Just a little reminder to one and all about liturgy, and bad liturgy. Obviously, I think that living close to reverent liturgy, either the Tridentine Mass or Divine Liturgy, should be an extremely high priority, BUT, to those who say, “Novus Ordo Mass is all there is available to me, and I’M NOT GOING!”, let me hasten to remind you of the following:
The most “irreverent” Mass in history was Calvary itself. No one was actually paying attention to the Sacrifice of the Lamb except the small cohort led by The Blessed Virgin, St. John and St. Mary Magdalen. Only they assisted in silence. What else was going on at Calvary? People were walking around, talking, ignoring Our Lord at best, laughing, shouting and heckling Him at worst. One of the major aspects of crucifixion was the fact that the crucified were naked, completely exposed and obviously unable to cover themselves in any way – complete humiliation. Can you imagine the taunts and filth that the Roman soldiers hurled at Our Lord? Don’t kid yourselves, folks. They were probably making sexual taunts at Him that would turn even our jaded stomachs. That is, of course, when they weren’t playing dice. The Jewish priests also came to mock and scorn. And there were probably quite a few people who came just to gawk. They had no idea what they were looking at other than three men being tortured to death. They just gawked at the spectacle, then walked away.
Now consider the Apostles. None except St. John were there. Can you imagine the regret that they all felt for the rest of their lives for not having been there? It was the most important event in history, in fact, it was the central event in all of history – so central that everything before and everything after is and will be reconciled through the central point of Calvary. And they missed it. They freely chose to stay away, cowering in hiding.
It is pretty clear that the days of being able to easily find a valid – never mind licit – Mass are numbered. Antipope Bergoglio has his henchmen hard at work writing a new non-Mass “ecumenical service” that will fulfill the prophecy of the Mass being almost completely eliminated from the earth. And as I have said before, when the apostate anti-church goes into full schism, they will take every square inch of real estate with them, and will be unanimously legally recognized as “the Catholic Church”. At this point, to be caught off guard by this will be simply inexcusable.
My advice is the same as what I suspect the Apostles would say: Go to Mass while you still can, even if it is Novus Ordo. Nothing that happens at a Novus Ordo Mass will be as bad as what was going on at Calvary itself. If bad things happen, pray in reparation as the Blessed Virgin did. Pray the Rosary. Remember that it is perfectly fine to NOT receive Holy Communion, and instead make a Spiritual Communion – remember, no one received Holy Communion at Calvary. Christ Himself, the High Priest, was the Priest Celebrant and the Victim, and He immolated Himself, thus consummating the Sacrifice. Don’t find yourself, like the Apostles, filled with regret at NOT going to Calvary.
I would especially encourage priests to read this very, very closely, as you will be on the front lines and if you do not understand what is going on, it will be very, very difficult for you to fight back against the wolves who are trying to devour your flocks.
Post-Christian society is falling into the abyss, and quickly. Within a mere blink of the eye in historical terms, our society has fully embraced sexual perversion of every stripe, self-mutilation has become a “civil right”, and there is now only one final frontier to be breached: suicide.
Antipope Bergoglio, wielding his completely illegitimate “moral authority” as the usurper of the See of Peter, has been at the forefront of the conspiracy – and I use the word without hesitation – to lay the foundations needed to desensitize, normalize, glorify, and eventually EXPECT suicide. It is the ultimate smack in the face to God, to not only ratify people in sin, but to actually encourage people to take the gift of their very life, and throw it away.
The fact that Bergoglio and the Freemasonic-Soros-Zuckerberg New World Order cabal are 100% in agreement on the agenda of suicide promotion should come as absolutely no surprise whatsoever. If Bergoglio is, in fact, the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, it becomes even more predictable.
The first step is to ratify what post-Christian culture already believes by a huge margin: that death results in the annihilation of the human soul at the very worst, and for those few remaining “simpletons” that still cling to their “bullshit religion”, that there is universal salvation. Either way, the possibility of eternal damnation and the existence of hell is completely discounted and derided as the ravings of unsophisticated and “hate-filled” fringe lunatics.
It was the Theory of Evolution that was the first wave of attack against man’s belief in the reality of hell. We all know that when we slaughter animals, that the animals’ consciousnesses are, in fact, “snuffed out of existence”. Animals are NOT rational intellects, and thus are fundamentally different from human beings who are rational intellects, and are in that way created “in the image and likeness of God”. As Darwinian thought infected the world, men became convinced that as mere “hairless apes”, animals that are simply more evolved than other animals, so too are human beings “snuffed out of existence” when they die. Three of the Four Last Things were essentially disregarded in one fell swoop: Judgment, Heaven and Hell. Only death remained, and so the telos of man, or the end of man, became death and annihilation – FULL STOP, LIGHTS OUT. Heaven and hell thus became something that intelligent people merely gave lip service to on Sunday mornings, if that.
Bergoglio has gone out of his way to promote soul annihilation as the worst possible end of man, even in the foul screed Amoris Laetitia, in which he says, through his ghostwriter in paragraph 297, “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” He has told the atheist Freemason newspaper magnate Eugenio Scalfari more than once that souls are annihilated that do not receive eternal beatitude.
I hope all my loyal and dear readers had a great Feast of Christ the King yesterday. I know I did. As I was sitting at High Mass, in a chapel filled to the brim, my thoughts kept wondering over to Novus Ordo land. Actually, I was thinking about what it was like to have an entire pew to oneself. Sorry for the digression…
As for folks, or rather FrancisFolks who most likely did not have any “space issues”, but nor did they have a happy and joyous feast day, the owners and players of the National Football League would be one sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium that come to mind first. As you can probably figure out from the picture below, it was another bad weekend for the NFL.
Actually, it has become so bad in fact, that over on the American Thinkerwebsite, James G. Robertson asks the $64,000 question: Will the NFL Be the First Legal Monopoly in US History to Fail? Here is that lede:
Monday Night Football ratings are down. NFL ticket sales are down. Stadiums are half empty. The NFL may cut 10 Thursday night broadcastsfrom the lineup. NFL owners met in New York last week to deal with the kneeling crisis. Now consider this: the NFL is a private monopoly established by an act of Congress, and it looks like it’s going down. How is such a thing possible?
As I was reading this paragraph, I immediately thought Novus Ordo land again, this time I though of Vatican City, circa 2016. Here is that picture:
I also thought of the latest reports of what we call the Soap Bubble Papacy™(see here)
So I figured, if I read on, maybe some similarities will appear, similarities that could provide more insight into the state of the post-conciliar church, from the current situation that is playing itself out in the NFL stadiums.
A couple of paragraphs lower, we get the following:
Subsequently, the NFL flourished, with lots of help from taxpayers. In 2015, a report from the Taxpayers Protection Alliance said:
“Since 1995, a staggering 29 of the 31 stadiums that house NFL teams received public subsidies for construction, renovation or both. Between 1995 and today, taxpayers have been forced to spend nearly $7 billion subsidizing NFL stadium construction and renovation projects.”
Another parallel: government money.
If 29 of the 31 stadiums that house NFL teams receive public funds, this would imply that these are “government subsidized enterprises”. On the side of the post-conciliar church, the hierarchy has tapped into the pool of government funds that promote human trafficking and the migrate trade. (see here) Actually, this stream of government funding is so large, that even the “conservative” prelates are acting “out of character”. (see here)
So then the question becomes: How in the “wide wide world of sports” could the NFL have fumbled this up? Here is that answer:
What a deal. Congress gives you a monopoly and the taxpayers build your factories. Then all you have to do is run the factory for half of the year and play a football game once a week. It’s a guaranteed gravy train for everyone. The NFL could profit forever. How could the NFL possibly foul it up?
To repeat, how is it possible to fumble a monopoly? Answer: turn it over to the race industry.
Ok, so how would this relate to the post-conciliar church?
Well, the “race industry” can be seen as just a sub-set of the old Leftist Marxist IDEOLOGY. The equivalent in the post-conciliar church of the “race industry” would read something like this: (see here)
“The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims. To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the “promised land,” rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels.”
So how does this post-conciliar “race industry” operate?
Here is the outline of how these sorts of operations are executed: (with emphasis and comments added)
The shakedown scam starts with an arbitrary claim of disparity. Anything can be interpreted as a disparity or as representing a disparity – history, symbolic statues, murder rates, income inequality, schools, police, low income housing, football players without a job – literally, anything. (Including Communion of serial adulterers and the objective approach to the ‘intrinsically disordered’ condition)
The next step is to blame the disparity on society, in particular, some intangible quality of society. (Say the “rigid” or the promoters of “doctrinal linearity”) The more vague and ineffable you assign the nature of the blame the better. Racism is perfect. It can be everywhere and nowhere. It lives in the mind of someone else. You can call it up as needed, or dismiss it as needed. (It works even better with “rigidity”, not to mention “Pharisaical”, where the FrancisDefinition has been completely inverted.)
The third step is to identify an evil doer associated with the ineffable source of the disparity. (Neo-Promitean Palagians, anyone?) The targeted evil doer has to be a plausible representative of society, and must have the ability to pay up. With a targeted evil doer in mind, the fourth step is to mount a smear campaign against the evil doer. Any type of smear campaign will do, as long as it’s legal, and as long as it causes social and financial harm to the evil doer. The last step is to demand a payoff to stop the damage.
Oh my, same script, just different actors.
So how does the story end, you ask dear reader?
Here is that paragraph:
The race industry has engineered a national hysteria about racism, white supremacy, inequality, and every other disparity that it can imagine. It believes that the shakedown scam is the best strategy for benefitting black America, and that destroying the NFL in the process will be a net plus. Anyone have any new ideas for making black millionaires?
Concluding, the parallel situation is that the FrancisChurch has engineered within the post-conciliar church a wide mass hysteria about the “rigid” “Pharisaical” Catholics, and has tried to brow beat the Faithful into submission by throwing at them every epitaph in the book, and many that no one ever hear of before. (see here) This has been done to “white shame” the pew sitters and get them to give up more of the dosh – as the English would say. And just like the NFL, the post-conciliar church is being destroyed on the grounds that it will be “positive for society” if these institutions of “toxic masculinity” are dead and buried.
As for the question about what will replace this mechanism for making the next generation of celebrity clerics or black millionaires, this is a bit less defined, not to say thought out. Just as “not thought out” is the question of how the post-conciliar church will fund itself once all the pew sitters are gone.
Carpe diem, I reckon!
There will always be the governmental subsidies, you say?
But then again, maybe not…
What has not dawned on these FrancisFolks is that the government supports “private” enterprises who bring some added value to compensate for that malinvestment. For example, if the NFL was not attracting all those fans and viewers, those same people that the advertisers need in order to generate revenue from products sold (and resulting campaign contributions) and those who vote for those legislatures who hand out the taxpayer funded largess, those subsidies would not be handed out to the NFL teams in the first place. So if the NFL would not have attracted those viewers, they would not have gotten the subsidies. Therefore, if those viewers leave, so will the government largess.
Actually, it could leave due to an Act of Congress.
As far as the FrancisChurch and the rest of the post-conciliar church is concerned, if the Catholics would not have been such a larger voter base in the first place, they also would not have gotten government “goodies” like tax exemptions.
But what is even more troubling at present, is that it is not the Catholic voter base that is the main reason for why the government provides hundreds of millions of tax dollars to the Church in the US and to the USCCB. It is because of one specific program that the illegal migrant human trafficking lobby is promoting.
And once the “need” for that program ceases, guess what will happen to that funding?
OK, it’s a rhetorical question.
Things are escalating again.
Pieces, falling into a puzzle with a picture we cannot make out, bit by bit. I recently hinted at my own perception of an increase in activity transpiring behind the veil between this world and the next. I suspect many of you sense it, too.
Earlier this week, as I was ruminating over the odd assortment of observations I wanted to gather into this post, a line came unbidden into my mind: “the…something cannot hold. “
That’s good, I thought. But what is it? The ceiling cannot hold? The floor? I can’t remember what this is from.
So to The Google I went, and sure enough, a search of the cannot hold yielded the poem I was looking for. Those of you who are more erudite than I and possess a better grasp of literature already know the title and the author: The Second Coming, by W. B. Yeats.
As I read the poem, I was immediately struck by its topicality:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Yes, I thought. That certainly sounds more like the present moment than I expected. I will definitely use this.
Then I continued….
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Even now, placing this text here for you to read, I find a lump in my throat and a chill running down my spine. I had absolutely no recollection, when the line came to me, what the poem was about. I was merely thinking of that one phrase, magnificent in its expression of the precariousness of our situation.
But truth be told, one of the things that had me thinking along these lines in the first place is Father Robert Hugh Benson’s 1907 apocalyptic novel, Lord of the World, which I have only just recently, for at least the third time in as many years, picked up and started reading again. The first couple of times, I found it dense and dry. Perhaps the time simply wasn’t right. Pushing through the opening pages, now, I have found myself in the midst of a page-turner that is eerily reminiscent of the things we are witnessing day to day.
Certainly, the setting is different. And I wouldn’t say things are playing out in the story the way I expect them to in the real world. But there are core themes there that resonate throughout history. The book, now 110 years old, is (so far as I have read) notably prescient. (And strangely, as the cover of this edition says, Pope Francis advises you to read it! There is also a free Kindle edition here.)
It’s about the coming of the Antichrist.
Humanism: An Idolatry of Man
In the introduction to the book, in which our priest protagonist, Fr. Percy Franklin, is visiting an elderly Mr. Templeton to get some historical backstory to bring the reader up to speed, Templeton says:
I think, if you wish me to say what I think, that, humanly speaking, Catholicism will decrease rapidly now. It is perfectly true that Protestantism is dead. Men do recognise at last that a supernatural Religion involves an absolute authority, and that Private Judgment in matters of faith is nothing else than the beginning of disintegration.
On the other hand, you must remember that Humanitarianism, contrary to all persons’ expectations, is becoming an actual religion itself, though anti-supernatural. It is Pantheism; it is developing a ritual under Freemasonry; it has a creed, ‘God is Man,’ and the rest. It has therefore a real food of a sort to offer to religious cravings; it idealises, and yet it makes no demand upon the spiritual faculties. Then, they have the use of all the churches except ours, and all the Cathedrals; and they are beginning at last to encourage sentiment. Then, they may display their symbols and we may not: I think that they will be established legally in another ten years at the latest.
On Monday morning, I called up a good friend who is far more deeply immersed in the theology of the Church than I am. I asked him for a gut check on all that is currently transpiring, and he immediately gave an impassioned response.
The problem, he said to me, is that we keep trying to address all these symptoms of the disease. We see Communion for the divorced and remarried, or the attempt to abolish the death penalty, or the revisitation of Humanae Vitae, or the anthropocentric changes in the liturgy, and we go running after them, chasing them down, trying to fight them.
“The root of it all, though,” he said to me, “is the worship of man. It’s Gaudium et Spes 12 and 24. It’s Evangelii Gaudium 161. And very few people truly see that.”
Gaudium et Spes 12 reads, in part, “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.”
Gaudium et Spes 24 reads, in part,”…love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.”
Evangelii Gaudium 161 reads, in part, “above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you’ (Jn 15:12).”
We have written about the problems with these documents here before, so I will not elaborate on them further now, save to say that they represent a dangerous kind of humanism in which man takes the center stage, replacing the proper place of God. As we all know, the “first and greatest commandment” is not “love for God and neighbor” or simply, “love one another as I have loved you,” but “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.” (Mt. 22:37-38)
In a homily two years ago this month, Pope Francis said that
humanism should take its starting point from “the centrality of Jesus,” in whom we discover “the features of the authentic face of man.” His reflection took its starting point from the passage from St Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: “Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus.” What is this attitude? the Pope asked. He suggested three specific traits: humility, disinterest, and happiness (It: beatitudine).
With regard to humility, the Pope said we should pursue the glory of God, and not our own. “The glory of God that blazes in the humility of the cave of Bethlehem or in the dishonour of the Cross of Christ always surprises us.” Disinterest is seen in the quote from Philippians, which speaks of “each one looking out not for his own interests, but [also] everyone for those of others.” A Christian’s humanity, he said, is not narcissistic or self-centred, but always goes out to others, which leads us always to work and to fight to make the world a better place.
In our 110-year-old story about an anti-Christian future, we see the lapsed Catholic mother of the famed and rabidly anti-theistic Labour MP, Oliver Brand, reflecting upon the Masonic Hymn being rousingly sung by the Londoners all around her:
Old Mrs. Brand lifted the printed paper mechanically to her eyes, and saw the words that she knew so well:
“The Lord that dwells in earth and sea.” …
She glanced down the verses, that from the Humanitarian point of view had been composed with both skill and ardour. They had a religious ring; the unintelligent Christian could sing them without a qualm; yet their sense was plain enough–the old human creed that man was all. Even Christ’s words themselves were quoted. The kingdom of God, it was said, lay within the human heart, and the greatest of all graces was Charity.
Of course, “Christian Humanism” isn’t an entirely new thing. It also isn’t strictly a Pope Francis thing. Writing at The Week, Peter Weber says:
Let me be clear: I’m not arguing that Francis is a secular humanist, or capital-h Humanist, by any means. Instead, let’s call him a Christian humanist, defining that as one who cares about human beings more than ecclesiastical considerations.
That might sound like secular balderdash, but it’s actually a phrase coined by Pope Benedict. “Christian humanism,” he wrote in the 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate (“Charity in Truth”), “enkindles charity and takes its lead from truth, accepting both as a lasting gift from God. Openness to God makes us open toward our brothers and sisters and toward an understanding of life as a joyful task to be accomplished in a spirit of solidarity.” Benedict explicitly borrowed the idea from Pope Paul VI.
And yet how is “Christian Humanism” being distinguished from “capital-h Humanism”, practically speaking? How are we to believe that this isn’t just an indicator of the supremacy of the “Revolution in Tiara and Cope” promised by the Italian Freemasons of the Alta Vendita over a century ago?
When upon all the points of ecclesiastical state at once, this daily work shall have spread our ideas as light, then you will appreciate the wisdom of the counsel in which we take the initiative… That reputation will open the way for our doctrines to pass to the bosoms of the young clergy, and go even to the depths of convents. In a few years the young clergy will have, by force of events, invaded all the functions. They will govern, administer, and judge. They will form the council of the Sovereign. They will be called upon to choose the Pontiff who will reign; and that Pontiff, like the greater part of his contemporaries, will be necessarily imbued with the…humanitarian principles which we are about to put into circulation… Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. You wish to cause the last vestige of tyranny and of oppression to disappear? Lay your nets like Simon Barjona. Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than in the depth of the sea… You will bring yourselves as friends around the Apostolic Chair. You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner – a Revolution which needs only to be spurred on a little to put the four corners of the world on fire.
And what are we to make of the nearly-universal acclaim that Freemasonry has heaped upon our present pontiff, in light of these designs? What of the Vatican’s newfound desire to have “dialogue” with Freemasonry? What of Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s warning that Freemasonry is a “tool of Satan” or that
Freemasonry is in itself intrinsically not compatible with Christian or Catholic faith, it is intrinsically not compatible, because the nature of freemasonry is anti-Christian. They deny Christ, and they deny the objective truths, they promote relativism, which is contrary to the truth, to the Gospel. So they promote the doctrinal errors of the Masonic philosophy. This is incompatible with Christian and Catholic faith.
“And yet!” the astute and well-informed reader will object, “Just this week the pope rejected ‘the appointment of a masonic Lebanese ambassador’ to the Holy See! And don’t you remember how Francis said he wanted Cardinal Burke to cleanse the Soverign Military Order of Malta of Freemasonry?”
If our interlocutor were seeking to establish the self-contradictory modes of the present pontiff, his duty would be satisfied. The fact remains that the Pope is so little concerned with rejecting actual Freemasonic ideals that he has not once — not a single time — distanced himself from all of its endorsements of his pontificate. Neither has he made haste to remove those useful to him within the Vatican power structure who have long been suspected of membership. And he speaks constantly of immanentism, of humanism, of the environment, of the marginalized, of the values that promote man in the here and now — all while he dismissesCatholic eschatology and replaces it with something of his own making.
So if Francis does, in fact, disavow (in principle) the Freemasons who find such hope in him, we should remember that even the visionary members of the Alta Vendita, with their far-reaching ideals of infiltrating the Church such that their own would elect a pope, did not think they would own the papacy itself. “The Pope, whoever he may be,” they wrote, “will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come to the Church…”
And so they have.
However you want to slice it, humanism leads to idolatry — the worship of man. It is why we were given the Novus Ordo, with its attendant focus on the community over worship. It’s why we have abandoned an ecumenism that seeks conversion. It’s why we tell people that it’s not their fault that they can’t stop sinning, and they should go ahead and receive the sacraments anyway so they don’t feel excluded. It’s why we have people who treat the pope as though he is a divine oracle, and somehow comprises supreme magisterial power over previously-defined truth, whether laid down by his predecessors or by God Himself in divine revelation.
And as my friend said to me at the denouement of our Monday phone call, “The worship of man is really just a thinly-veiled worship of Satan.”
“Our faith in the indefectibility of the Church is soon going to be tested…”
One of the things that originally prompted this reverie, other than reading LOTW, was an unusually personal and insightful post by Fr. Z:
Last night I had a hard dream that I was part of a firefighting crew, the kind that tries to control wildfires, such as dangerously erupt especially in time of drought. The winds fanned the flames. I awoke entirely exhausted.
This morning during the parish’s Solemn Mass, for which I was deacon, I had a pressing and strong presentiment of foreboding. I visualized pouring it into the chalice with the water I poured to be mixed with the wine and transformed… by God.
After the Mass, the priest celebrant and I went to a breakfast place and were seated next to a table of half a dozen firefighters in their ready gear. Their truck was outside… one of the big ones… running. I took this as part of my ongoing experience of portentous, looming urgency, whereupon I paid for their table. The guy next to us bought us our breakfast, thus passing it on. Good will multiplies.
And now a reading from my SMS thing… This came in this morning from a lay friend, a father of four. It is part of an SMS conversation between friends, clerical and lay. The immediate topic: those who are purposely sowing confusion and ambiguity in the Church today:
Motus in fine velocior. Our faith in the indefectibility of the Church is soon going to be tested and good people will legitimately choose different sides. I am neither an alarmist nor a conspiracy theory [k]ook, but these people are evil. … It’s going to get SO much worse before it gets better. Brace yourselves and cling to your beads, catechism, Breviary and Mass.
Motus in fine velocior. Motion accelerates when the end is near. This is a phrase we hear more and more often these days, as the concept transitions from a motto to a mantra.
The testing of our faith in the Church’s indefectibility, however, isn’t on the near horizon. It’s already here, and doing damage. I say this not to discourage anyone, but simply to be honest: I spent a good chunk of last week fighting off the tempting thought that if heretics are going to run the Church — and more to the point, if the pope himself can flatly contradict divine revelation, asserted as such by the teaching office of the Church — and they are all going to just get away with it, I might as well start sleeping in on Sundays.
Either he can get away with it, or he can’t. Either all of it is true, or it isn’t.
We are at this very moment living through a process by which a sitting pope is attempting to falsify Christ’s promises to the Church.
The center cannot hold.
The difficulty for us — for you and for me — is knowing how long this can continue without redress. The practical question we are all asking ourselves is, “What does our faith demand of us? At what point do we find ourselves saying, ‘surely, this has gone too far’?” We need something to assuage our rising sense of fear. I am reminded of those times when, as a parent, I have been unable briefly to find one of my small children. It doesn’t take long before the small voice of concern — “Oh, he must be hiding under a bed or something” — turns into the shrill note of panic when every reasonable stone has been seemingly overturned.
We once had this go on long enough with our oldest son that we called the police, because we honestly thought someone had come by and taken him from the yard. (As it turned out, the child in question was hiding because he was embarrassed because of something he had done.) Another time, with another child, we could not find him because he had crawled inside a kitchen cabinet and shut the door, only to fall fast asleep. We looked everywhere but in the cupboards, until we were at our wits’ end and discovered him out of a sheer irrational desperation to check every unlikely place.
Both times, the truth was that our children were safe the whole time. Both times, it had become easy — even reasonable — to fear the worst.
I have long posited that the only reason Christ promised that the “gates of hell will not prevail” against the Church is because He knew full well that they would appear to do precisely that. He wanted us to remember those words at the very moment when it would seem all but certain that His promises were empty, and that all was truly lost. We are arriving at that juncture. Perhaps not for the first time in history, and certainly not for the last.
The Church may go into hiding. The Church may seem for a time to disappear. So we remember His promise. And we hold fast, whatever comes.
by Marco Tosatti 10 . 23 . 17
Now that Cardinal Gerhard Müller has been removed from his post at the Vatican, the main target of the circle around Pope Francis is Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Their latest coup is the release of a letter of “correction” aimed at Cardinal Sarah and signed by Francis. Published on Sunday, the letter was celebrated as a just humiliation of the cardinal and accompanied by calls for his resignation.
Earlier . . .
By David Martin——Previous Articles—October 21, 2017
On the eve of his resignation, he said: “Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church… “The ‘always’ is also a “forever”—there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” (General Audience, February 27, 2013)
According to these words, Benedict XVI remains pope, with no revocation of his office having occurred. According to Church law, a pope must give up “his office” for his resignation to be valid. (Canon 332) Pope Benedict clearly chose to retain his office “forever,” which means he is still pope, which means that Francis cannot be pope, since there cannot be two popes. The late Fatima expert Fr. Nicholas Gruner points this out in a rare video on Benedict XVI’s resignation. If Francis is the pope, then Benedict’s office is revoked, but Benedict insists it was not revoked.
To explain away the papal chimera that was born of the historic 2013 conclave, Archbishop Georg Gänswein who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household told the pressthat Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement on Feb. 11, 2013, marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.” He said the Petrine office is now a “common papacy” comprising more than one member, i.e. Benedict and Francis.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a “shared papacy,” and Gänswein no doubt realizes that this is an argument used by heretics to undermine the Primacy of Peter, but his explanation to the press apparently was the best he could do to cover for a very embarrassing situation that caused the man he honored to be dethroned.
What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating
What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating, i.e. to give up the “active ministry,” but this was done under the guise of a resignation to not split the Barque asunder with controversy. Credible reports from 2015 indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into stepping down, which was providentially foreshadowed in Pope Benedict’s inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”
We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.
This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict’s resignation, the same members who stirred up so much chaos at the October 2014-15 Synods on the Family.
Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved.
According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” This was confirmed, in the case of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal O’Malley, in the Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013. As the conclave neared, they then held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker
Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which lays down the rules for conducting conclaves. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it 1renders the election “null and void.” Key passages are as follows:
81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition…
82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II
Bearing this in mind, let us consider now the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a future pope. This is found in the Opuscula or Works of St. Francis, which was published by the preeminent Franciscan historian Fr. Luke Wadding in 1621.
Shortly before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the friars of his Order and detailed this prophecy of what was to come upon the Church in the latter days. The following is an excerpt taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham.
“At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”
The clearest evidence of “an uncanonically elected pope” would be his success in drawing “many into error,” something that has become rampant since Francis was elected. We see many in the Church talking down dogma, praising Luther, and even dignifying adultery, courtesy of Amoris Laetitia which teaches that we can now break the commandments if conscience dictates. (303) And whereas some argue that this is material and not formal heresy, how do they explain the apparent formal heresy contained in paragraph 297 of Amoris Laetita?
“No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” (AL 297)
This clearly denies the Church’s dogmatic teaching that hell is eternal. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.” Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”
There is also the issue of Francis’ ongoing collusion with U.N. globalists. Freemasons the world over praise Francis and see him as a hero for the way he has turned the Vatican into a bully-pulpit for the advancement of left-wing political causes like population-control, open borders, and a communistic one-world government.
THE BIG AND OBVIOUS QUESTION that remains is, if Benedict XVI in fact remains pope, why doesn’t he alert the Church to the nullity of Francis’ election? And why did he even consent to the 2013 conclave if he already knew his continued papacy would invalidate the election?
Perhaps the late Fr. Malachi Martin provided the answer to this in summer 1998. In an interview on the Art Bell show, Father Malachi stated that he read the Third Secret of Fatima in February 1960. Bound by oath not to reveal the text of the Secret, he commented on the basic gist of the Secret, i.e. its prediction of apostasy in the church, while refuting the various apocryphal versions that callers were quoting to him on the program.
However, in response to an alleged quotation from the Third Secret about a pope who would be “under the control of satan,” Fr. Malachi replied, “Yes, it sounds as if they were reading the text of the Third Secret.”
According to Fatima experts, including the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner, this mention of a pope under Satan’s “control” would mean that he is innocently bound and kept under control. Benedict won’t speak the truth about Rome’s present collusion with Antichrist, because he is bound by fears and kept under surveillance by an iron-clad Vatican bureaucracy, if in fact they haven’t threatened him at gunpoint. There could be more to Danneels’ “mafia club” than meets the eye.
This is credible, when we consider that on February 10, 2012, almost one year to the day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation, it was reported that the pope was given only one year to live if he didn’t resign. The Telegraph UK reported that Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, said these things to a group of people in Beijing toward the end of 2011.
“His remarks were expressed with such certainty and resolution that the people he was speaking to thought, with a sense of alarm, that an attack on the Pope’s life was being planned,” the report said.
The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec 30, 2011, and delivered to the Pope by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in January 2012. The report was written in German, apparently to limit the number of people within the Vatican who would understand it if it was inadvertently leaked. It warned of a “Mordkomplott”—death plot—against Benedict.
Hence Pope Benedict XVI, in an emotional farewell speech at St. Peter’s on February 25, 2013, told a crowd of 100,000that God had called him to step down and devote himself to prayer, and ‘to scale the mountain.’
This suggests that Benedict XVI is “the Holy Father” in Lucy’s vision who scales the mountain, while Francis is the “bishop dressed in white.” In conjunction with the Third Secret message, Sr. Lucy of Fatima received this symbolic vision, which she penned on January 3, 1944. The following is an excerpt of the vision which was published by the Vatican on June 26, 2000.
“We saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”
In her vision, Lucy sees two popes as it were. The first is a mirrored image of what appears to be the pope, but is actually “a bishop dressed in white” who gives the “impression” he is the pope. The true pope and his followers scale the mountain amidst peril and danger, praying for the spiritually dead along the way, before which they pass through a city half in ruins, representing the Church in shambles. At the end of their journey they are martyred for their allegiance to Jesus Crucified. It is a symbolic picture of the Church being put to death.
It should be emphasized that a reflection in the mirror is not a reality, but only an appearance, an impression. Lucy makes the point that this appearance is “a bishop dressed in white.” Given what we know, it is safe to say that the bishop dressed in white is not Benedict XVI or any previous pope, but Pope Francis.
When we consider all the above, it begins to shed light on the mystery as to why St. Faustina, known for her role in establishing the devotion to the Divine Mercy, penned an unusual entry into her diary on December 17, 1936. Entry 823 is as follows.
“I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of His name and I fear nothing.”—Diary of St. Faustina, 823
It is significant to note that St. Faustina on that day was making reparation for priests, an offering that brought upon her the worst suffering she had ever endured, and perhaps the worst she would ever endure. But too, on that bitter day of December 17, 1936, was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who would later reign as Pope Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.
Could it be that on that day St. Faustina was atoning for the many priests, bishops, and cardinals of the future that would be misled by Francis? But too, could it be that her mysterious torment that day signaled the arrival of a future anti-pope?
1. Only in cases of collusion involving simony does the pope lift the nullity in order that the election may remain valid (78).
When we lost Cardinal Carlo Caffarra on September 6, 2017, we gained–it is to be securely hoped–an advocate in Heaven. His Eminence was well known as one of the “Dubia Cardinals,” or four papal advisors who presented Pope Francis with five concisely-worded queries which, if answered unequivocally and in accordance with Tradition, would put a virtual halt to the moral maelstrom in which the universal Church is presently being engulfed. For over a calendar year now, the world has been waiting in vain for a response from the pontiff who approaches all difficulties (or so he ceaselessly proclaims) through “dialogue, dialogue, dialogue.” Cardinal Caffarra has now followed Joachim Cardinal Meisner, requiescant in pace, in completing his earthly pilgrimage before being received by His Holiness in response to their earnest request.
According to the indefatigable Maike Hickson of OnePeterFive, Cardinal Caffarra cherished no illusions about the Dubia Cardinals’ prospects. “The situation becomes (sic) from bad to worse,” he told that journalist, who was also his personal friend. “As everybody knows, the Holy Father has not even granted an audience! It remains only prayers to Holy Virgin of Fatima.” With the one hundredth anniversary of the culmination of the Portuguese apparitions–and the providentially connected founding of Father Maximilian’s Militia Immaculatae movement–approaching quickly in the middle of October 2017, we find ourselves required most urgently by the Almighty to entrust everything, as Cardinal Caffarra recommends, into the Blessed Mother’s immaculate hands. But we must not overlook the fact that His Eminence chose to focus our attention in a decidedly literary direction as well.
The Ballad of the White Horse by G. K. Chesterton tells the story of King Alfred the Great of England, who withstood the invading Danes during the societal and religious perils of the ninth century. By genre an epic poem, the Ballad–as aptly characterized by Cardinal Caffarra– is a “great poetic meditation on an historical fact.” While mixing in literary allusion, philosophical precision, and sheer imaginative insight as only a genius such as Chesterton might be able to accomplish, our Ballad author nevertheless presents us with a protagonist who factually existed. As the “last man standing” in his besieged little kingdom in the south of Great Britain, the historical Alfred did lead a military force to unexpected victory in the existentially and religiously decisive Battle of Ethandune (anno domini 878). “Alfred has come down to us in the best way (that is by national legends),” explains Chesterton himself in his Prefatory Note, “solely for the same reason as Arthur and Roland and the other giants of that darkness, because he fought for the Christian civilization against the heathen darkness.” By calling the Ballad to our attention during the Dubia crisis of our own day, Cardinal Caffarra is telling us something crucial not only about the forces we are being called upon to fight, but also about the way in which it will imminently become necessary to fight them.
The Ballad starts out, significantly enough, with despair. At the moment we first meet our hero, Alfred is at his worst, and with good cause. His enemies the Danes have overtaken pretty much everything except the little kingdom where Alfred, styled as the new Arthur, still reigns, and are threatening to overrun it as well. Already, Alfred has engaged the pagan destroyers militarily, and lost; he has bargained with them economically, and been betrayed; he has done all that lies within his power, but to no avail. Having reached the limit of his strength and resources, Alfred retreats to the isle of Athelney, where Chesterton describes him as “broken to the knee.” It is then and there that the protagonist of theBallad is visited by the Virgin Mary, with whom he converses after all merely earthly forms of encounter have exhausted themselves in capitulation and defeat.
Read the rest here: The Remnant Newspaper – Last Words of Cardinal Caffara