“Pious” Dreams – II

Politics cannot solve the Church’s woes.
The Faith alone can beat her worldly foes.

If there is one thing certain about Catholic Tradition and the Second Vatican Council, it is that they are irreconcilable. It is tempting to think that they can be reconciled, because of course the letter of the 16 documents of the Council does include a number of Catholic truths. But the spirit of the Council is driving towards a new religion centred on man, and as the spirit inspired the letter of the documents, so even the Catholic truths which they include are harnessed to the Conciliar “renewal” and are made part of it. Indeed, Catholic Truths (and Hierarchy) have been used by the Modernists as carriers for their liberal poison, as a Trojan horse for their heresies. Therefore even Catholic truths are poisoned in the Conciliar documents. Thus in 1990 Archbishop Lefebvre saw and said that Vatican II is 100% infected by subjectivism, whereas in 2001 Bishop Fellay said that the documents of Vatican II are 95% acceptable.

It is indeed tempting to pretend that Catholic Tradition and Vatican II are reconcilable. In this way I need no longer be torn apart by trying to follow both Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth at the same time, because ever since that Council, as the Archbishop said, Catholics have been forced either to obey the Conciliar Popes and depart from Catholic Tradition, or to cleave to Tradition and “disobey” these Popes. Hence the temptation to pretend by one means or another that Tradition and the Council are reconcilable. But the fact that they are irreconcilable is the most important reality now governing the life of the Church, and so it will continue to be until Church Authority comes back to the Catholic Truth of all time.

In the meantime however, the present Superior General of the Archbishop’s Society, Bishop Fellay, is adamant that Catholic Tradition and the Conciliar Romans can be reconciled with one another, and ever since he approved of GREC in the 1990’s, he has been striving to bring them together. His problem is that he does not understand how modernism maintains Catholic appearances for them to act like a Trojan horse to deceive Catholic souls, while there is no true Catholic horse beneath what appears to be one. But Bishop Fellay believes that the false horse has all the makings of a true horse so that, with the tender loving care of the Society, it will become once again a Catholic horse. All too many Traditionalists have allowed themselves to believe in this mistaken policy and to follow his lead towards the Conciliar Romans, but the Romans for their part have not been deceived. They have played along with his policy by making apparent concessions to the Society and to Tradition (e.g. authorizations to confess, ordain, and marry), and by repeatedly pretending to him that he is on the brink of obtaining canonical recognition for the Society, so that for instance “only the final stamp is missing from the agreement.” But unlike him they have it clear in their minds that Catholic Tradition is irreconcilable with their Council, and so every time they have led him to the brink, they have insisted on the Society submitting to their Council.

However, with each “concession” that Bishop Fellay has accepted for the Society, the Romans have lured him further into their trap, and it has become harder for him to turn back. With each “concession” the agreement with Rome has become more and more of a practical reality, with or without the “final stamp.” By holding it back the Romans, by Bishop Fellay’s own fault, can play him like a fisherman plays a fish – how can he now unravel the “concessions” granted, and admit that his policy of 20 years has been a mistake? Yet his policy was wrong from the start. Lacking the Archbishop’s faith, he misconceived the Church’s problem and the Society’s “problem,” and trusted in human politics to solve them both. But of course the Romans with 2,000 y ears’ experience have been the more skilful politicians – “Your Excellency, enough of these games. For years we have made all the concessions, you have made none” (a big lie, since to accept Conciliar “concessions” is itself a concession to Rome). “Before July you accept the Council, or we excommunicate you, and show you up to the world as a failure. Choose!”

That is no doubt a crude version of how the cunning Romans can put pressure upon the Superior General, but it is he that should never have gone begging to Truthless Authority. In the case of the Catholic Church, Truthless Authority is in fact toothless Authority.

Kyrie eleison.

The return of Father A

Funny how the holy spirit works.  Driving to mass this morning I was lamenting on how much I missed Father A.  He has not read a Latin mass at my church for a couple months now.  Father A is a conventual Franciscan, his rubrics of the Tridentine mass are impeccable and his sermons are summations of real traditional Catholicism.

Well today I arrived for mass a little late, right after the prefatory prayers, just before the introit.  I blame my tardiness on all the red lights I had to wait thru this morning.  My own fault for not leaving earlier.   It’s never easy for a Traditional Latin mass Catholic to get to mass on a Sunday.  To my surprise Father A was reading the mass.  A great day for his return too, Pentecost Sunday!

Entwined in his Sermons too are subtle chastisements on the choke hold the modernists seem to have on our church distorting dogma and doctrine.  Today was no exception, he talked about the importance of relying on the Holy Spirit and not the congeniality of men for guidance.  He emphasized that it was the Holy Spirit that started the Catholic church and not the product of a brotherhood of men.

Father went on to say that even within the church many are given misinformation by even the leaders and presbyters of the church trying to change the wording of traditional Catholic beliefs which is causing confusion among the faithful.  When he said this the first thought in my head was Bergoglio wanting to reword the our Father.

Why he has not been at this church for a few months remains a mystery.  Possibly because the Parish has two priests that can read the mass.  They can’t come close to the perfection of Father A’s mass but they do try and for Novus Ordo priests I give them a lot of Credit.  Next month the old pastor will leave for reassignment and that will only leave one priest to read the mass in Latin.  Hopefully the need of a second priest to read the mass will make for more appearances of Father A.   Since we are close to June now the old pastor might have already left which brought Father A in today.

The other possibility is the traditionalism and orthodoxy of Father A.  He is one of those priests who I am sure is on the Bergoglio hit list because of his orthodoxy and devotion to the Tridentine mass, much like a Cardinal Burke or Bishop Schneider.  He is out of the Chicago Archdiocese which is currently under the mismanagement of the lawless Bergoglio parrot Cardinal Blaze Cupich.  Cupich many not like the occassional criticism of Crazy Frank or for that matter Cupich himself since he is a clone of the Bergoglio mind set.  You know the attitude, we can’t let the people hear the truth.  Currently Cupich has his hands full trying to destroy the Cannons of St. John Cantius, another group who uses the traditional mass.

Although I have never found out for sure but I think Father A could of been with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate which Bergoglio destroyed as one of his first acts as pope.  The Friars used the Tridentine mass exclusively much like the FSSP.  They had growing vocations, a vibrant convent of nuns, a publishing house and seminary.  Crazy Frank dispatched his Frank Nittie like hit man Father Volpie to dismantle and destroy the order and their holding much like the Romans did to Carthage when they conquered the city.  One of the priests in a video I have on the Tridentine main site is of the Friars and one of the priest on the video looks just like Father A.

Will be interesting to see what the Holy  Spirit has in store for the weeks to come.


My explanation of the rosary

A non Catholic friend of mine asked me what the rosary was when she heard me say I pray the rosary while I go for my daily walk.  This is what I told her.

 its reflective prayer, the rosary consists of 3 sets of mysteries with 5 mysteries in each. Each mystery contains one our father and 10 hail Mary’s. The first set are the joyful mysteries which are the annunciation where the Angel Gabriel tells Mary she is to be the mother of our savior, the visitation where Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth who is pregnant with John the Baptist, the nativity which is the birth of Jesus, the presentation where Christ is presented to the high priests of the temple and the finding of the child Jesus in the temple. The next 5 are the sorrowful mysteries, the first is the agony in the garden where Jesus and the apostles pray before Christ is taken away, the scourging at the pillar where Jesus is whipped, the crowning with thorns, Christ carries his cross and the Crucifixion. The last 5 are the Glorious mysteries which are the Resurrection, the Assention, the coming of the Holy Spirit where the apostles receive the tongs of fire, the assumption of our Lady into Heaven, and finally the coronation of our Lady as Queen of Heaven. There are 150 hail Marys in the 3 sets of mysteries, which is the book of psalms or the psalter. We Catholics believe that the rosary was given by Mary in an apparition to St. Dominic where she told him that God wanted us to pray the Psalter or the book of psalms which the rosary represent. The object is to reflect on each mystery while using the prayers as kind of a white noise to block out the world. The purpose is to allow God to speak to you thru the mysteries. The rosary is a kind of sandwich with the important stuff in the center. The bread is the Joyful and Glorious mysteries while the meat of it all is the sorrowful mysteries, or the passion of Christ. I have prayed the rosary every day rain or shine for about 6 years now. Its like exercise, when you first start is difficult, you hate doing it but after a while you can not start the day without it. Anyway, that is essentially the rosary.

Non Catholics don’t like Mary much.  They don’t value her for her key role in salvation and as such don’t develop a deep love of her like we do.  They think we worship her as a Goddess.  I always have to explain that we ask her to intercede for us just as they ask their protestant friends to intercede to God for them.

With Cardinal Dolan’s Approval: Sacrileges, Immorality, and Madness

With_Cardinal_Dolans_Approval_Sacrileges_Immorality_and_Madness_300-300x200 With Cardinal Dolan’s Approval: Sacrileges, Immorality, and Madness

With Cardinal Dolan’s Approval: Sacrileges, Immorality, and Madness

On May 7, 2018, the fashion world’s Super Bowl was held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

According to Wikipedia, “The Met Gala. . . is an annual fundraising gala. . . . It marks the grand opening of the Costume Institute’s annual fashion exhibit. Each year’s event celebrates the theme of that year’s Costume Institute exhibition, and the exhibition sets the tone for the formal dress of the night, since guests are expected to choose their fashion to match the theme of the exhibit.1

RTO-mini2 With Cardinal Dolan’s Approval: Sacrileges, Immorality, and MadnessFree Book: Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society Where Weve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go


“Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination”
This year’s theme was Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination, with the Met Ball launching an exhibit with the same name that runs from May 10 to October 8. For both the Met Gala and Exhibition the Holy See lent priceless liturgical vestments and other equally historic sacred objects.

The choice of theme and the exhibit’s design was Andrew Bolton’s, the Costume Institute’s Curator in Charge. Raised a Catholic, he lives with his homosexual partner, Thom Browne. It was Bolton who, over two years of negotiations and numerous trips to Rome, obtained the loan of the Vatican vestments and objects. His efforts received support from Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Prefecture of the Papal Household, Curia Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, as well as the First Section of the Vatican’s Office of the Secretariat of State. During the negotiations, Bolton also consulted with the notorious Fr. James Martin, S.J., the “Rainbow Jesuit.”2

“What Is the Cardinal Archbishop of New York Doing Here?”

This question was raised by Timothy Cardinal Dolan himself, a special guest at the Met Gala, in a Press Conference on the morning of May 7.3

The New York Archbishop justified his presence by saying that the Church preaches the true, the good and the beautiful, which come from Jesus Christ, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Since fashion reflects beauty, in this sense the Church has a connection with it.

What Does Saint Thomas Say About Immigration?

What the Cardinal said is true from a purely doctrinal perspective. But he failed to add that true beauty, which proceeds from God, is a chaste, harmonious, and reverent one. He also failed to criticize the nudity and extravagance imposed today by fashion dictators.

Given the immorality of previous Met Gala balls, the Cardinal Archbishop of New York should have known that this year’s Gala was just as unlikely to have any “heavenly bodies” or “Catholic imagination.”4

A Prestigious Platform for Sacrilege, Immorality, and Madness

And what should have been expected indeed happened: The 2018 Met Gala was a fashion extravaganza of sacrilege, immorality, and madness.

What does Saint Thomas Aquinas say about Marriage?

No Catholic can be indifferent to Lana del Rey’s sacrilegious parody of Our Lady of Sorrows. This singer, incorporated a representation of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pierced by seven swords, atop her bodice. Raised Catholic,5 she declared that from religion “I take what I want and leave the rest.”Looking like an eccentric Jesus figure, actor and singer Jared Leto stood next to her for the pictures, using a lengthy priest stole and wearing a golden crown of thorns.6

Sign Here: Tell the Metropolitan Museum in NYC to Take Down Sacrilegious Exhibit
Nor can any Catholic who is faithful to his baptismal vows not be indignant seeing pictures of Victoria’s Secret model Stella Maxwell wearing a tight strapless column gown stamped with six large icons of Our Lady; actress Sarah Jessica Parker wearing a Neapolitan nativity scene on her head; or actress Zendaya Coleman dressed up as a back-and-cleavage-showing Saint Joan of Arc.

Other models and celebrities in indecent garb displayed halos of holiness over their heads in clear debauchery of the Catholic portrayal of angels and saints.

Ridiculing the papacy, Met Gala 2018 co-host and pop superstar Rihanna appeared in white, crowned with a bishop’s miter and wearing a strapless minidress and robe that revealed her scantily-covered bosom.

Actress Anne Hathaway was dressed in a red cardinal’s outfit, with a bare back and equally indecent, cleavage-displaying front. Rapper Nicki Minaj sported a cardinal-type flowing red cloak, and her impure top was not outdone by the front of her dress which was slit almost to her waist, revealing her bare legs when she walked. To media Minaj declared: “I’m dressed as the devil.” Another Victoria’s Secret model, Taylor Hill, wore a red-trimmed cleavage-showing black dress, a pectoral cross, and what looked like a cardinal’s red sash and pellegrina.

Almost all the women’s dresses were carefully designed to draw attention to intimate parts of the body. Many used transparent fabrics. One woman wore a dress that covered only one side of her body, leaving the other completely naked from head to toe.

Singer Katy Perry, who composed a song titled “Dance with the Devil,” came in a gigantic winged white angel costume and a skimpy golden minidress. Madonna, who has performed the most outrageous blasphemies during her career, came with a crucifix dotted crown, and wearing a black dress with two-and-a-half-inch-wide, see-through, full-torso cut-out Latin cross.

Sign Here: Tell the Metropolitan Museum in NYC to Take Down Sacrilegious Exhibit
Later that evening Madonna performed “Like a Prayer” on the museum’s staircase. Together with the young choristers from the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel who sang in a surprise performance, earning praise from immoral Rihanna,7 Madonna was the night’s most highlighted entertainment.

“I Didn’t Really See Anything Sacrilegious”

Most shocking of all were Cardinal Dolan’s comments to Sirius XM radio8 on Tuesday, May 8, the day after: “I didn’t really see anything sacrilegious,” adding, “I may have seen some things in poor taste, but I didn’t detect anybody out to offend the Church.”

Speaking of Rihanna, who came dressed “as a pope,” the cardinal said she “was very gracious,” and joked about lending her a miter and that she had already returned it. He joked again about this immoral fashion icon administering the Sacrament of Confirmation: “I was teasing my auxiliary bishops, who were teasing me about Rihanna and I said, ‘Hey, you guys should not complain because she’s volunteered to do some confirmations.’”9 The Cardinal was generous in his assessment of the participants: “This was a crowd that was rather respectful of the sacred. They were all very respectful, very interested.”

And he concluded: “Anyway, it was a good time. What a great evening it was.”10

A Bondage Mask Amid the Sacred Vestments

As for the actual exhibit “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination,” it covers twenty-five galleries and 60,000 square feet.

In it are many mannequins for women with dresses modeled after clerical attire worn by bishops and priests. Many of the dresses are transparent and extremely revealing. Many others include crosses, chalices, Sacred Hearts, icons, and religious imagery. There is also a bondage mask (used in sexual perversions) covered in rosary beads.11One of the dresses featured a short black skirt with a sleeveless top and an icon of Our Lady on the front and back. Another dress, with a mostly transparent top, shows a naked Adam and Eve on its lower part.

“Fashions Will Greatly Offend Our Lord”

The sacrilegious Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination Met Gala and Exhibition remind us of the prophetic words of Saint Jacinta, the youngest Fatima seer. After the apparitions at the Cova da Iria, she received several private revelations, especially when in the hospital in Lisbon, where she later died. One day she told Mother Godinho (her guardian): “Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who serve God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord is always the same.”

She added: “The sins which cause most souls to go to hell are the sins of the flesh.”

With a directly supernatural illumination, this innocent girl, who died before she was ten years old, makes a statement that matches Saint Alphonsus Liguori’s Treatise on Morals almost word for word: “The sin against this precept [the Sixth Commandment]. . . is the vice that fills hell with souls”.12

Modesty Is the First Defense of Chastity

Since the sins of the flesh are the ones that lead most souls to Hell, the obvious conclusion is that all care must be taken to avoid them.

Modesty is chastity’s first defense. It is the enceinte, the curtain wall that defends the castle of purity. It is the garden that leads up to and adorns the palace.

The virtue of modesty leads us to great vigilance when it comes to fashions. For our way of dressing, while reflecting the beauty of virtue in our soul, should avoid everything that would lead others into temptation and sin.

Sign Here: Tell the Metropolitan Museum in NYC to Take Down Sacrilegious Exhibit
Fatima and the Vision of Hell
In the context of the sacrilegious Met Gala and Exhibition, how can we not recall the vision of Hell the three little Fatima shepherds had?

On July 13, 1917, as the first part of the Secret of Fatima, the Blessed Virgin showed Hell in all its horror to the three innocent children, Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta.

“Sacrifice yourselves for sinners and say very often, especially whenever you make some sacrifice: ‘O Jesus, it is for Thy love, for the conversion of sinners and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.’

“Upon saying these last words, she again opened her hands as in the preceding two months. The reflection appeared to penetrate into the earth and we saw, as it were, a sea of fire. Submerged in that fire were demons and souls in human shapes who resembled red-hot, black and bronze-colored embers that floated about in the blaze borne by the flames that issued from them with clouds of smoke, falling everywhere like sparks in great fires, without weight or equilibrium, amidst moans of pain and despair that horrified us and made us shake with terror (that must be when I shouted “aahhi” people said they heard). The devils had horrible and disgusting shapes of scary and unknown animals but were transparent like black burning coals. Scared and as if asking for help, we raised our eyes to Our Lady, who said with goodness and sadness:

“You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go; in order to save them, God wants to establish devotion to my Immaculate Heart in the world.”

May these words of the Mother of God serve to confirm us in the Faith amid the stormy, sacrilegious world in which we live.

“Met Gala,” accessed May 11, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Gala.
Cf. Jason Horowitz, “How the Met Got the Vatican’s Vestments,” The New York Times, May 3, 2018, accessed May 13, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/fashion/heavenly-bodies-met-gala-vatican.html.
Jim Fair, “Cardinal Dolan on the ‘Catholic Imagination,’” May 8, 2018, accessed May 13, 2018, https://zenit.org/articles/cardinal-dolan-on-the-catholic-imagination/.
[USE CAUTION in accessing this article’s footnotes] Cf. “Met Gala 2017 Dresses,” Vogue, accessed May 13, 2018, http://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/met-gala-2017-dresses.
“Lana del Rey,” Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lana_Del_Rey#Personal_life.
Accessed May 13, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2018/05/07/fashion/red-carpet-pictures-met-gala/s/red-carpet-met-gala-3474-lana-del-rey-and-jared-leto.html.
Claire Giangravè, “Sistine Chapel Choir Hushes then Wows a Raucous Met Gala Crowd, Crux, May 9, 2018, accessed May 13, 2018, https://cruxnow.com/vatican-at-the-met/2018/05/09/sistine-chapel-choir-hushes-then-wows-a-raucous-met-gala-crowd/.
Audio https://soundcloud.com/siriusxm-news-issues/cardinal-dolan-talks-about-the-met-gala-2018.
Joseph Sciambra, “Cardinal Dolan and Rihanna: ‘She’s Volunteered To Do Some Confirmations,” accessed May 13, 2018, http://josephsciambra.com/cardinal-dolan-and-rihanna-shes-volunteered-to-do-some-confirmations/.
Thomas D. Williams, “Cardinal Dolan Says Nothing ‘Sacrilegious’ at Met Gala, ‘All Very Respectful,” Breitbart, May 9, 2018, accessed May 13, 2018, http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/05/09/cardinal-dolan-says-nothing-sacrilegious-met-gala-respectful/.
Cf. Emily Smith, Raquel Laneri and Kate Sheehy, “Catholic-Themed Met Gala Includes Bondage Mask With Crosses,” PageSix.com, accessed May 13, 2018, https://pagesix.com/2018/05/07/catholic-themed-met-gala-includes-bondage-mask-with-crosses/.
Homo Apostolicus, Tractatus IX, De Sexto Praecepto Decalogi.

Todays Catholic prelates need to wake up as to why they should NOT support Vatican 2 errors

I like Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke BUT I simply can not accept or follow these men because they are still firm followers of Vatican 2.  Yes, bringing back our traditional Latin mass is laudable however the church is more than Tridentine mass, it is Doctrine, the doctrine that Vatican 2 has picked apart and destroyed.  Without our doctrine the Latin mass because nothing more than a mere empty shell.  For one thing, start refering to the Tridentine mass as the ORDINARY form and NOT Extraordinary and relegate that protestant lip service they call the ordinary form to what it actually is, nothing.   Below are the errors taught and propagated by Vatican 2……….CC

January 2003 No. 50

The Errors of Vatican II


This installment of Angelus Press’s Edition of SiSiNoNo begins a lengthy serialization of errors ascribed to the Second Vatican Council.

The “rap sheet” begins this time with a simple overview of the Council. Further installments will concentrate on specific issues of doctrine, theology, definition, the Sacred Liturgy, the so-called “separated brethren,” the contemporary world, the missions, education, pastorality, and practice.

It will conclude with solutions.

In general, the mentality at the Second Vatican Council was little if at all Catholic. This can be said because of an inexplicable and undeniable man-centeredness and sympathy for the “world” and its deceptive values, all of which ooze from all of the Council’s documents. More specifically, Vatican II has been accused of substantive and relevant ambiguities, patent contradictions, significant omissions and, what counts even more, of grave errors in doctrine and pastorality.

Vatican II’s Ambiguous Juridical Nature

First of all, ambiguity pervades the Second Vatican Council’s nature as to law (i.e., “juridical nature”). This remains unclear and appears indeterminate because Vatican II termed itself simply a “pastoral Council” which, therefore, did not intend to define dogmas or condemn errors. This can be seen from the address delivered at the Council’s opening by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962, and in the Notificatio, publicly read on November 5, 1965. Therefore, the Council’s two Constitutions, Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the Church), which, in fact, do concern matters of dogmas of the Faith, are dogmatic only in name and in a solely descriptive sense.

The Council wanted to disqualify the “authentically manifest and supreme ordinary Magisterium” (Pope Paul VI). This is an insufficient figure of speech for an ecumenical council since such councils always embody an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium, with the Pope deciding to exercise its exceptional nature together with all of the bishops assembled by him in council. He acts therein as the suprema potestas of the entire Church, which he possesses by Divine right. Neither does reference to the “authentic character” of Vatican II explain things, because such a term generally means “authoritative” relative to the Holy Father’s sole authority, not to his infallibility. The “mere authenticum”ordinary Magisterium is not infallible, while the ordinary Magisterium is infallible. In any case, the ordinary Magisterium’s infallibility does not have the same characteristics as the extraordinary Magisterium. Thus, it cannot be applied to the Second Vatican Council. It is necessary to realize that the point in question is how many bishops throughout the Catholic world are teaching the same doctrine, and not how many are present at a Council.

Such being Vatican IFs actual juridical nature, it is certain that it did not wish to impart a teaching invested with infallibility. It is true that Pope Paul VI himself said that the Council’s teaching ought to be “docilely and sincerely” accepted by the faithful, that is, with (we specifically note) what is always called “internal religious assent,” something required of any pastoral document, for instance.

This assent is obligatory, but only on the condition that sufficient and grave reasons do not exist for not granting such assent. Might a question of “grave reason” be concerned when alterations in the deposit of Faith are evident? Already during Vatican IPs tormented discussions, cardinals, bishops, and theologians, faithful to dogma, repeatedly noted the ambiguities and errors which were infiltrating Council texts, errors that today, after 40 years of definitive reflection and study, we are grasping ever more precisely.

We do not pretend completeness for our synopsis of the errors ascribed to Vatican II. Yet it seems to us that we have specified in what follows a sufficient number of important ones, beginning with the first utterances such as those contained in the Council’s October 20, 1962 “Address on Openness” by His Holiness John XXIII and the Council Fathers’ “Message to the World.” Though not one of the official, formal Council texts, nevertheless, these texts expressed the thinking wanted by the “progressive wing,” that is, the neo-modernist innovators’ line of thinking.

“Address on Openness”

Aside from its resoundingly divergent assertions denied by the facts, such as, “Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations that…are developing toward a fullness of superior and unexpected designs,” Pope John XXIII’s famous speech on opening up to the world contains three real and true doctrinal errors.

FIRST ERROR: & mutilated concept of the Magisterium.

This error is contained in the incredible assertion concerning the Church’s renunciation and condemnation of error:

The Church has always been opposed to these errors [i.e., false opinions of men-Ed.]She has often condemned them with the greatest severity. Now, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to employ the medicine of mercy rather than that of harshness. She is going to meet today’s needs by demonstrating the validity of Her doctrine, rather than by renewing condemnations.

With this renunciation of employing proper, God-given authority to defend the deposit of the faith and to help souls through condemning errors that ensnare souls and prevent their eternal salvation, Pope John XXIII kicked aside his duties as Vicar of Christ. In fact, condemning error is essential for maintaining the deposit of faith, which is the Pontiff’s first duty, and with it, always confirming sound doctrine, thus demonstrating the efficacy of doing so with timely application. Moreover, from a pastoral point of view, condemning error is necessary because it supports and sustains the faithful, the well-educated as well as those less so, with the Magisterium’s incomparable authority. By its exercise they are strengthened to defend themselves against error, whose “logic” is often astute and seductive. This is not the only point: condemning error can lead errant souls to repent, by placing the true sustenance of their intellect before them. The condemnation of error is, in and of itself, a work of mercy.

To hold that condemning error should never have occurred is to support a mutilated concept of the Church’s Magisterium. In the main, the post-Vatican II Church, no longer condemning error, has substituted for it dialogue with those in error. This amounts to doctrinal error. Previously, the Church has always prosecuted dialogue with such errors and those in error. Pope John XXIII’s quote above enounces the error clearly: that demonstrating “doctrine’s validity” is incompatible with “renewing condemnations.” This is to suggest that such validity ought to be imposed only thanks to one’s own intrinsic logicand not from external authorityBut in such an approach, faith would no longer be a gift from God, nor would there be any need of grace to fortify faith, nor any need to exercise the principle for sustaining faith via the authority in the Catholic Church. The essential error is concealed in Pope John XXIII’s phraseology; it is a form of Pelagianism [i.e., that all men are, by nature, good-Ed.] which is typical of all “rationalistic conceptions” of the Faith, all of them repeatedly condemned by the Magisterium.

Not only heresies and theological errors in the strict sense have been objects of condemnation, but every one of the world’s ideas that is not Catholic, not only those adverse to the Faith, but also those to whom Our Lord’s words apply, “He who does not gather with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth” (Mt. 12:30).

The un-orthodox position taken by John XXIII, maintained by the Council and the post-Conciliar period has caused the collapse of the Church’s ironclad armor. The Church’s enemies-inside and out-appreciate this heterodox position. No doubt they agree with Nietzsche, who said: “The intellectual mark of the Church is essentially harsh inflexibility, by which the conception and judgment of values are treated as stable, as eternal.”

SECOND ERROR: -The contamination of Catholic doctrine with intrinsically anti-Catholic “modern thinking.”

Connected to this unprecedented renunciation of error is another flagrantly grave assertion made by John XXIII in his January 13, 1963, Christmas address to Cardinals. He said that “doctrinal penetration” must occur through “doctrine’s more perfect adhesion to fidelity to true doctrine.”

However, he followed this by explaining that

true doctrine ought to be expressed using the forms of investigation and literary style of modern thinking, since, to do so, is to sustain the depositum fidei’s classic doctrine and is the way to recast it: and this ought to be done patiently, taking into great account that all must be expressed in forms and propositions having a predominantly pastoral character.1

Liberals and modernists had already long recommended that classical doctrine be re-cast in forms imported from “modern thinking.” Doing so was specifically condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi2 and his decree Lamentabili which condemned the following:3

§63. The Church shows herself unequal to the task of preserving the ethics of the Gospel, because she clings obstinately to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with present day advances.

§64. The progress of the sciences demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, the redemption, be recast. (Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, dz 2063, 2064)

In Humani Generis4Pope Pius XII said the same thing. Thus, Pope John XXIII’s predecessors had condemned his proposed doctrine. This is a typical of all modernist errors.

In fact, it is not possible for the categories of “modern thinking” to be applied to Catholic doctrine. In all of its forms modern thinking negates-a priori- the existence of an absolute truth and holds that everything is relative to Man, who is his own absolute value, divinized in all of his manifestations, from instinct to “self-consciousness.” This way of thinking is intrinsically opposed to the fundamental truths of the Catholic Church beginning with the idea of God the Creator, of a living God Who has been revealed and incarnated in His Second Person. In the end, modern thinking means only a politics and an ethic. By proposing a similar contamination, Pope John XXIII showed himself to be a disciple of the of the neo-modernists’ “New Theology,” already condemned by the Magisterium. Regarding the Catholic Church’s salvation mission, the needs of the day required of the Second Vatican Council to reinforce the rejection of modern thinking found in the prior popes-from Pius IX to Pius XII. Instead, the Council gave full sway to “the study and expression” of “authentic” and “classic” doctrine via “modern thinking.”

THIRD ERROR: The Church’s goal is “the unity of humanity.”

The third error of the Opening Address announced that “the unity of humanity” was the Church’s own and proper goal. This was advanced by the Second Vatican Council, which quoted St. Augustine (Ep. 138,3) to purport that the Church be

preparing and consolidating the way toward that human unity which is a fundamental necessity because the earthly City is constructed to always resemble the heavenly one “in which truth and the law of charity reign, and is the extension of the Eternal One.

Here “human unity” is seen as the “fundamental necessity because the earthly City is constructed to always resemble the heavenly one.” But the Church never taught that her expansion in this world had “human unity” as her goal, as affirmed by Pope John XXIII, simplyOn the contrary, this is the guiding idea of the Enlightenment’s philosophy of history first elaborated by the 18th century by secularists. It is not of the Catholic Church, but is an essential component of the religion of Humanism.

The error consists in mixing the Catholic vision with an idea imported into it from secular thought. Secularists do not look to extend the Kingdom of God through that part of it realized on earth by the Catholic Church. This vision is a substitute for that of the Church’s. Humanism is convinced of the dignity of man as man (since humanists do not believe in original sin) and of his supposed “rights.”

Besides these three errors in the Opening Address, two more theological errors were proposed in what followed.

Errors in the Council Fathers’ “Message to the World”

The “Message to the World” was promulgated at the start of the Council. [Archbishop Lefebvre was one of the few to criticize it.-Ed.] In miniature, it contained the pastoral line of thought that would be developed to the fullest in Gaudium et Spes. “Human good,” the “dignity of man” as man, “peace between people,” a pastoral in which the preoccupation with “human good,” “the dignity of man,” as man, “the peace between people,” are its central concerns, and left aside is man’s conversion to Christ:

While we hope that through the Council’s labors the light of faith shines more clearly and alive, we await a spiritual renaissance from which also comes a happy impulse that favors human well-being, that is, scientific invention, progress of the arts, technology, and a greater diffusion of culture.

“Human well-being” is characterized according to the century’s reigning ideas, i.e., scientific, artistic, technological, and cultural progress.Should the Second Vatican Council have become so preoccupied with such things? Should it have expressed hope for the increase of these solely earthly “blessings,” always shortlived, often deceptive, in place of those eternal ones founded on perennial values taught by the Church over the centuries? No wonder that, following this brand of pastoral, instead of a new “splendor” of the faith, a grave and persistent crisis has arisen?

The actual theological error, in the proper sense of error, occurs at the close of the “Message to the World” where it is said: “We invite all to collaborate with us in order to install in the world a more well ordered civil life and a greater fraternity.” This is notCatholic doctrine. Any anticipation of the eternal kingdom in this world was constituted only by the Catholic Church, by the visible Church Militant, the earthly element of the Mystical Body of Christ, which grows slowly, not withstanding the opposition of “the prince of this world.” The Mystical Body of ‘ Christ increases, but not strictly through the “union of all men of good will,” and of all humanity under the banner of “progress.”


The texts of Vatican II are infamous for being ambiguous and contradictory. Suffice it by the following serious example to show how profound the ambiguity is.

Vatican II’s Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) is called a “dogmatic constitution” because it concerns the inerrant truth of dogma. In §9, however, it expounds in an obviously insufficient and unclear way [or else, why the confusion presented in § 11 ?-Ed.] how the truths of the Faith rest on two pillars of revelation-Sacred Scripture and Tradition-and on the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and the total historical authenticity of the Gospels.6 In §11, Dei Verbum lends itself even to opposite interpretations, one of which would reduce inerrancy only to “truth…confided to the Sacred Scriptures….”:

…Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures….(Dei Verbum, § lib, Nov. 18, 1965)

This is substantively equivalent to heresy because the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and the truth expounded there is the truth of the Faith constantly deduced and taught by the Church alone.



For an example of patent contradiction, let us look as §2 of the October 28, 1965 decree, Perfectae Caritatis (On the Up-to-Date Renewal of Religious Life). It states that the renewal of religious life “comprises both a constant return to the sources of the whole of the Christian life and to the primitive inspiration of the institutes, and the adaptation to the changed conditions of our time….”

This is a patent contradiction since, according to the three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, the unique characteristic of religious life has always been that of being completely antithetical to the world, corrupted as it is by original sin and the very illustration of the fleeting and transient. How is it possible that the “return to the sources…and to the primitive inspiration of the [Catholic] institutes” be accomplished by their “adaptation to the changed conditions of our time?” Adaptation to these “conditions,” which today are those of the secularized modern world of lay culture, are the very ones that impede, in themselves, “the return to the sources.”

Paragraph 79 of Gaudium et Spes (On the Church in the Modern World, Dec. 7, 1965) grants governments the right “of lawful self-defense” to “defend the interests of the people.” This substantively seems to conform to the traditional teaching of the Church, which has always granted the right of defense from an external or internal attack of the “just war” category, and conforms to the principles of natural rights. However, §82 of the same Gaudium et Spes also contains an absolute condemnation of war and, therefore, of every type of war, without making express exception for defensive war, justified three paragraphs earlier, which, then, the Council both permitted and condemned! Compare, yourself: first, the permission, then, the condemnation:

§79. War, of course, has not ceased to be part of the human scene. As long as the danger of war persists…, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. State leaders and all who share the burdens of public administration have the duty to defend the interests of their people and to conduct grave matters with a deep sense of responsibility….

§82. It is our clear duty to spare no effort in order to work for the moment when all war will be completely outlawed by international agreement. This goal, or course, requires the establishment of a universally acknowledged public authority vested with the effective power to ensure security for all,….

Contradiction is also evident in Sacrosanctum Concilium (On the Consititution on the Sacred Liturgy, Dec. 4, 1963) regarding the maintenance of Latin as the liturgical language. We read in §36(1): “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” In the next line,

§36(2). But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, in the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives, and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.

But the regulations “established” in this document are left to episcopal conferences:

§22(1). Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

§22(2). In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops’ conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories.

This paragraph was given wide latitude. There are numerous cases where the Council authorized the partial or total use of the vernacular:

§54. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and “the common prayer,” and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in §36 of the Constitution…. Wherever a more expanded use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in §40 of the Constitution is to be observed. [Paragraph 40 discusses the procedure to be followed if “more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed,” which “entails greater difficulties.“-Ed]

§62(a): In the administration of sacraments and sacramentals the vernacular may be used according to the norm of §36.

§65. In the mission countries, in addition to what is furnished by the Christian tradition, those elements of initiation rites may be admitted which are already in use among some peoples… [e.g., rites which are certainly in the vernacular-Ed.].

§68. The baptismal rite should contain variants, to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary—Likewise a shorter rite is to be drawn up, especially for mission countries…

§76. Both the ceremonies and texts of the Ordination rites are to be revised. The addresses given by the bishop at the beginning of each ordination or consecration may be in the vernacular…

§78. Matrimony is normally to be celebrated within the Mass after the reading of the Gospel and the homily before “the prayer of the faithful.” The prayer for the bride, duly amended to remind both spouses of their equal obligation of mutual fidelity, may be said in the vernacular.

§101(1). In accordance with the age-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power to grant the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be drawn up in accordance with the provisions of §36.

§113. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people. As regards the language to be used, the provisions of §36 are to be observed;…

Contrary to firmly maintaining the use of Latin, the Second Vatican Council seemed to be preoccupied with opening the greatest possible number of avenues for the vernacular and, by doing so, laid down the premises of its definitive victory in the post-Conciliar era.

Relevant Omissions

Among the Council’s omissions, we shall limit ourselves to discussing the most relevant under two subtitles: five omissions on the dogmatic level and three on the pastorallevel.

On the Dogmatic Level

On the dogmatic level, five points strike us:  

  • the failure to condemn the major errors of the 20th century;
  • the absence of the notion of supernaturality and lack of mention of Paradise;
  • the absence of a specific treatment of hell, mentioned only once in passing (§48 of Lumen Gentium);
  • the lack of mention of the dogmas of Transubstantiation and of the propitiatory character of the Holy Sacrifice [In those paragraphs of Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically expounding on the Holy Mass (§§30, 47, 106), there is a repeated failure to reinforce these dogmas.-Ed.];
  • the disappearance of any mention of the idea of “the poor in spirit.”

On the Pastoral Level

The following points come to our attention regarding omissions at this level:

  • in general, the absence of specifically Catholic treatments of such key notions as pastorality, the relation between Church and State, the ideal models of individual, family, and culture, etc.;
  • the failure to condemn Communism, the greatest threat to Christendom, on which so much has been written. This failure was noticeable and resulted later in §75 of Gaudium et Spes which weakly and generically condemns “totalitarianism,” putting it on the same level as “dictatorship”:

    …The understanding of the relationship between socialization and personal autonomy and progress will vary according to different areas and the development of peoples. However, if restrictions are imposed temporarily for the common good on the exercise of human rights, these restrictions are to be lifted as soon as possible after the situation has changed. In any case it is inhuman for public authority to fall back on totalitarian methods or dictatorship which violates the rights of persons or social groups. (Gaudium et Spes, §75[c]).

The same omission reoccurs in §79 of the same document, in which the horrific crimes of the recent wars were addressed:

…Any action which deliberately violates these principles and any order which commands these actions is criminal, and blind obedience cannot excuse those who carry them out. The most infamous among these actions are those designed for the reasoned and methodical extermination of an entire race, nation, or ethnic minority. These must be condemned as frightful crimes; and we cannot commend too highly the courage of men who openly and fearlessly resist those who issue orders of this kind…

These 20th-century “methods” had been witnessed many times, for example, against the Christian Armenians (almost 70% exterminated by the Muslim Turks in the years before WWI) and by the neo-pagan Nazis. But such schemes were known also to have been performed by the Communists by their systematic physical annihilation of so-called “class enemies,” that is, millions of individuals whose only crime was that of belonging to a social class deemed aristocratic, bourgeois, peasants-all extirpated in the name of a “classless society,” Communism’s Utopian goal. Clearly, in Gaudium et Spes (§79), “social class” exterminations should have been added. But the progressive wing that imposed itself on the Council guarded against this being done, proving itself politically left-wing. It did not want Marxism to be discussed as a doctrine born of Communism nor its actual political practice.

  • the failure to condemn corrupt customs and hedonism, which had deeply spread within Western society.


1.These concepts were specifically repeated by the Council in the decree, Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism, article 6:

Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubt­edly this is the basis of the movement toward unity.

Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circum­stances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in Church discipline, or even in the way that Church teaching has been formulated to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself, these can and should be set right at the opportune moment.

Church renewal has therefore notable ecumenical impor­tance. Already in various spheres of the Church’s life, this renewal is taking place. The Biblical and liturgical move­ments, the preaching of the word of God and catechetics, the apostolate of the laity, new forms of religious life and the spirituality of married life, and the Church’s social teaching and activity: all these should be considered as pledges and signs of the future progress of ecumenism.

2Pascendi, 1907, §2, c.

3Lamentabili, §§63, 64.

4Humani Generis, AAS 1950, pp.565-566.

5Gaudium et Spes, §§60-62.

6Gaudium et Spes, §§53, 74, 76, etc.

“Pious” Dreams – I

Poor Menzingen, lost in its “pious” dreams –
Neo-modernist “niceness” is not what it seems.

In June of last year a colleague in France put together a good article on whether the Society of St Pius X should or should not obtain from the Church authorities in Rome a canonical status that would protect the Society’s interests. Obviously Society Headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland believe in obtaining such a status, and if the present Superior General is re-elected for a third term in July, that is the goal which the Society will continue to pursue. However, it is rather less obvious that such a goal should be pursued. An argument of eight full pages from Ocampo # 127 of June 2017, is compressed below into one single page.

The article’s position is that the Society can in no way put itself under all-powerful Church authorities imbued with the principles of the French Revolution as embodied inVatican II, because it is the Superiors who mould the subjects, and not the other way round. Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society to resist the betrayal of the Catholic Faith by Vatican II. By submitting to the Conciliarists, the Society would be joining the traitors to the Faith.

Church authorities are the diocesan bishops and the Pope. As for the bishops, those downright hostile to the Society might be less dangerous than those who may be friendly but have not understood the absolute demands of Catholic Tradition, which are not just the demands of the Society of St Pius X. As for the Pope, if his words and deeds show him to be working against that Catholic Tradition which it is his duty to uphold, then Catholics have the right and duty to protect themselves both against the way in which he is misusing his authority, and against their own in-born need to follow and obey Catholic authority. Now in theory a Conciliar Pope can promise a special protection for the Society’s Tradition, but in practice he must by his own convictions be striving for the Society to recognise the C ouncil and abandon Tradition. Given then his great authority as Pope to impose his will, the Society must stay out of his way.

Experience shows that Traditionalists who rejoin Conciliar Rome may begin by being merely silent as to the Council’s errors, but they usually finish by accepting those errors. Their initial agreement to keep quiet is in the end deadly for their professing of the Faith. And by the natural downhill slide from one compromise to another, they can even finish by losing the Faith. It is the Faith that made Archbishop Lefebvre say that unless the Conciliar Romans return to the doctrine of the great anti-liberal Papal Encyclicals – which they have not done since his time and are not about to do – further dialogue between the Romans and Traditionalists is useless, and – he could have added – positively dangerous for the Faith.

The article also lists eight objections to this position, given here in italics with the briefest of answers:

1 With the Personal Prelature Rome offers the Society a special protection. Protection from the diocesan bishops, maybe, but not from the Pope’s own supreme authority in the Church. 2 Rome’s demands for the agreement have been diminishing. Only because concessions towards practical co-operation are more effective to obtain Catholics’ submission, as Communists well know. 3 The Society is insisting on being accepted by Rome “as we are,” i.e. Traditional. For the Romans that means “As you will be, once practical co-operation has made you see how nice we are.” 4 So the Society will continue to attack the Council’s errors. Nothing will change. Rome can take its time to insist on ever greater changes. 5 But Pope Francis likes the Society! As the Big Bad Wolf liked Little Red Riding Hood! 6 The Society is too virtuous to be fooled by Rome. Foolish illusion! The Archbish op himself was at first fooled by the Protocol of May 5, 1988. 7 Several Traditional communities have rejoined Rome without losing the true Mass. But several of them have gone over to defending major errors of the Council. 8 Pope Francis as a person is in error, but his function is sacred. To recognise the sacredness of his function cannot oblige me to follow his personal errors, i.e. the misuse of his function. The true Faith is above the Pope.

Kyrie eleison.

The Dictator Pope part 4

Still working my way thru the Reform ?  What Reform?  chapter.  They are now touching on the sexual abuse by clergy.

While John Paul 2 first recognized the problem and began to attack it, it was Benedict that took on the problem full force.  Shortly  before his resignation Benedict was removing 2 or 3 bishops around the world per month for sexual abuses.  Benedict had also defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests for past sexual abuse between 2009 – 2012.  This included Fr. Marcial Maciel, the influential founder of the Legionaries of Christ.  Maciel died in 2008 when it came out that the Legion founder had led a double life for decades;addicted to morphine, sexually abusing boys and young men, keeping three mistresses in two countries and fathering six children by them, all sheltered by the order’s cult-like devotion to the founder supported by money  donated to the Legion for works of religion.  This even makes me wonder more did Benedict actually step down  on his own accord or was he forced out for exposing the filth and rot in the Vatican itself.

Francis on the other hand seems to turn a blind eye to this.  The theory is that by association with and employing morally weak people he had them forever under his thumb.  In 2012 the Vatileaks revealed a homosexual network actually working out of the Roman Curia.  Just as with the American press forever watching the back of Barack Obama so too the Vatican press protected Francis back.   According to Colonna:

“But even then the homosexual lobby had made enormous strides in image management.  The secular media collaborated, pinning the blame on sinister and creepy “clergy  paedophiles”, as distinguished from fresh scrubbed and morally acceptable homosexual priests while ignoring that the homosexual lobby favored lowering the legal age of consent to fourteen, the age preferred by homosexual clergy abusers.  These larger ccultural shifts, and the reality inside the Vatican, perhaps explain why Pope Benedicts reforms, which included a ban on men with homosexual tendencies from the priesthood have availed to little, even before they were subverted by his successor. “(Francis)

On this last Point I remember hearing of certain seminaries in the United States and Canada where if you were a straight male you were not accepted as a candidate to the priesthood.

Colonna asserts that the homosexual lobby in the church was only given more power thru the pontificate of Francis.

“Pope Francis’s liberalism has only given more power to the homosexual lobby in the Curia.  He supported for example Archbishop Bruno Forte’s attempt to insert a relaxation of Catholic teaching on homosexuality into the report of the 2014 Synod of the Family (his insertion was rejected).  Perhaps an even more scandalous case is that of the notorious liberal (especially on matters regarding Homosexuality) Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who, incredibly, is president of the Pontifical Council for the Family and whom Pope Francis has recently made president of the John Paul II institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, the body which John Paul intended as a watchdog of the Church’s teaching.  One of Archbishop Paglia’s claims to fame is his commissioning of a prominent Argentinian homosexual artist to create a mural in his cathedral church that has been described as “homoerotic” and includes the archbishop himself in a net of nude or semi-nude bodies”

The most revealing of Pope Francis stand on this issue was his statement during an airline interview. “Who am I to judge”.  That was made in response to sexual accusations against Monsignor Ricca.   Francis has also changed the punishments of priests accused of sexual abuse to “a life of prayer”, meaning a token punishment at best.

Again, if Homosexuals will get Francis the power he wants then Francis will use them.  Remember, Francis prefers to employ the morally week because they will forever be under his thumb.

Reading this books makes me a stronger Catholic as well.  It educates me and makes me realize the Catholic faith is more than individuals.  When it seems our own presbyters fail us, then as laymen we need to step up and defend mother church.



Torching Marriage

Torching Marriage
Written By Laurie Higgins   |   05.07.18

“I also think… that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” 
~ lesbian activist Masha Gessen

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that now, after legally recognizing intrinsically non-marital same-sex unions as “marriages,” we notice that there remains a unique type of relationship that is identified by the following features: it is composed of two people of major age who are not closely related by blood, are of opposite sexes, and engage in the only kind of sexual act that is naturally procreative. We decide that as language-users there must be a term to identify this particular, commonplace, and cross-cultural type of relationship. Let’s call it “huwelijk.”

In this thought experiment in which the term “marriage” would denote the union of two people of the same sex and “huwelijk” would denote the union of two people of opposite sexes—both of which provide the same legal protections, benefits, and obligations—does anyone believe that homosexuals would accept such a distinction?

I suspect that homosexuals would not accept such a linguistic distinction. They would not accept it even if they enjoyed all the practical benefits society historically accorded to sexually complementary couples and even if their unions were legally recognized as marriages.

Homosexuals would not tolerate such a legal distinction because their tyrannical quest for universal approval of homoerotic relationships cannot be achieved unless they obliterate all distinctions—including linguistic distinctions—between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. Homosexuals—whose unions are naturally sterile—would not tolerate any term that signifies the naturally procreative union between one man and one woman.

In the novel 1984George Orwell named the process in which homosexuals (as well as the “trans” cult) regularly engage: Newspeak. Here is how Orwell explained Newspeak:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. (emphasis added)

Homosexuals and their allies seek to redefine words in the service of their ideology and would surely oppose any word that would signal a distinction between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. A new term that pointed to the reality that homosexual and heterosexual unions are not identical would carry the risk that positive connotations would accrete to the term “huwelijk.”

It’s remarkable that so many are willing to destroy the institution of marriage without ever giving much reasoned thought to whether marriage has a nature (i.e., an ontology) or to what public purposes it serves. G.K. Chesterton warned against this kind of blind willingness to destroy an institution (and the jettisoning of the central feature of marriage—sexual complementarity—does, indeed, constitute the destruction of the institution of marriage):

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution.

In the desperate quest to rationalize their redefinition of marriage, homosexuals asserted that the marriage of any particular homosexual couple will have no effect on the marriage of any particular heterosexual couple. But that’s a silly non-argument. If Bob and Jim were to marry, their marriage would not affect mine. But if Bob were to marry his brother, it wouldn’t affect my marriage either. If Bob were to marry five women or five people of assorted sexes, it wouldn’t affect my marriage. If Bob were to marry five children of assorted sexes, it wouldn’t affect my marriage. Does the absence of effect on my marriage in these cases provide justification for legalizing incestuous, polygamous, polyamorous, or “intergenerational” marriages?

Eventually the redefinition of marriage will affect children, public education, the public’s conception of marriage, the public’s investment in marriage, and the future health of America. Severing marriage from both biological sex and reproductive potential renders marriage irrelevant as a public institution.

The most salient aspects of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the government are not subjective feelings of affection and sexual attraction. The government has no vested interest in the private subjective feelings of marriage partners. That’s why even arranged marriages are legal.

The government has a vested interest in the public good. What serves the public good is the welfare of future generations. And what best serves future generations is providing for the needs and protecting the rights of children, which includes their right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological parents.

If marriage were solely a private institution concerned only with emotional attachments and sexual desire, as homosexuals claim it is, then there would be no reason for the government to be involved. There would be no more justification for government regulation of marriage than there is for government regulation of platonic friendships. And there would be no legitimate reason to prohibit incestuous marriages or plural marriages.

If the claim of homosexuals that marriage has no intrinsic, necessary, and rational connection to the biological sex of partners or to reproductive potential are true, then there remains no rational basis for the belief that marriage has anything to do with romantic or erotic feelings.

Why is marriage any longer conceived of as a romantic and erotic union? If marriage is severed from biological sex and from reproductive potential and if love is love, then why can’t a loving platonic relationship between three BFF’s be recognized as a marriage? Why can’t the platonic relationship between a 40-year-old soccer coach and his 13-year-old soccer star be deemed a marriage? If “progressives” can jettison the single most enduring and cross-cultural feature of marriage—sexual differentiation—then on what basis can they conceptually retain any other feature, including the notion that marriage is a romantic/erotic union? While eroticism may be important to intimate partners, of what relevance is naturally sterile erotic activity to the government’s interest in marriage as now construed?

When Leftists assert that “love is love,” they really mean that the moral status of erotic activity between two men or two women is no different from the moral status of sexual activity between a man and a woman. If the claim that “love is love,” is true, then there is no rational basis for thinking that there exist types of relationships in which eroticism has no legitimate place. If that’s the case, then why isn’t it morally permissible for all types of relationships to include erotic activity? If all loving relationships are identical (i.e., “love is love”), then why can’t all loving relationships include erotic activity? And if love is love, and marriage has no intrinsic nature, then it’s anything. And if it’s anything, it’s nothing.

If, however, there are different forms of love, some of which ought not include erotic activity, how do Leftists determine when love ought not be eroticized?

Marriage is in tatters, but Leftists want those tatters torched. Next up from “progressive” pyros: “eliminating the binary”—of marriage. Polyamorists are on the move. “Progressives” just love the smell of napalm all day long.

Baby Alfie Evans and Doc Martin

Baby Alfie Evans, murdered by a group effort of the British court system and the British socialized medical profession.
Doc Martin the talented British Surgeon/GP










One of my favorite British television shows is the series Doc Martin.  I could, and have watched the same episodes dozens of times.  One thing you have to hand to the Brits, despite the fact they have entered into a post Christian/socialist society the BBC makes some great shows.

Watching an episode of Doc Martin last night it finally dawned on me that since these episodes were made around 2012 its probably the case that at that point the British style “Obama care”, or socialized medicine was in full swing.

The show portrays an almost Utopian view of healthcare.  If your sick, Doc Martin can cure you or get space for you in a hospital at the drop of a hat.  He even makes house calls (although begrudgingly).There is no waiting line for surgery, your case is handled immediately.    People are healed with the latest in health care and drugs.

The case of Alfie Evans last week brought this idealistic view of the British health care system crashing down.  The term used on Alfie in an article in the Remnant newspaper was that he was a “Bed Blocker”, in other words he was taking up valuable bed space from a more curable productive member of society.   Alfie had to be eliminated despite world wide pleas for the child.

This is what Obamacare had planned for Americans as well.  When Sarah Palin brought up the idea of death panels leftist drones laughed at her.  These drones refused to be confused by the facts as it was later learned that Doc Emanual, brother of Rahm was designing those panels as Sarah spoke.

The question is did the BBC portray the medical world of Doc Martin as kind of a fantasy as to what the medical profession in England should be like or was the series designed as a propaganda tool for socialized medicine and the leftist’s who are now in full control of Britain.

Although Obama care is imploding here and on life support, without a GOP house and Senate in 2019 president Trump will not be able to administer the coup de grâce to this floundering socialist program.  God help us all if Obamacare lives again.

Also, one final thought, this being Britain I can’t help but wonder if the Child would of been given all the best medical treatment the country could muster if his name was Mohammad Evans.