Fully Pagan Bergoglio: Perils of his Environmentalism apparent at last

Amici,

At The Federalist, Maureen Mullarky (great Irish name) has an article on the radical environmentalism of Pagan Pope Francis, and any Catholic, or indeed Christian of whatever group, or Jew, should read it because Maureen reveals the end game of Modernism and all the ecological claptrap of the Bergoglian Church: The New Paganism. 

First, some background:

Christianity versus Paganism

Christianity

Christianity is a completely anthropomorphic religion in that God became Man to save Mankind from its fallen nature. One enters into this salvation only by physically partaking of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, through the Covenantal Most Holy Eucharist (i.e. the Covenantal meal of the Seventh Covenant as Passover was of the Fifth Covenant). Failure to do so means you do not have the Life of Christ within you, as St. John explains at length in the 6th chapter of his gospel. (He wrote his gospel last of the gospels and after St. Paul's letters, and he clearly thought it necessary to compose this 6th chapter stressing the Eucharistic source of "being a new creation in Christ", as St. Paul so often phrases it.)

But then again, as the ancient Hebrew revelation itself made clear in the beginning, God made Man in God's own "image" (it is the only time "image" is used positively in Genesis, if I recall correctly). God didn't have a physical human form, but He gave Man free will, intellect, rationality, and the soul's immortality. Then, with the Incarnation, made a necessity by Adam and Eve's Fall, God sanctified and elevated the human form by Incarnating Himself in it. Because He took on Human nature, humans can now via divine grace take on God's nature and indeed, literally be "new creations in Christ". 

• So this part of God's creation – the physical universe resulting from the Big Bang (as is now generally thought in physics) – is doubly blessed, both in its beginnings when God declared it good and made his Covenant with it (first couple of verses in Genesis Chapter 2) and now in God's Incarnation into it (New Testament). It belongs to God who created it, and to mankind whom God made within it and tasked with protecting it. We're here to govern it, "keep" it/maintain and cultivate it. Aside from loving and serving God, it's our foundational job in mortal life, and indeed, we love and serve God in our assigned acts of cultivating and "keeping it clean". And it is widely known that working outdoors, keeping a garden, long walks in the countryside, etc., all promote mental health for everyone. However, none of this means we ought to worship it. 

Paganism

But paganism is quite different. Firstly, it has no knowledge of a personal God, whether the Unity of Jews and Muslims or the Most Holy Trinity: "...holy Lord, Father almighty, eternal God: Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord: not in the Oneness of single person, but in the Trinity one Substance...without difference or separation...unity in Essence, and equality in Majesty." (from the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity)

Instead of all that, Paganism's deities are generated by nature, and exist wholly within it. Secondly, in Paganism you don't care for or cultivate nature – you worship it because Paganism is about worshiping the life force. It is our mistress, not our servant or ward. That's why stone phalluses were so often made and worshiped in most cultures around the world, from Ancient Greece to modern-day Japan, where one can see devotees praying to them. These images were of that which was essential to generating new life. 

Human beings by definition have no special place in Paganism; indeed, the gods who made mankind were themselves generated by the life force. Death, then, was no absolute cut off from this world, but a portal back into it, eventually. Again, that's because we are merely an element to it. This was as true of Druidism as it is today of Hinduism. "T'is all one," as Shakespeare would say.

Now, with all that backgroun in mind, consider what Maureen Mullarky writes in her article:

Francis rails against the West’s “tyrannical anthropomorphism.” His accusation borrows from Boff’s many restatements of historian Lynn White’s influential charge published in Science in 1967. Lynn attributed “ecologic crisis” to the Christian/biblical tradition. He indicted Christianity as “the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen” because it teaches that only man is made in the image and likeness of God. (Boff scoffed at the teaching as “an androcentric archaism.”)

Francis anticipated this month’s campaign by anthropomorphizing nature. Creation has a “voice.” A suffering earth “cries”; it issues “an anguished plea” that “laments our mistreatment.” The “grandiose cosmic choir” sings reminders that “we are not disconnected from the rest of creatures, but joined in a splendid universal communion.”

[However] Only conscious beings can commune with each other. Promises — such as God’s to Noah and Abraham — can only be made to persons. Francis’ call for “a covenant between human beings and the environment” attributes sentience to the environment.

AnP again:

The entirety of Christianity, as with Judaism before it, is built on the Covenants God made with certain people for the sake of, eventually, all peoples. (Islam rejects, and damns, the Covenant system entirely.) But Bergoglio and Modernism stand all that on its collective head and crashes it completely for the sake of what is a narcissistic fad: "Oh, look at me! I am environmentally conscious!" or a thanatos "death wish", i.e. "We humans must go extinct in order to save the planet". (Christianity is at pains to assert the immortal worth of human beings; paganism isn't that interested.) Bergoglio would break ALL that and the entire Covenant system by insisting God makes covenants with the environment, an insane notion that necessitates elevating the environment into a conscious being. Whatever else that is, it is a rejection of Divine Revlation.

Clearly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio cannot be considered to be pope in any sense whatsoever with him not merely thinking along these lines, but promoting them! He constitutes as much a danger to the Church as Biden (meaning whoever is pulling his strings) does to the American republic or the WEF does to Europe, etc.

Beware. And be warned.

  An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him. (This verse delightfully indicates the natural world's true relation with God.)

It takes the vaccines an average five months to kill – Steve Kirsch

Friends,

Keeping in mind how statistics can be manipulated, and how I myself know a good number of people who developed blood-related illnesses after their vaccinations, yet a year later are still alive and kicking –

Given all that, if you are going to be part of the rising vaccine death rate at all, then yep, according to Steve Kirsch, it's a "five month average" to die from your last booster (and I think it also depends on the vaccine "batch" yours came from). This is five months for those dying of blood-relate problems and apparently for those who are diagnosed with a sudden, savage, and unexpected vaccine cancer that mysteriously develops post-vaccine that the insurance actuaries are reporting.

This is from the latest Steve Kirsch articles is one of those "must reads". 

An excerpt:

We’ve always assumed the vaccine kills you quickly (in the first two weeks) because that’s when people notice the association and report it to VAERS. This is still true; it does kill some people quickly.

However, most of the deaths from the vaccine are happening an average of 5 months from the last dose for the second dose. It may be getting shorter the more shots you get but there are arguments both ways (since there can be survivor bias).

But this explains why the life insurance companies got off-the-charts all-cause mortality peaks for people under 60 in Q3 and Q4 rather than right after the shots rolled out.

The five month delay is also consistent with death reports where people are developing new aggressive cancers that are killing them over a 4 to 6 month period.

So when you hear of a death from stroke, cardiac arrest, heart attack, cancer, and suicide that is happening around 5 months after vaccination, it could very well be a vaccine-related death.

And just where did Steve acquire this info? (Italics mine.)

I got this chart from a whistleblower who works for HHS. This is data you are not supposed to see. The mortality increase (60% at peak) is huge. That sort of increase can only be caused by something novel that affected massive numbers of people.

There is only one possibility that fits that: the COVID vaccine.

A commentator to this article of Steve's wrote:

Unstabbinated and proud 13 min ago German data concurs with this analysis. https://www.eugyppius.com/p/exhaustive-study-of-german-mortality "The high excess mortality in 2021 was almost entirely due to an increase in deaths in the age groups between 15 and 79 and started to accumulate only from April 2021 onwards. A similar mortality pattern was observed for stillbirths with an increase of about 11 percent in the second quarter of the year 2021. Something must have happened in April 2021 that led to a sudden and sustained increase in mortality in the age groups below 80 years, although no such effects on mortality had been observed during the COVID-19 pandemic so far. What happened in April 2021 was the beginning of mass vaccination across Germany." Average age of Rona dead is in the 80s. Very few under 60s died from (not with) Rona.

AnP again:

It is a complicated mess, of course. Governments and the MSM "see no evil, hear no evil" of the jabs. So, see the whole article for the details, and as is usual with a Steve Kirsch column, the Comments are often very enlightening. 

If you were only vaccinated once and never had an resulting illness, maybe you were just lucky or the vaccine "batch" your shot came from was a milder, less mortal batch. Your personal body chemistry might also be such that these vaccines have little (apparent) effect. I myself had an aunt who couldn't take any medicine at all without becoming deathly ill. (Doctors kept giving her meds because they were required to by the Standard of Care, and eventually she died in agony.) Only time will tell. What Steve is on about involves statistics, and his report is quite detailed. Ergo, make of it what you will.

Special Note

I commend Mr. Kirsch for his tireless advocacy. I disagree with Steve over the existence of viruses, of course. Some call me "dogmatic" and "rabid" about my rejection of Germ Theory, specifically my rejection of viral theory. My only answer is twofold: first, read the history of viral theory, a detailed history, but be certain read histories both by supporters of the theory and those who reject it (the "Minority Report"; in previous times in America, you could pick up the Democrat newspaper, read their take on things, then read the Republican one, and the truth lay somewhere in between); second, simply show me who in the last century ever found a virus! I mean not just pictures gleaned from electron microscopy labeled as such or loud titles claiming such from otherwise unread science papers, but who has retrieved and isolated a contagion-causing virus and then injected that isolated virus into test subjects who subsequently came down with the specific sickness. This HAS NOT happened, not even once, even though today we have the technology to easily filter 70-140 nanometer wide viruses. (That's the width they're supposed to be.) We've used nano-tech to get the full genome from living material even smaller than viruses, and IBM can make two-nanometer wide plates! The fact that virologists refuse to use this new tech, and instead rely on 70-year-old cell-culture methods, proves (PROVES!) to me virology is a fraud. (That, and their refusal to do control experiments.) For otherwise, they'd use it and trumpet their virus finds.

Steve Kirsch has challenged those of us who reject Germ Theory by putting up huge bets none of us can afford to take. But aside from his acceptance of "mainstream medical science" regarding viruses, Steve is a blood hound after the Covid vaccines; he's relentless. And that is a good thing because not only are the vaccines deadly, but they're also crippling, an even sterilizing, as Naomi Wolf reports here at Lifesite. 

In any event, be prepared, be knowledgeable, and always, ever, be curious. And take a skeptical eye on things; in other words, be a ...

   An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

Faces of Two of Henry VIII's wives...

Amici,

Interesting. Anne Boleyn, center of so much intrigue, mystery, and utter destruction, as how she might have looked. The "google-eyed whore" as some called her. Certainly a "gold-digger" or "social climber". God will sort all these people, that's for sure. (Henry might have suffered brain-damage at one  point that could possibly explain his cruelty. Maybe. But the nobles of England should have put a sword through him and ended his blight.) Here she is at this YouTube site, as reliably recreated as probably she can be.

At the site, the artist, who sells these copyrighted portraits, explains a bit of Boleyn's life and what images she built the portrait on. I like Boleyn here in modern dress, rather that early 16th century get-up. She was either 29 or 35 when that pig Fat 'Arry 8th ("I am, I am") had her killed. That hog actually had all his wives killed, one way or another, if you think about it, except for the German, Anne of Cleves, who lived longer and better-off than all the others, and the last, the widow Catherine Parr, who lived a bit more than a year longer than Henry.

Certainly, Anne Boleyn fulfills the old dictum: Be careful what you wish for.

Although I don't know, of course, her daughter Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth I, might not have been 'Arry's daughter at all. Especially compared to "Bloody Mary", Elizabeth looked nothing like Henry VIII, in the face, body-build, or hands. And she didn't have the chronic bad health the Tudor's possessed. But anything is possible. St. Thomas More might have gone to his death primarily because he would not recognize Elizabeth to be Henry's actual daughter, and Queen Mary might have eventually thought so, too. Strangely, Mary Tudor could have married Elizabeth off to a Spanish or French or (Catholic German) Grandee, but she absolutely refused. Odd, that. It would have been a good move for her sister, IF Mary thought Elizabeth Henry's daughter. But Mary was proud enough not to do so if she thought Elizabeth a "bastard".

Then again, because Henry had Anne Boleyn executed for adultery, Elizabeth would have been considered illegitimate by both Protestant and Catholic. The Cecils, father William and son Robert, who actually ran England (as a brutal police state) during all of Elizabeth's reign, knew that and that was why they totally controlled Elizabeth I as queen. She was their puppet, not the proud, independent ruler of Elizabethan England.

So, how did Henry include his second daughter in the line of the throne? Some say it was the humble Anne of Cleves who got him to do that. 

Here's Ann of Cleves, in period dress.  

Shy and quiet, this German-born Anne had to be one "sharp cookie" to survive that $@#^###& Henry, and end up as wealthy has she did. She eventually became a friend of Henry, a "sister" of the king's and a member of the royal family, and certainly of his daughters (well, she fell out with Mary but that wasn't hard to do). But the best thing about her is that by picking her for a wife for Blooy Henry, Henry's henchman, Thomas Cromwell, ended up being executed on his master's orders. Sweet.

At the website, you can apparently purchase these and many other such recreated images, which, while not perfectly true to life, at least gives on an idea of how these people looked. FWIW

    An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

We have no possible dialogue with a Church like this...

Amici,

In some uplifting Catholic news (for once, so, may I not die of the shock – well, it was too good to last: see below), actor Shia LaBeouf has converted to the Catholic Faith, but more than that, LaBeouf has praised the Traditional Latin Mass! Great stuff! And he's insightful about it. See "Shia LaBeouf stuns Bishop Barron with love of Latin Mass: ‘They’re not selling me a car’". Naturally, Satan, the ensconced ruler of this world (we don't have to put up with him, but we do) will now attack LaBeouf, as Mel Gibson was attacked spiritually after The Passion of the Christ. Expect it. Pray for the guy.

At the bottom of the LifeSite article linked to above, please note, LifeSiteNews contributor Kennedy Hall presents a short embedded video wherein he ponders the scene: LaBeouf, the actor, and Bishop Robert Barron, the mainstream Novus Ordo impresario and multimedia producer, discuss the attraction to the Latin Mass on Barron's show, wherein LaBeouf clearly "gets it" whereas Barron remains clueless. Barron isn't trying to play it coy or dissemble, either. He just doesn't get it. Honestly, my friends, this short video is a must-see, and Hall's comments are excellent.

Meanwhile, German novelist and author extraordinaire (außerordentlich?) Martin Mosebach, has an interview Rorate Caeli carries, and translates to English: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/08/a-traditionalist-should-long-for-schism.html. Mosebach is absolutely the best, and I mean absolutely the best, writer on the Traditional Latin Mass and why it is so important and essential for Catholics in particular and Christians in general, and just how depraved the Modernist Bergoglian Church is. I have his book: The Heresy of Formlessness. Worth its weight in gold.

An excerpt from the Rorate interview (highlight mine):

We must accept the sad fact that a great part of the believers who have remained in the Church have been in the meantime reeducated. Goethe calls attention to the anthropological fact that reverence is not a natural characteristic of man, but that he must acquire it. In the formlessness of modern society, the old liturgy is really a foreign body. She attracts those who have an internal readiness for resistance. These will always only be a small elite, not in the sense of academic titles or economic power but of spiritual force and independence of mind. It is to be found at all levels of the society.

The catastrophe in the faith has created a paradox. The old liturgy lives from reverence for hierarchy and order, but her defenders have an anarchistic temperament. They distrust every institution and authority that is not willing to subject itself to the Tradition and that means most representatives of Church and state. The ruling pontifex, whose stated goal is, after fifty years of post-conciliar developments, to wipe out those remnants of the Tradition of the Church that are still present, has correctly recognized that his work will remain incomplete as long as the old rite is successfully transmitted to future generations. The old liturgy contains everything that a Catholic needs to be Catholic. It is even capable of replacing for a while a pope who doesn't understand his mission. The current pope understands this very clearly and this thought is unendurable to him.

AnP again:

Now, everyone, consider this Mosebach extract; doesn't this apply perfectly to the American Catholic Church (just watch Bishop Barron's reaction to Shia LaBeouf's praise of the TLM):

Like many, I am convinced that the official German Church is right at the point of total collapse. It is as hollow as a nest of termites. The stupidity and tastelessness of its representatives are not even attractive for modernist liberals, at least insofar as they are intelligent. A small remnant will remain, and orthodox Traditional Catholics will gain influence among these. What is critical in my view is that the official Church with its myriad lay employees finally disappears.

A Traditionalist shouldn't be afraid of the schism of the German Church. Rather, he should long for it, especially since it's in no way a schism but the public apostasy of the official Church. There's no basis anymore for the acclaimed “dialogue.”  Also, whether Tradition one day could be victorious doesn’t concern me anymore.  It must be sufficient to us that Tradition most closely approximates the religion founded by Christ.

AnP aríst:

Doesn't that apply to the Irish Church? The American? And so on? We should long for schism with the Mainstream Church because it would get us out from Begoglio's neo-Modernist/full Fascist boot, and it would not, truly, be a schism, since the Mainstream Church itself is in apostasy, and under a pope yearning, aching, drooling and twitching to bury the TLM because the "old liturgy contains everything that a Catholic needs to be Catholic", because the mainstream Church itself "is even incapable of replacing for a while a pope who doesn't understand his mission." There's no basis for dialogue with such a thing as that, Mosebach says. Indeed, there isn't.

We've reached, at long last, the point of no return in the Church. Little reason exists for "dialogue", as Bergoglio's recent efforts to just shut down the TLM plainly demonstrate. Another angle on this: it has come to my attention via Fr. James Altman that the priestly faculties of that abomination, the putrid Rembert Weakland, were never suspended or removed, whereas such has been done to hundreds of faithful, orthodox priests, like Altman himself. In fact, Weakland was to be given a full funeral from the Cathedral he ruined. (He hated the old liturgy so badly that he had the sanctuary torn out and a ridiculously titanic pipe organ installed so that it filled the space!)

In a Church where that is true, we have no possible "dialogue".

   An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

Follow-up on "Covid Murder: Seven Canadian docs die in a fortnight" – It's now up to 30, and they're young...

 Amici,

This story is 72-point type headline material, like the Moon-landing was, yet you just can't get information on it. Steve Kirsch has a follow-up on it here. As does Stu Peters, here at rumble. (Since the Canadian authorities have stopped publishing the most recent data, it is probably a lot more than 30 doctors!)

We are living in historic times. Like a Biblical Judgement Day. (Among many Bible verses to chose from: Ephesians 4:18 "They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.") Until the vaccine rollout, Kirsch reports, no young Canadian doctors died, literally; the usual age for them to pass beyond this life was in their 80s. Now, not so much. Apparently now it is in their 30s. Just incredible. 

If you received one of these "death jabs", get your will in order and yourself to Confession, that is, if you can find a priest who isn't worshiping Pachaman or Xochipilli. (Second Timothy 4:3 "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." Doesn't that describe the Modernist Church?)

   An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

Hell has another new subject: Rembert Weakland archbishop of Milwaukee from 1977 to 2002

 LifesiteNews has the biography of this evil, putrid man. (He died at 95, a classic 'hardened sinner' all his life, methodically doing evil – great evil – yet a "prince of the Church". Surely, Luke 17:2 applies.)

An excerpt:

After a decade at the helm of the Benedictine Order, Weakland was fatefully appointed archbishop of Milwaukee by Pope Paul VI in 1977. The new prelate began acting on his lifelong homosexual tendencies soon after his consecration, Weakland admitted in his memoir, pursuing sodomitic relationships that would eventually bring down his career and create a national scandal for the Church.

And as archbishop, Weakland would not only be endangering young people’s faith through irreverent liturgy but abetting their abuse by some of the most monstrous serial predators imaginable. As activist Peter Isely, who was victimized as a child by a Wisconsin priest, attested, Weakland was the “architect in the widespread and systematic abuse of children by clergy of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.”

“Thousands of children were harmed under his watch, and he bears the responsibility. During his tenure as Archbishop of Milwaukee, Weakland transferred dozens of known sex offenders into new assignments where they were warmly welcomed by trusting Catholic families,” Isley related. “These offenders then proceeded to abuse their children.”

AnP again:

Thanks, John Paul II. You elevated both Weakland and Bergoglio. You had one job to do, defend the Deposit of Faith. You were given carte blanc powers to do that, but it was too much fun running about the world as a rock star, that, and bringing down Communism. Being a rock star led, I suppose, to many conversions, and bringing down Communism obviously was a great help, though you made no headway with China, and "your boy" Bergoglio has made China pure hell for all Catholics.

Old Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz told John Paul to his face he was promoting bad men to the episcopacy; of course, JP2 had appointed Bruskewitz himself as bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, in 1992. It was the same year JP2 had appointed Bergoglio to be a bishop. So, clearly, JP2 had no real way to discern whether an individual would be an orthodox bishop or not. That was the problem he had to concentrate on. Fixing that. It is imperative that only the most orthodox priests be made bishops. But the reptiles who ran "the spirit of Vatican II" wanted more snakes in the episcopacy. JP2 seemed blind to that. 

Then too, Bergoglio – like many, actually, as we've seen since Bergoglio was installed as pope – pretended to be orthodox, but once in power, reverted to being Modernists. A great many American and European bishops have done that. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is probably the best (worst!) example of that.

Anyway, the Church is in crisis. Absolute crisis. As with the Covid fraud, it is up to us, the average, everyday folks, to use common sense and old-fashioned grit to keep the Faith, to be among the seven thousand who did not bend the knee to Ba'al. (1st Kings 19:18) And the most important battle to fight of contemporary Church problems is to force Bergoglio and the other Modernists to leave the Traditional Latin Mass alone. If we don't win for our Lord Christ on that one, we won't win on anything.

   An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

Emerald Robinson: Big Pharma paid off Fox News to promote vaccines

Friends,

Apparently Big Pharma (a collective term for the bigger pharmaceutical companies that dominate governments around the world via paying off politicians, something they've been doing for a century now, actually) has been paying Big News in order to coax the gullible into taking the murderous vaccines. This is a "fencing" operation done partly through advertising money, party through government bureaucracies (HHS, etc.) and also through just paying off talking heads. Emerald Robinson reports on that here in her Substack column. 

An excerpt (Highlights mine):

Who can forget the fully vaccinated Cavuto announcing that he caught COVID, and still thanking the vaccines for working? The brainwashed anchor went on to say: “Life is too short to be an ass. Life is way too short to be ignorant of the promise of something that is helping people worldwide. Stop the deaths, stop the suffering, please get vaccinated, please.”

Cavuto’s extraordinary rant is, of course, a prime example of magical thinking.

As I discussed back in March, most corporate news outlets in America were paid by the Biden regime’s HHS to push the vaccines to their audiences without disclosing it — and that list includes Fox News.

That’s the largest and most comprehensive breach of journalistic ethics that has ever occurred. Almost every corporate media outlet took the money. Almost every corporate media outlet lied about the vaccines (knowingly or unknowingly). Almost every corporate media outlet refused to report anything negative about the vaccines — because they were paid to close their eyes.

Almost every corporate media outlet is implicated.

AnP again: "Stop the deaths, stop the suffering, please get vaccinated, please." ??? Forsooth! Were the world not emasculated, such similar lying wretches would have been dragged out to the commons, put in stocks, and beat till one's arms cramped. So, the levels of depravity about all things Covid, which is to say all thing health-related, knows no bounds. Consider this screenshot:

This sort of needless mortality is well-documented, and has been for years. This comes from Dr. Sam Bailey here, and has more besides, but Dr. Jennifer Daniel's book, The Lethal Dose: Why Your Doctor is Prescribing It tells the same story from the author's personal experience.

Just amazing, my friends. Covid can be a blessing if we use it to reveal all the cockroaches seething under Big Medicine's white lab coats!

An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

John Zmirak on the Blessed Virgin Mary

 Amici,

John Zmirak, one of my favorite commentators, has a piece out trashing the ideologues at the Atlantic magazine for asserting the Rosary is an extremist weapon. After scalding them post flaying their skin off and salting what remained (the only way to do it :), he discusses the B.V.M. for a few lines.

Excerpt:

Prayers from the Bible

The Rosary, for those of you not familiar with it, consists of a series of prayers and meditations, virtually all of them taken from scripture. We pray the Our Father (which Jesus taught us), the Hail Mary (which quotes the angel Gabriel), and the Trinitarian prayer “Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.” We meditate on key events in the life of Jesus. The purpose of it? To focus us on the story of our salvation, the need for holiness, and the love of God.

For this reason, the Rosary has indeed been a powerful weapon in the hands of Christians, historically. Its use played a major role in defeating the crazy, gnostic Albigensian heresy. A Europe-wide “rosary crusade” decreed by a pope preceded the almost miraculous victory of the Christians over the Muslims at Lepanto. To mark that, the pope placed the Feast of Our Lady of Victory on the anniversary of that battle. (To mark it, I myself bought for my personal handgun a Beretta, made by the same Venetian company that forged the cannons we used at that battle.)

On the Feast of the Assumption in 1920, Christendom was menaced again, by a threat worse than the Mongols: the armies of Bolshevik Russia, invading the infant nation of Poland, to spread its godless revolution to Germany, then all of Europe. The outmanned, outgunned Polish armies crushed the Bolsheviks outside of Warsaw, after thousands of soldiers reported seeing the Virgin Mary appear to them in the sky, urging them to victory. Poles still call that battle “the Miracle of the Vistula.”

This is one dangerous lady, if you’re on the side of the demons. Nothing lukewarm about her. She’s fanatically orthodox, doctrinally rigid, and not even winsome. She had the temerity to tell people, when Jesus spoke, “Do whatever He tells you.” That has no place in the America of the Former Joe Biden, or The Atlantic.

I have an idea for The Atlantic. It ought to rename itself not for a vast, adventurous ocean but a stagnant, polluted man-made strait in New York City. I can see it now, as I wait for my root canal: The Gowanus: Turgid, Full of Garbage, and Only Relevant in Brooklyn.™

AnP again:

• N.B. Some Austrians credit the B.V.M. and the Rosary for Austria remaining neutral after World War II. Apparently, they offered a Rosary Crusade and Austria was neither absorbed into NATO nor the Warsaw Pact.

Among the myriad, profound reasons for not letting imbecile hacks like Bergoglio and Andrea Grillo – or pustulent charlatans like Bishop Barron, whom Zmirak shreds in grand style here at Is Robert Barron a Bishop of Baal? – drive me back to the Standing Stones of Lugh Lámhfhada Samildhánach, is the Blessed Virgin Mary. Even Luther was devoted to her. Protestantism since Luther is clueless about her, except for exceptional figures like the great composer Morten Lauridsen. Listen to his Ave, Dulcissima Maria for a Heavenly eight minutes of grace.

As the brilliant Medieval theologian St. Anselm (1033/4–1109) wrote in part of her (Italics mine):

To Mary God gave his only-begotten Son, whom he loved as himself. Through Mary God made himself a Son, not different but the same, by nature Son of God and Son of Mary. The whole universe was created by God, and God was born of Mary. God created all things and Mary gave birth to God. The God who made all things gave himself form through Mary, and thus he made his own creation. He who could create all things from nothing would not remake his ruined creation without Mary.

God, then, is the Father of the created world and Mary the mother of the re-created world. God is the Father by whom all things were given life, and Mary the mother through whom all things were given new life. For God begot the Son, through whom all things were made, and Mary gave birth to him as the Savior of the world. Without God’s Son, nothing could exist; without Mary’s son, nothing could be redeemed.

If there's any Christian insight more profound than the truth in these two short paragraphs, I don't know what it is.

   An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

 

'Tradervatives' at AKA Catholic...and is Bergoglio pope, or what? (Updated)

 Amici,

Over at AKA Catholic,a good article to read is Are non-infallible doctrines trustworthy? It's a follow-on to this article about the knots many Traditional and Conservative Catholics tie themselves into in trying to 'square the circle' that Jorge Bergoglio is actually pope, yet obviously a wanton heretic who needs converted to the True Faith or excommunicated (i.e. his own blatant self-excommunication needs to be recognized).

I alluded to this cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-you-face conundrum (or one could call it the "We must destroy the village in order to save it" syndrome) in recent comments about Dr. Peter Kwasniewski's efforts to defend the Vetus Ordo, the Traditionalist Latin Mass. Efforts such as Prof K's are aiming toward redefining the nature, office, and powers of the pope, rather than asserting Bergoglio simply is NOT pope, for no actual pope would do what Jorge Mario B. does on an hourly basis. OnePeterFive and other such "mainstream Trad" sites are good exemplars of Prof K's thinking. They work overtime at it, and while they generally have excellent arguments for keeping the TLM, "Bergoglio as pope" is ultimately "a dog that won't hunt".

As I've written before: a pope has carte blanc powers, indeed, but they are to only be used for defending and promoting the Deposit of Faith. No pope can change or add to the Faith. Montini deeply wounded the Church in attacking the TLM Vetus Ordo, but he wasn't teaching heresy per se (though one could argue that point, I suppose). Bergoglio is trying to absolutely, truly, and most sincerely cancel and repudiate and kill the TLM AS WELL AS teaching heresy daily. (Indeed, Bergoglio's evil henchman, Andrea Grillo, says the TLM is already abrogated completely!)

Having the greatest respect for Prof K, and many of the others, I cannot go down their road, and the papacy cannot be weakened with extreme dangers to the Church. Trying to limit the papacy's powers in order to prevent Bergoglio's treachery leads to "rabbit hole" articles like this one. Such debates cause factions and perpetual adversaries.

We can clearly solve all this by insisting papal power only be used as intended. And that means, shove Bergoglio into an oubliette. I agree with Louie at AKA Catholic and Ann Barnardt at her site that it is much, much saner, simpler, and far more truthful, far more self-evident, to admit we have not got a legitimate pope in "Bergi". Now, that would get me called a Sedecavantist or a Benedicavantist label (like Ann B argues Ratzinger is still legit pope, so she gets unfairly mocked as a "Benedicavantist").

Prof K and that crowd seem to think it absolutely verboten to go Barnhardt's or AKA Catholic's way. It causes too many problems, they maintain. Well, their position causes even MORE problems! Insurmountable ones. Catholicism is not an intellectual suicide pact. And anyway, we've had eras in Church history when we have had two concurrent popes, even three! (Great Western Schism, 1378 - 1417) And periods existed when a pope could not be elected for various reasons. Pius VI died on August 29, 1799 and his successor, Pius VII, was elected on March 14, 1800. That's six months.) And Pius had been out of power for a couple of years before that! (Our old friend "Nappy" Napoleon occupied Rome in 1796 and poor Pius ended up in exile in France for 18 months before his death.)

Some die-hard sedevacantists say Pope John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli, was not a valid pope, and none of the others after him. But it was only Montini, Paul 6, who was a catastrophic disaster – and he holds no candle to Bergoglio, who is in full Church-gutting-and-scalping mode, striding Godzilla-like across the ecclesiastical landscape, smashing all before him and snorting radioactive fire.

It seems patently obvious that the logic is clear. AKA Catholic (Louie) writes in the first article linked above, in part about whether we should get rid of what the Church has always taught:

Not so. Let’s revisit the examples given. In each case one has a choice to make, to either apply what the Church has always taught to explain the present situation, or to redefine (that is, to twist or reject) what the Church has always taught to fit the present situation.

• The organization presently in Rome claiming to be the Holy Catholic Church authoritatively teaches false doctrines. 

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about herself, the organization presently in Rome, since its doctrines endanger the faithful, cannot be the one true Church.

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: The organization presently in Rome is the one true Church, despite what the Church has always taught about herself. Yes, it teaches false doctrines, but not infallibly, and so we are called to resist.

• Jorge Bergoglio fails to manifest the true faith; he actively opposes it.  

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about membership in the Church, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic of any rank. 

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Jorge Bergoglio is a member of the Holy Catholic Church, despite what the Church has always taught about visible membership in her. What’s more, given that most everyone considers him pope, we have no right say otherwise.

• “Francis” attacks the true faith but claims to be the Holy Roman Pontiff. 

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about the pope being our rule of faith, the Divine protection afforded to the pope by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years, Francis is obviously an anti-pope.  

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Francis is the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, despite what the Church has always taught about the papacy, the Divine protection afforded to it by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years. Even though he is the pope, we cannot treat him as our rule of faith, rather, we must defend ourselves against his false doctrines!

AnP again.

Read the whole article. Read both AKA Catholic articles. They are excellent, and I think AKA Catholic and Ann Barnhardt carry the day, easily.

For what it is worth. Who cares what I think? But personally, I think it worth a lot to know the truth of things and not let oneself get tied hopelessly into a Gordian knot. Speaking of which, another old-time general friend of mine famously took care of that knotty issue in a simple yet dramatic way.

He cut it. 

An Préachán

'The "Vatican Rite" or "Pauline Rite" is the Novus Ordo, but NOT the Roman Rite...'

Amici,

For all of us repudiating and discarding – to the extent we can avoid it, something Bergoglio is making difficult at the moment – the hapless, never sufficiently disparaged Novus Ordo Mass, there's an essay from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski at OnePeterFive, here online that I encourage everyone to read.

Dr. K is a great defender of the Vetus Ordo, the Ancient Rite, the TLM, and I always read him with profit. Usually, my only quarrel with him revolves around whether Bergoglio (for whose pitiful soul we must all pray while he's still among the living, before it is too late for him to repent – though it is a pretty big mountain to repent: i.e. a lifetime of trashing out the Church and supporting the sexually deviant in myriad ways) is actually pope.

But leaving that issue aside, this article at OnePeterFive focuses on the infamous Sant’Anselmo professor of liturgy Andrea Grillo. Grillo has been outed as the creator of Traditiones Custodes and the subsequent liturgical garbage Bergoglio has tightened around our necks, like successive slave collars. Indeed, except for one or two individuals, Grillo is perhaps the biggest influence on Bergoglio.

The article is lengthy, but should you have interest in how the official Catholic Church (à la the "Officials" for you who know IRA history) is now so determinedly anti-TLM, well, Grillo is yer man. He's just evil. And stupid. These two estimable qualities vie in his cockroachian soul. But don't take my word for it. Read the article.

I will say that the comhrá os íseal, the scuttlebutt, that the TLM will be formally cancelled sometime next year, must come from Grillo's fevered imagination. "Grillo proposes, God disposes" ought to be a saying. Actually, Grillo is insisting it is banned already! (Read the article.) By this time next year, however, there'll be mass starvation around the world, national power outages in the "developed world", esp Europe, and social unrest on a horrendous scale. Covid vaccine mortality alone will bankrupt public and private insurance on a planetary scale. So somehow I think it will be easier than ever to dismiss Bergoglio's rantings (as indeed, Prof Kwasniewski would have us do, though not as I would, as the words of an anti-pope whom we must pray for lest he be damned).

Here is an extract from the article, a fascinating and a very revealing exchange of email Grillo had with a student; here's the student:

More and more voices, of different sensibilities, testify that the 1969 operation was truly radical, in the face of a limited conciliar mandate: from the right, as in Card. Stickler’s lengthy memoirs; and from the left, as in Fr. Gelineau’s lapidary comment: “This must be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

And it is precisely on account of Gelineau’s admission that I personally feel like making a concession: it is indeed true that the theorem of the two forms of the Roman Rite is fragile (to be generous) and sophistic (to be more ruthless). For the Council had called for a reform of the Roman Rite. The Consilium produced instead a “Vatican Rite” or a “Pauline Rite,” with some vestigial resemblance to the historic Roman Rite, and some superficial resemblance to some of the Council Fathers’ indications, although most were ignored de plano. Hence with a little intellectual honesty—but that is still a long way off—it will sooner or later be necessary to acknowledge that the Vatican Rite or Pauline Rite is not the Roman Rite, as indeed a forthcoming book argues.

AnP again:

• An excellent way of saying it. The Vatican II Council called for one thing and got another, something with "some vestigial resemblance to the historic Roman Rite, and some superficial resemblance to some of the Council Fathers’ indications." Touché. It's ridiculous, but there it is. We should have demanded they toss it back then, reject it on the spot, yet the "Vatican I Church" (from 1870 to 1962) had drilled Catholics to pray, pay, and obey. No longer. That sort of submission no longer exists much of anywhere in the Church.
  
• FWIW, I never bought into Ratzinger's spiel that two forms of the western Roman Rite existed, the "Ordinary" form and the "Extraordinary" form. Many others did not, either; anyone, in fact – me thinks – will come away with that realization who bothers to even remotely interact with the TLM Vetus Ordo. Hence the idea of a "Vatican Rite" or "Pauline Rite" seems so fitting. The N.O. is an alien thing altogether. A Changeling. As I say, it's a Methodist service with one of the N.O.'s Eucharistic prayers squeezed in.
  
• If you take time to read Grillo's responses to this student above, and another exchange Prof K provided, you realize Grillo is a parrot to Modernist notions purely ideological in nature. A high apparatchik in a dying cult. Such ideas cannot be sustained except by brute force (via KGB, Stasi, or FBI), which is precisely why Bergoglio acts the way he does.
• The near-term future is not conducive to the Novus Ordo: world-wide social stresses and economic upheavals will destroy, at long last, the "Vatican II Church", for as we saw with the ridiculous Covid lockdowns, that Church has no stuffing, no guts; it bent over showed its  butt to the dominant Grillo gorilla-brute culture of power, the fascist "boot on the human face forever" (Orwell) when what the world needed was the actual Catholic Faith, represented during the lockdowns best by the SSPX, which kept chapels open and priestly services ongoing, as much as possible. If you want to see that actual Catholic Faith in action, watch this video of an SSPX priest making the rounds in Alaska. 
  
  

So, we'll see. Time will tell. But remember: Motus in finem velocior. Time speeds up before the end. Or as Aristotle said: Time is the measure of motion. And things are running ever faster toward Global Dystopia.

    An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

Once again: Jenner's smallpox vaccination did NOT stop smallpox in England

Friends, 

It's time to "think the unthinkable". What with all the lies our governments our spreading, lies about war, food production, "green" energy, Global Warming (now the even more vague "Climate Change"), and of course the grotesque authoritarianism in the U.S. Federal Government, not to mention the most putrid lies of all that come from the Bergoglioan hierarchy of Church destroyers, it is time to review just how long and how thoroughly we are lied to. It is time to "think the unthinkable". Scotsman Neil Oliver has a great talk on that here. 

To that end, here is Part I of a series I am endeavoring to start on how we've been lied to, let's consider medicine, specifically vaccines.

I had sent something similar to this around months ago, but it is time to consider it again. We've been told for two hundred years the legend of Edward Jenner, a plucky English physician eliminating the dreaded smallpox plague via vaccination, beginning this work in the 1790s. Jenner, 1749 to 1823, is known as "Father of Immunology".

It is an old story, and a hallowed one. But it is not true.

Despite Jenner's inoculations, Smallpox reigned in England in the mid-1800s, and they suffered the worst Smallpox outbreak in their (recorded) history between 1871 and 1880, but it has been like finding hen's teeth to uncover information on it. The bottom line is that Jenner's Smallpox "vaccine" did not work. IT DID NOT work, not the way it has been historically related. 

What got rid of the pox, then? Sanitation. Installing urban sanitation systems, sewers, what the Brits have always called "water closets" (toilets with drains to sewers) and other "boring, nuts-and-bolts" civil engineering stuff. Urban sanitation. 

So, despite the fame of Edward Jenner and his smallpox vaccine (called "inoculation" in 1796, a somewhat different protocol from vaccination, per se), smallpox remained a plague in England for a long lifetime. Contrary to the Jenner legend, and despite of – or because of – England's vaccination laws, between 1871 and 1880, 57,016 smallpox deaths occurred in Britain. 57,016 people in nine years, mind you, with a version of the famous vaccine BEING REQUIRED BY LAW. Smallpox was so common in the early 1800s that Parliament passed laws mandating the use of vaccination. (Sound familiar?) Smallpox looked as inevitable as ever.

• It looks as though the anti-smallpox inoculations caused more smallpox than they stopped. Actually, this was noted simultaneously in France regarding Louis Pasteur's anti-rabies inoculations. Back in 1909, a Dr. Montague R. Leverson wrote that Pasteur's anti-rabies inoculations "afford the most decided test of the pernicious character of that method of treatment. During the 23 years preceding the use of anti-rabic serum, there were 685 deaths from rabies in all France, or an average of 30 per annum...with a continually increasing number each year, so that according to the official returns the number of death from rabies in France for the year ending in June, 1907, was just about 300. In truth, as Professor Peter said, in his address to the Academy of Medicine in Paris, on the 11th of January, 1887, "M. Pasteur does not cure rabies, he imparts it!" (13:20 of https://odysee.com/@hipsterious:3/Dr.-Sam-Bailey---What-About-Rabies:c)

Regarding smallpox in England, something major changed dramatically, however, for between 1911 and 1920, only 110 English deaths occurred from smallpox. By that time, vaccination had evaporated as a national policy. But as noted, for years vaccination had been national policy for the British government made Smallpox vaccination a requirement in 1853, with the Compulsory Vaccination Act, with a more stringent version in 1867.

A Dr. Hadwen wrote: "After about 40 years of compulsory vaccination, Britain suffered the worst smallpox epidemic in its entire history, with the highest death rate in history." What vaccine brought smallpox to an end? No vaccine at all. Rather, sanitation policies brought smallpox to an end. City reformers in Leicester set the example: they rejected vaccination in favor of sanitation. Yes, friends, this is true. Sanitation. Boring. Unexciting. "Un-legendable". I've always said that the invention and use of soap saved more human lives than any other thing in all history. With sewers and indoor plumbing and a ban on vaccination, smallpox disappeared from Leicester, and eventually from England. 

The same thing happened in Cleveland (of all places!). A Dr. Friedrich, in charge of the Health Board of Cleveland, abolished vaccination "absolutely" and promoted sanitation. Smallpox vanished. (As reported by a Dr. John Hodge in 1902.) Clearly, sanitation played the major role in ending Smallpox. Everyone, and I mean EVERYBODY, needs to know these facts. Please, pass it on, folks. Vaccination has NEVER BEEN the panacea it has been cracked up to be, and it is time this info gets broadcasted. (Same with polio, which did not come from a virus but arsenic/lead-based fruit tree insecticide, and later DDT; once these were discontinued, so vanished the polio, or it was just renamed: "Acute Flaccid Paralysis", which is formally said to be clinically indistinguishable from polio.)

In fact, most important to comprehend of all: we have been as consistently lied to about vaccination and the Germ Theory of Illness as we have been lied to about every other category I opened this essay with.

Another name for Hell is "The Kingdom of Lies" and we've been long-term residents therein. 

An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.