 times, many of those at the altar over the unconsecrated and then the consecrated Host, and using the Consecrated Host. That has to carve a profound mark on the priest's soul. Wouldn't such a priest be more likely to be willing to embrace the Cross for the sake of the unborn, then, as opposed to a Novus Ordo priest, whose talky, relatively signless Mass exists to "reaffirm" and "soothe" and "accompany" his congregation? 

Every time one sins, one gives Satan a bit of authority over the sinner. Grievous, mortal sin gives Satan pretty much absolute authority. Notice how Confession is required to break it but notice how Confession isn't stressed any more? (A lot of Confessions in the Vatican II Church are held like psychological counseling sessions, face to face with the priest, etc.) How sin itself isn't stressed from the pulpit? A priest giving hell-fire and brimstone sermons will be "cancelled" if he persists.

 

Is it any wonder Satan's Jewel in the Crown shines so brightly?

 An Préachán

Christianity, Freedom, the American government and our current free-fall

Friends,

America is a mess, and the American Republic is just about dead. Why? I think it is, to an essential decree, because the anti-God or simply "No God Need Apply" embodied in the 1787 U.S. Constitution has finally born the fruits its policy was always destined to bear.

In any political discussion à la the U.S., "freedom" or "liberty" is central. It is said whereas English literature is about honor and French literature is about love, American literature is about freedom. The Declaration of Independence is famous for this line: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet the right to life American courts have denied for over half a century. It has been denied because Americans, both citizens and supposedly the government, worship not the God of Christianity, but "Liberty". 

Yet what is liberty? Are we at liberty to murder unborn children? Or are we at liberty to molest born children, or castrate and spade children? Or for that matter, run wild in the streets? Flash mob rob stores? Parade naked down streets or as in San Francisco, stand on sidewalks openly doing the most obscene things with our private parts? (Not to mention filling those streets with manure and urine.) If homosexuals are allowed to legally marry under the U.S. 1787 Constitution, something so absolutely NOT in that document that nothing could be more obvious, then why not? "Liberty" triumphs over everything else, including Truth. And this is because we think of liberty as the no-holds-barred, purely narcissistic "Pursuit of Happiness". The worship not of God but of Self. Actually, Jefferson's use of that latter "Pursuit" phrase actually means the pursuit of virtue, for traditionally, to be virtuous is to achieve true happiness. But very, very few seem to know this today. Today, the "Pursuit of Happiness" means doing whatever one damn (literally) well please it means, regardless of the consequences. 

Now, I should mention that the Catholic idea of "freedom" is not the big box store model. A big box store might offer 20 or 30 choices of canned peas, for example, and one is supposed to have greater liberty of choice in such an environment than one would have in a mom and pop store with two or three pea choices. But Christian Freedom means we are free to choose what God wants for us, what He made us for, the why of our existence. Instead of being forced to do what He wants, God wants us to chose it freely, of our own will, conforming His will to ours. It is like a gasoline engine being said to be "free" to run on gasoline, and not kerosene, or diesel, or airplane fuel or whiskey. A gas engine running on any of the latter is not "free". It will destroy itself. A human being choosing against God is not "free", but enslaved, and will destroy himself. Clearly, this is different in its essentials from the 18th century ideals of the Founders about "Liberty", and definitely not what modern narcissistic people mean by being "free" and pursuing their self-centered" happiness".

And Christianity in the U.S.? Today, Christian "freedom" sounds like how Christians survive in Muslim countries: i.e. underground, hidden away, being Christian out of sight. One might argue that the Faith starts in the home, and on a personal level, it does. Yet then too, Christianity has always been, or tried to be, a public religion, proclaiming Christ and Him Crucified "in season and out of season". Whenever they could, Christians became very much influencers on secular government, monarchical or democratic, imperial or republican, and acted as the conscience of the secular state, establishing what are called concordats with states demanding the right of public worship and the right to influence law, culture, and government decisions. There's been a separation of Church and State since the religion's Founder said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but to God what is God's." The Byzantine Empire and the Reformation German princes and Henry VIII did the Church no favor by making it a department of state. But God's portion has always included public worship and (dare I say it?) freedom to influence the secular state. 

Since the U.S. Constitution of 1787 didn't mention God at all, however, and formally stated the U.S. would have no "religious test" (Article VI, Clause 3*), slowly but surely, God has been driven from the American public square, until post WWII, when God got removed from pretty much all things governmental, much to the strengthening of the godless, and thus lawless, "Deep State". Jack Kennedy in 1960 actually publicly affirmed his religion (he really didn't have any) would not affect his governing. But just what IS that, actually? Hell demanding its influence be not challenged, is what.

Unfortunately, God is not allowed to illuminate anything in DC, the federal government "state". Especially in the "Ape of the Church" that is the official Vatican II Church in DC. Totally lawless, on many levels. President Trump is finding that out, and through him we can all recognize how insane things have become. Actually, NO courts should exist in DC, or any trials, because it is a one-party "statelet", fully "woke" and Communist. It's the nightmarish model of what Democrats and RINOs and all the innumerable narcissists want to turn the whole country into. No one in Washington, D.C. is "free" at all. And that's the reality planned for all of us.

* Most Americans, or the Remnant possessing some rudimentary education, think of the First Amendment to the Constitution about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". This prohibited a national Church, such as the European countries had at that time. It also "freed" or gave "liberty" to people about religion, thus allowing the U.S. to be a "religious country". But actually, it served to remove the new Government from religious "checks and balances". There would be no moral counterweight to the government, except the easily manipulated or ignored "will of the people". It really existed to prohibit the government from being influenced in any official way by any Church whatsoever, atomizing the religion to each individual as a private, personal thing, only. None of the citizens had thereafter a collective moral outlet, except via voting. This clause in the Amendment was especially needed to preserve American chattel slavery, but also saved the government from being challenged legally by Churches over how it treated American Indians (breaking treaties with them at will, forcing them off their land, denying them the old English Common Law "Castle doctrine"), and so on. In short, it made "the Church" utterly irrelevant to the State. And, eventually, to most Christians.

        AnP

The Ohio Referendum Vote: the Smog of Satan

Amici,

No one, NO ONE, should "pretend" about abortion.

Abortion is so egregiously wrong-headed, so manifestly evil, so utterly selfish and callous as to be beyond belief. Literally. I can't believe people are not instantly horrified and disgusted by the very thought of it. It is not only murder and death to the babies slaughtered, but simply the greatest spiritual wound possible to women. It is the greatest spiritual calamity to women's central role, motherhood. It is the vomit of Hell on fatherhood. 

Obviously, though, a large portion of people are OK with it or OK with "it being a private matter." That "OK" is incomprehensible to me. Yet clearly they do NOT understand there are no "private" matters. What we do in the dark affects us profoundly, for good or ill, and it has instant ramifications to all those around us, as much as what we do in the light. It impacts the overall environment of all things human. Including our spiritual dimension – our souls, our angels (good and bad: hurting the one and helping the other) and ultimately God (who notices and records everything, and is the Judge of All). That's because we are spiritual beings, not merely animals.

The whole ethos, the struts and architectural support structure of the modern world, is founded on the ridiculous, illogical Theory of Evolution, that posits we ARE just animals. We are not. So the spiritual reverberations, our spiritual "echoes", abound. When we sin, we can be said to "shed" evil like those polluted by the Covid vaccines are supposed to "shed" spike proteins. (Everything to do with Covid is a fraud.)

There's been 65 million or so abortions in the U.S. since Roe. That's a lot of evil "shed". 

The Kingship of Christ, the 'Lawfare' of Satan

Now, when our bishops and priests don't fight tooth and nail for God's sovereignty, for the Kingship of Christ on Earth, they themselves radiate or shed or echo evil. And they have to fight because the Prince of this World does not want to lose one atom of his control. Our Lord Christ conquered Hell and death, but by their inactions (and all too often their actions), the heirs of His Victory cede to Satan fractions of Christ's triumph, fractions of the grace they were bestowed by baptism. Abortion, and all the lesser moral and carnal dementia we soak ourselves in, is like a series of parliamentary resolutions ceding authority to Satan. (When you play with a Ouija Board, you cede to the devils some authority over you, even on that scale.) And every devil, down to the very Lowest, are legalistic "lawfare" warriors. They claw and bite to keep every bit of authority they're given. They're quick to complain to God for their "rights" over us, rights we gave them through sin.

Our Churchmens' actions or inaction infect all of us, therefore. Our own clergy and bishops "smog" the spiritual air. It's the "smoke of Satan" Paul VI mentioned. (Being an "environmental polluter in this spiritual sense, he ought to know!) Especially, this is true of bishops, who are responsible for not only the laity and clergy in their dioceses, but for all the non-believers (of whatever sort) in their dioceses. So many Catholics don't seem to know that. So many Catholic bishops don't seem to know that! 

For myself, regarding this referendum vote in Ohio, I particularly want to know where the new bishop of Columbus, Bishop Fernandes, was on this? Apparently, none of Ohio's bishops actively campaigned. Blessed Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, came and helped campaign, so you know The Ogre (Bergoglio) will send his imps, pixies, and pucks gunning for Bishop Strickland again.

BB Before Bergoglio vs PB Post Bergoglio

The Church stood four-square against abortion since Our Lord Christ founded it, though after 1973, the American Church being so hand-in-glove with the Democrat Party meant a great many of the American Church leaders "slow-walked" or tip-toed their opposition to it. Just as the reason the Church embraces all the illegal immigration that is destroying America (and Europe) is because the Church gets government monies to help the "refugees". They're still politically "joined to the hip" with the Democrats, even now that the latter should be properly labeled "the Communists".

PB Post Bergoglio: It's now a different story. Since his imposition on us by the sexual deviants and Freemasons in the Church, Jorge Bergoglio has dismantled all of John Paul II's efforts to align the Vat II Church against the increasingly strident Globalist forces for abortion (and homosexuality, etc.). What else would one expect from a homosexual, or "homosexualist" unbeliever like "Bergi"? I would guess that in November, when the Ohio vote comes up on this insanely evil referendum, the deceptively titled “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety,” to change Ohio's constitution to allow unrestricted abortion, the Democrats and RINO Republicans will, by hook or crook, get it to pass.  Some judge or other has already permanently suspended Ohio's new "heart-beat" law. A law passed through regular electoral order is canceled by unelected trolls. The U.S. judiciary is largely filled to the brim with mountebanks, imbeciles, and outright fiends, all of course paid for from the taxpayers' squeezed-out turnip blood.

Now, of course, in John Locke's political theory, the one upon which the U.S. independence and 1787 Constitution is founded, the people are supposed to be sovereign, not God. God was left out of the U.S. Constitution, and left out of the French Revolution entirely, and so on since, totally transforming Western society. So, we're handing ourselves the tickets to Hell. Legally, by our own governmental theories. We don't even need the Fallen Lightbringer and his infernal law firm for it. What a hellish "lawfare" that turns out to be, what a dodgy, depressing irony, what a smoky, rancid smog to breathe in.

          AnP 

Sedevacantism – Pros and Cons

 Friends,

With Bergoglio, commonly called "Pope Francis", it is hard not to be a Sedevacantist. I, for one (and what's my opinion worth as a layman, whatever my background and experience, to the Catholic Powers-that-Be?) am certain that "Bergi" is not a valid pope. He's so much the heretic that there's not much left for him to do except declare a "Holy Duality" and nix the Holy Trinity, or add Muhammad to the Catholic calendar of saints. 

At this point, I think that even were his "election" incontestable, he has abandoned the office of the Papacy (he's never let himself be called "Vicar of Christ" anyway). Actually, except to those who refuse to see, Bergoglio's "election" was an installment – an imposition – by the Vatican II "Deep State" (the Freemasons in the Church, the Communists – Chinese and otherwise – the Saint Gallen Mafia, the Lavender Mafia, but I repeat myself, and so on). Yet as I say, even were his election uncontested, he's abandoned the job. Or closer to the truth, he's burned down the job and is sowing salt on the ruins. Much as Joe Biden is doing with the U.S. presidency.

But then is sedevacantism the answer? Is the papacy vacant? I think it clearly is since Benedict XVI died. But was Benedict himself a proper pope? Louie Verrecchio at AKA Catholic is a true sedevacantist. His columns are excellent, and his criticisms cogent. True "Sedes" like him usually consider Pope Pius XII to be the last valid pope, and Verrecchio can make, and does make, an excellent case about the various popes after Pope Pius being anti-popes. Some of the crazy things John Paul II occasionally did and said were very bad and unCatholic, like kissing the Koran and so much else. And of course, JP II is considered VERY orthodox by the majority of Catholics.

Most damaging of all, of course, was the insurmountable stupidity of Paul VI and JP II about the Traditional Latin Mass. Paul hated it and John Paul "just didn't get it", and how could a true pope not comprehend what the Novus Ordo represented? Or why Catholics began the wholesale abandonment of the Church after the 1960s? Their obdurateness is incredible, as the TLM was so ancient, so uplifting, so essentially Catholic; if one didn't understand its centrality to the Faith, what else did one not understand? 

Benedict did, indeed, seem to "get it" to some degree, yet then he didn't celebrate the TLM himself (that I am aware of). But we can't forgive him for running away. He should have suffered outright "red" martyrdom (as most early popes did, in fact), rather than betraying us to the eccelesial "Deep State."

Anyway, were these men NOT actual popes, then we don't have a Catholic Church, because the last priest ordained by the last bishop Pope Pius XII assigned a diocese to has probably passed away by now. Invalid, false popes cannot ordain or assign bishops, and invalid bishops cannot ordain valid priests. Therefore, Catholicism is dead.

Remember the priests exist to validly ordain the Sacraments, especially the Most Holy Eucharist. (It's by Baptism and the Holy Eucharist that we participate in all the ancient Covenants. The Covenant system God set up with the First Covenant, when He blessed Creation and established the seventh day for the remembrance of it. The Holy Eucharist, capstone of the system, is required for salvation, as St. John makes clear in the sixth chapter of his Gospel. So it can't come to an end, until The End.) And the bishops exist to ordain valid priests and keep an eye on them. And in their turn, popes exist either to ordain and assign bishops or approve the election of bishops elevated by local cathedral canons, etc., as it was in the Middle Ages and before. Actually, popes would send the pallium, a special ribbon-cloth, to a local bishop to create him as an archbishop, and the archbishop (or Metropolitan") would then manage the bishops in his ecclesiastical province. Medieval England had two such ecclesiastical provinces, while Ireland had four.   

So, if valid popes have not existed since Pius died on the 9th of October, 1958, (or I suppose since June 3rd,1963, if one assumes Roncalli was a valid pope), then the Church is an illusion, a "maya" as Buddhists say. That cannot be true, either. Not if God actually exists and if Jesus Christ is indeed God. So, how to square this circle? Maybe it is just me, but I've never seen a sedevacantist explanation of this: a clear one, concise, instantly recognizable to one's reason, as are the First Principles of Logic and the Truths of the Faith.

For my own sanity, I accept Ann Barnhardt's position that Benedict XVI was indeed pope, despite his many non-orthodox Catholic ideas (not least of which is that he could resign the governing aspect of the papacy and yet keep the position spiritually, and remain a pope, though retired – that's Bubulum Stercus to me; a true manifestation of Sterculius).

One thing is certain, my friends, what with the absolute horror of the World Youth Day (see the first half of this discussion at Lifesite News about how bad that is), we're in the most desperate times the Church has ever entered, bar none. (Yes, the Arians were bad, but the Modernists are ridiculous.) 

          AnP

The Evil that Bergoglio Does Affects Us All: St. Barnabas Parish

Friends

If Bergoglio isn't an antipope, then what is he? He's bringing Hell and Death onto the Church from every angle, and I'm sorry, I've lost patience with Trad Catholics who keep insisting this monster is a valid pope.

Read this article, from a typical Trad site, OnePeterFive, and tell me I'm wrong. 

Because of a stupid, and most heartless, thug bishop Bergoglio has appointed to St. Louis, one Archbishop Mitchell Rozanski, installed in 2020, a flourishing TLM that saved a parish which was going to be closed over a decade ago, is being cancelled right now. The thug ordinary gave the Catch-22 choice to the priest whose parish it was to either transfer to another parish or retire. Either give up the Mass of the Ages or jump down a rabbit hole. He chose retirement in order to be close to his aged mother.

Archbishop Mephistopheles Rozanski will close down the TLM St Barnabas parish (which also offered 'orthodoxly' celebrated NO Masses), mixing this thriving parish in with a gazillion failed NO parishes. Clearly, an attempt at CYA. Just read the article for details. And note the mealy-mouthed commentary the article's author quotes from Ross Douthat.

No, no, no, a thousand times no. We have to tell these diabolical bums we don't believe their garbage about the TLM, we don't believe they are remotely honest with themselves, let alone us, and we don't believe the current "pope" is anything but a servant of the Hater of God and His Holy Church. In short, their "Ape of the Church" as Fulton Sheen called it, is NOT the Catholic Church. Our failure to confront them is pitiful. But they strike where we are weak. They strike us who are burdened with many responsibilities and obligations. They know the parishioners of TLM parishes have large families to tend to, homes to maintain, jobs to keep. We can't just go and stage a massive parish-wide sit in at the church itself and dare them to drag us out. (That would be the best protest against them.) They're cowards, liars, and leeches. 

We need a Crusade against these imposters, a Holy War of peaceful confrontation and prayer, some form of protest where we occupy the church they want to close and garner media attention to our plight – because they themselves are waging a Hell-inspired jihad against us and what remains of the Catholic Church, 24-7.

         An P

 

Bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate in revolt against Bergoglio?

Beannachtaí Dé oraibh!

Friends, this is an important article (and 17-minute video) about the Bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate (of Asia and Australia, apparently) finally having enough of Anti-pope Bergoglio and his Synod on Synodality and how it is part of the homosexual mafia that runs so much of the official Church. (A pederast mafia runs much of the New World Order and World Economic Forum, too, so far as that goes. Jeffrey Epstein was the tip of a very foul iceberg of evil, you know.) The article and video is here at The Gateway Pundit. 

For some time, Cardinals Burke and Müller have been protesting that this synodal business is NOT Catholic, and the best voice against it is Archbishop Viganò's. Now the Byzantine Catholics – in some degree, at least – are calling out Bergoglio's Armageddon scheme to devastate the Church via "Synodal Councils". Basically, the heretics in the Church have been pining for a new Vatican II Council for some time, and this "synodal path" is their sly way of getting it.

The Byzantines cover a lot of this synod scheme; for example, the "German pilot project to introduce a new body, the synodal council, [which] will be extended to all territories as early as autumn 2023 and gradually until autumn 2024 as a draconian tool of the apostate Vatican." The Byzantines assert that "It will gradually eliminate true Catholic bishops by establishing a dictatorship of LGBTQ activists in the Church."

Excellent and righteous rant by the Byzantines and I encourage everyone to read it. I've not seen much about this is "the usual suspects" of Catholic news, so, we'll see. Maybe it has no official Byzantine rite sanction, yet it is a beginning. But it is time to declare a crusade against what's going on. Past time.

The Byzantines ask Catholic bishops:

"Dear bishop, successor of the apostles, how will you stand when you soon appear before God’s judgment seat? How will you justify your passivity and your neglect of authority and power entrusted to you to save the souls in your diocese and in your nation?"

How, indeed?

           AnP

Note on Bishop Fernandes of Columbus, Ohio

 Hi everyone.

I came across this Comment at Fr. Z's blog about Bishop Fernandes, the new ordinary of the Columbus diocese. I'm posting the opening lines of the Comment here below. Find the article to which the comment is attached here. It is a good bit longer and is an uplifting bit of news about the new bishop.

James Straight says:

8 June 2023 at 10:11 PM

The Most Reverend Earl K. Fernandes, ordained and installed as the Bishop of Columbus just 1 year and 8 days ago is currently in the middle of leading 11 Eucharistic Processions in the Diocese in 10 days, from June 2nd through the 11th. (That is just the ones the Bishop is taking part in.)

AnP again: Good news about Bishop Fernandes. Those of you residing in and near Columbus can fill us in, if you want, on your own experiences of this event, and of Fernandes. He seems to have inherited the Columbus-closing-up-parishes plan from the previous bishop, a classically Vat II clueless Bergoglian loser. And of course, Bergoglio's Vatican would "sack" Fernandes if he tried to expand the TLM beyond where it is. Bergoglio might sack him anyway, if Bergi survives much longer.

Pray accordingly.

AnP

Photo of St. Bernard's Church, Corning, Ohio

The immigrants who built this church gave it their all, what they had. 

Now it is to be closed.

AnP