The archbishop doth protest too much, methinks

During an interview with Sergio Rubin of the Spanish language Religion Digital, published yesterday, Archbishop Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández had this to say in response to a question about The Resistance arising from the Bergoglian new paradigm of allowing the divorced and “remarried” (aka active unrepentant adulterers) to receive Holy Communion:

“…He created an impressive commotion in the most conservative sectors, which treat Francisco as a heretic, affirm that they must dethrone him, or threaten a schism, as if the whole Gospel collapsed because of this matter. The voices of these sectors are amplified a lot because they are using a lot of blogs, publications on the Internet and social networks. But they certainly respond to very minority sectors of the believing population.” HERE

Someone needs some basic lessons in Public Relations / damage control. First rule: Less is more. Even though you are denouncing the position, the fact that you managed to put the words Francisco, heretic, dethrone, and schism all in the same sentence, even when your interviewer didn’t use ANY of those words, really exposes your hypersensitivity and deep concern for the matter. You know there’s a problem, and now we know you know there’s a problem. Secondly, going out of your way to call attention to it necessarily means that your claim that it’s only a small problem of “very minority sectors” has no credibility.

It is truly rich to read about trad blogs accused of being Fake News yet again, the same week that the Vatican has, yet again, proven itself the reigning champion of Fake News.  The truth is, resistance to the Bergoglian usurpation is growing by leaps and bounds. It’s snowballing. I mean, even the mainstream conservatives are coming on board. After all, we’ve had almost another six months worth of filth since we discovered this:


Francis is Pope                      16%
Benedict is Pope                    72%
Some other person is Pope      1%
No one is Pope                        9%


Benedict’s abdication was not effective         38%

Francis’ election was invalid                            5%

Francis has lost his office due to heresy          4%

Some combination of the above                     42%

Neither Francis nor Benedict was ever pope    8%

Out of 674 votes, a staggering 490 said that in their opinion, Benedict XVI is still Pope. That’s 72% of those who voted. But who cares if it were “only” half? It boggles the mind.

Of those, the plurality focused on the ineffectiveness of the putative abdication. Meaning, either he never intended to resign; he wrote his resignation in a legally ineffective way; he made a mistake in fact by not intending to resign the whole office; or that he was coerced such that it was truly involuntary.

Even allowing for the readership’s “style” of Catholicism (for which Francis does not care), even allowing for some multiple votes– the least that can be said is that hundreds of Catholics who found this poll on this blog have the opinion that Benedict XVI is still Pope and that the guy the world and most of the self-identified Catholics of the world hail as pope is in fact NOT THE POPE.     HERE

You see, there is big trouble in little china, and everyone knows it. That poll was way back in September, and we’ve come a long way, baby.

By the way, it’s not hard to imagine that poll was copied, enlarged and reprinted, and now hangs as a motivational poster in the deepest war room at the Vatican. The beatings will continue until the numbers improve! Crank up the humble dial! So many wheelchairs to kiss, so little time!

I think it’s time for another poll. But this time it can’t be one of the trad blogs, nor really any blog, and of course it can’t be any revenue-based Catholic site, because none of them would touch it.

So it really needs to be FRANK WALKER AT CANON212 !!

Frank! Above the fold, please!



More breadcrumbs from Benedict, demand for the Blue Pill remains high, and Flyers hockey

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the letter attributed to Pope Benedict on the publication of an eleven volume set of writings on the theological prowess of Jorge Bergoglio. While at first the text of the letter did not sound like Benedict, accusing critics of Bergoglio of “foolish prejudice” and praising Bergoglio’s theology as “profound”, now an additional portion of the letter has been released that was not shown until yesterday. The additional text at the end of the letter makes it nearly certain that it was indeed written by Benedict, and it also reveals the real intent of the letter:

However, I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books I had read really well. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already made.

I am sure you will understand and cordially greet you.

The original Italian HERE. Here is the entire thing in English:

February 7, 2018

Rev. Monsignor;

Thank you for your kind letter of 12 January and the attached gift of the eleven small volumes edited by Roberto Repole.

I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today.

The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.

However, I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books I had read really well. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already made.

I am sure you will understand and cordially greet you.


Benedict XVI

So what that last paragraph shows is that Benedict is actually rebuffing a request to write a deeper reflection or recommendation on the books, because he hasn’t really read them. The way the Vatican had originally released the partial letter made it look like the letter itself was the (positive) response that had been requested. Also noteworthy is Benedict twice referring to the books as “small volumes”, almost dismissively, and then at the end saying, totally dismissively, that he still doesn’t have time to read them, because he has more important things to do. SO BUSY! It’s almost as if he isn’t really retired??? So yes, the last paragraph indeed says a lot, and it also shows that Benedict meant it as a private response, never intended to be used publicly.

Today, the Vatican was forced to admit that they intentionally obfuscated the last paragraph, which completely changes the meaning of the entire thing. We now live in an age where the Vatican is constantly shown to be lying. Remember transcriptgate, when Bergoglio’s claim that the “great majority” of sacramental marriages are null, but when the transcript was published, they had changed it to “a portion”.  HERE What about the time Bergoglio made the claim, easily verifiable as objectively false, that everything in AL was approved by two-thirds of the synod fathers? HERE Why do they lie even when they don’t have to, and when they know they are going to get caught? It’s explained in that last link.

But I want to focus on the passage that sounds like it has a double meaning, as Benedict continues to operate within his false construct of an Expanded Petrine Ministry:

The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.

Let’s touch briefly on the first part, the “profound” section, and the whole debate currently raging over the degree to which Benedict and Bergoglio are more alike or more different. By endorsing the theological formation of Bergoglio as “profound”, Benedict is refuting from the previous paragraph the “foolish prejudice” of those who suggest there is a juxtaposition between the theologies of the two men (while also defending himself against those who deem him a mere “theorist”). That’s really no surprise at this point, is it? Readers of this space know that I regard Benedict as always a Modernist, to a greater or lesser degree. He was part of the problem, not part of the solution, and he has been sitting in the background and done nothing while Bergoglio has now committed five years worth of wretched heresy. Whose side did you really think he was on? To this day, he is the one man who can call a press conference, admit he made a mistake in attempting to bifurcate the papacy, and POOF… the entire Bergoglian antipapacy is annulled and expunged.  However, his retention of the papacy via Substantial Error does nothing to solve the bigger problem of nuChurch. There is a whole lot more red pilling necessary to fix that. Understand the Matrix HERE and HERE.

Now I just wanted to point out something on this part:

“the inner continuity between the two pontificates”

“la continuità interiore tra i due pontificati”

The words “inner/interior” and “continuity” each have two meanings. Depending on the mix of the meanings, we arrive at different overall meanings of the two-word phrase. The first thing to know is that continuity is a noun, not an adjective. It doesn’t describe something else, but rather, continuity is a thing itself.  Got it?

One usage of continuity is within a linear notion of time, where we can look at two or more data sets over time and observe whether or not this thing called continuity exists between the data sets. Let me think of an example. Ooh okay how about the violent rupture of Vatican II and the setting up of nuChurch as juxtaposed to the nearly two thousand years of indefectibility that came before it. That’s NOT continuity. Contrast this with the Philadelphia Flyers hockey teams of 1973-74, and 1974-75. After winning the Stanley Cup in May 1974, the only roster move the Flyers made during the off-season was to replace defenseman Barry Ashbee, who had suffered a career-ending eye injury during the cup run. He was replaced with veteran Ted Harris, and the Flyers won their second straight cup the next season. That’s continuity.

Inner/interior can be meant in the sense of the spiritual; the interior life. If we put this meaning together with the previous definition of continuity, we get a meaning that could refer to a spiritual/theological continuity existing between two distinct, mutually exclusive pontificates, across linear time. Given the overall context of the letter, that seems plausible, except for the fact that we have a pretty well-defined data set informing us that Benedict doesn’t see it that way.

As luck would have it, the second way continuity can be defined is not across time but rather within the confines of a space. We observe that the surface of a sphere has continuity, in the sense that it is continuous. “A continuous or connected whole” is one definition HERE. We can also observe continuity between individual parts of a greater whole. The honeycombs of a beehive have continuity. The oxygen we breathe is actually composed of two atoms of oxygen, which naturally exist together through a covalent bond as a single entity wherein we can observe continuity. In order to save you from spending the rest of your day down a rabbit hole of molecular chemistry, just think of it as cracking a single egg and discovering a double yolk.

But wait there’s more! Not only can continuity be spatial, so can inner/interior. In fact the primary meaning of inner/interior is not spiritual, but rather physical/spatial, referring to the inside of some confining space.

So what do we get when we combine the spatial definition of “inner” and the spatial definition of “continuity” together in the phrase, “inner continuity”? Can you think of any other “whole” inside of which we might observe continuity between “individual parts”?

How about the inner continuity between two popes exercising their separate and distinct pontifical roles IN REAL TIME, within the faux Expanded Petrine Ministry, as already thoroughly explained by Ganswein.

You should have known I couldn’t help myself.




Daylight Savings Time, a modernist construct

One of my favorite things I like to ask a self-professed “Progressive” is, “Just what is it exactly that we’re progressing towards, and how will we know when we get there?” The answer is always a fuzzy “better tomorrow” or “it’s for the children, you know” or “well if not progress, what else is there?” At the heart of every Progressive, whether he knows it or not, is abandonment of God in pursuit of a man-made earth-bound utopia.

Now I know many of you are thinking, isn’t Daylight Saving Time a rather trivial matter? Don’t we have bigger fish to fry? Like the apocalypse? Yes, yes, of course. But the attitude and worldview behind the concept of DST is noteworthy and informative. It’s a mindset that tries constantly to bend or destroy reality, which also happens to be the core tenant of Modernism.

You can do all the research into the origins of DST, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of its early proponents had no other motivation than devious mischief. As in, “Let’s force everyone to change their clocks. Let’s make it appear the sun is setting an hour later. As if we were really ‘changing’ the time. Let’s see if they go for it.”

Everything you need to know about DST can be summed up in two words: Woodrow Wilson. This disgusting darling of the progressive movement was one of DST’s earliest and most vocal proponents. Go do your research on Woody, will you? An extreme racist even by the standards of his day, he re-segregated entire governmental agencies decades after their successful integration during Reconstruction. At workplaces where physical segregation was logistically impractical, blacks were put in cages. I’m not making this up. He was a huge supporter of Eugenics, including forced sterilization. He used DOJ to prosecute political enemies. He instituted the income tax.

But I digress. After congress expressed the will of the people by voting twice to repeal DST, he vetoed the bills both times. There were enough votes to override the second veto, and we were rid of DST until… the hippie generation.

Think about it. God is now and always has been perfect, including when he brought the universe into being out of nothing and instituted the construct of time (wherein the physical movements of the former inform the measure of the latter). In order to advocate in favor of DST, what you’re basically saying is that the Creator of the universe didn’t quite get it right when he set it all in motion. It needs fixing. Thank goodness that modern man came along in the twentieth century and fixed it, see? Do you see how this mindset plays into every other area where modern culture thinks it needs to “improve” on reality? God didn’t quite get it right on marriage or gender either, right? The natural law doesn’t exist, right?

I live in Arizona, where DST is blessedly outlawed.



GLORIOUS UPDATE: How to inform your pastor of our sacred duty to protect ourselves and our families

I am really quite late getting to this update, as the events transpired a couple of months ago. I was finally prompted by the current hysteria over the school shooting in Florida.

The post from November which I reproduce below was generated in reponse to the church shooting in Texas. A few weeks before, and without warning, “No weapons allowed” signs had been affixed to every entrance of my local NO parish (all twelve of my longtime readers know that I split my time between a NO parish and the FSSP apostalate). When I inquired to the parish office as to why the signs went up,  I was told that a panel of “experts”, including LEOs, had made the recommendation. I then sent a letter similar to what is shown below to the pastor, and had a subsequent phone conversation where I further explained the sacred duty.

Well, the signs came down. Immediately. The final decision was rendered on a Friday, and the signs were down before the weekend Masses began, thanks be to God.

You really can make a difference out there, folks. Arm yourselves first with theology, and understand this is not only about a God-given right, but also a sacred duty.  The Second Amendment doesn’t “grant” this right — it is only meant to protect it from tyranny. Educate yourself and try to teach others.

On church shootings: How to inform your pastor of our sacred duty to protect ourselves and our families

Yes, it’s not just a God given right, it’s a sacred duty.  It’s biblical.

I’ve already reblogged the post once, but in case you’ve yet to read it, go HERE The beginning is a little dated, as it was written during the chaos in the immediate aftermath of the election, but the core lesson is solid, and comes to us from the very lips of our Lord and Savior. Please click on the link to learn how and why Jesus Christ commands you to arm yourself.

If your church has “no weapons” signs posted outside, now is the time to explain to your pastor how dangerous this is. The events in Texas are a foretaste. Churches will become more numerous targets, as the world descends further on its trajectory. Priests who remain faithful and preach the truth will become targets, which makes the laity targets as well.

Write to your pastor and explain this. Following is a sample letter you can use. Laws are different in every state, this example is for Arizona. Both concealed and open carry are legal here, with or without a permit, but entities can erect and enforce “no weapons” policies on private property with proper signage. Learn well the laws where you live.


Dear Father,

The events in Texas prompt me to engage you on the topic of the “no weapons” signs posted at the entrances of the church. Please hear me out. I’m attaching a link which explains well the obligation we have to protect ourselves and our families from corporeal threats. This is not only a God-given right, but a sacred duty. It’s not optional.
Criminals do not obey signs. In fact, these signs make our church, and you, more prone to attack, because the criminal knows that law abiding citizens do obey signs, and the sitting ducks inside the building have all been disarmed. The signs literally make the church a more dangerous place. To make matters worse, no additional security whatsoever has been provided as a countermeasure to the increased threat level caused by the signs.
Your continued valiant preaching of the hard truths also puts you and us at greater risk. It’s hardly unimaginable for someone with rage in their heart after a particularly uncomfortable sermon pricks a guilty conscience to want to teach this judgy priest a thing or two. We both know the hard truths will continue to be taught, so we ought to be prepared for the worst.
The current situation at the church leaves the laity with three horrible choices:
1. Neglect our sacred duty and attend Mass unarmed
2. Obey our sacred duty and break the law
3. Attend Mass elsewhere
I recommend adopting the policy of Mater Misericordiea in Phoenix, after the tragic murder of Father Walker. They have no signs forbidding concealed carry, plus they have added armed security. I’d be willing to bet that place is more secure than a police station.
Father, I beg you to remove these signs. The brilliance of concealed carry is that an assailant has no idea who is armed and who is not, and therefore must assume everyone is carrying. It is a huge deterrence to violence. The signs are an invitation to violence. We have enough hard choices to make in life.  This shouldn’t be one of them.

Are you honoring your sacred duty to prepare for corporeal threats?

Everything in this essay is subordinate to my earlier post on spiritual prepping HERE. If you aren’t prepping your soul, none of what follows matters.

The American political situation is NOT, repeat NOT settled. Regardless of the recount/electors/etc, everything is still in complete chaos. Even if Trump is installed, there will continue to be a massive push to maintain the status quo by the entire DC power structure, and this will include covert acts of anarchy, possibly from both sides. $20TTT in debt, out of control spending led by a criminal oligarch/collusory “healthcare” industry, the death of the rule of law and the obstinate refusal of both parties to do anything about it — none of this is going away. The question I have for you today, the answer to which I hereby hope to influence, is this:

Are you prepared to protect your family in the event of some… shenanigans?

The situation of the financial markets, the irreversible debt bubble of world governments, the house-of-cards default-swap leverage mountains of the major banks… none of this will or can change or be remotely fixed in any way. The only solution is a total system collapse and hard reset. Have you done that research yet? Have you been adult enough to look at the publicly available balance sheets? Have you done anything to prepare? Whether the collapse is imminent or merely inevitable, you have a solemn duty to yourself and your family.

Natural disasters also sure seem to be on the rise. Large earthquakes from Europe to South America to Asia.  A lot of them. Earthquakes and other extreme natural phenomena (like lightning striking the dome of St. Peter’s TWICE in the last four years, an occurrence never before recorded) are God’s way of warning humanity to repent, because something big is about to happen. So first of all, repent; the spiritual prep is way more important than the corporeal prep. Start by reading yesterday’s blog post. But still, are you remotely prepared for a sudden natural disaster of any kind? Do you have a plan and does your family know the plan?

And I haven’t even mentioned ISIS! Domestic tactical terror, mass terror, cyber terror, infrastructure terror… are you prepared for any of this? We just had a fresh Somali Muslim “refugee” car/machete attack at Ohio State (soft target/gun free zone). How many tens of thousands of future terrorists have we purposely brought to our shores in the past eight years? Do you understand that invasion by immigration is Islamic doctrine? Google ‘Hijrah’.

How about if the grid went down where you live – no electricity, no cell phones, no refrigeration, no internet – cash registers don’t work, credit card readers don’t work, ATMs don’t work, ahem EBT CARDS DON’T WORK–how prepared are you? What contingencies have you made? Do you think that it’s someone else’s job?

There are plenty of logistical considerations that you can go do the research on crisis management. There are dozens of prepper sites to give you the basics on water, food, shelter, comms, mobility, currency, etc. I will limit myself here to speaking about the God-given duty of self-defense.

If you are a Christian, then you should be interested in what Jesus had to say about self-defense. Do you have not just a right, but actually a God-given duty, to arm yourself for the conflicts ahead?

First, let’s examine what is often presented as the answer. Are you familiar with the scene in the garden where Jesus is ultimately arrested? During the process, Simon Peter strikes the servant of the high priest with his sword, cutting off his ear. Jesus heals him, and tells Peter to put away his sword. This event is recorded in all four Gospels, which means it’s a really big deal, so listen up:  People who claim that Peter was wrong to resort to violence are diabolically inverting the very words of our Savior.

Peter was NOT wrong to resort to violence. Peter was RIGHT/JUST (as in, God-given right) to resort to violence. The reason he was rebuked by Jesus is only because of the broader context: It was time for Jesus to redeem the world, and He had to go willingly. The warning  “all that take the sword shall perish with the sword”, refers to aggressors, not defenders. In fact, not only was Peter justified drawing his sword, but Jesus goes much, much farther, telling Peter in the very next verse that He would be justified in calling down more than twelve legions of angels to slaughter their adversaries.  That’s 60,000 angels, y’all. Matt 26:53.

Also, do you remember what happened immediately prior to the scene in the garden?  Oh yeah, the part where Jesus instructs the apostles to ARM THEMSELVES, even if it means selling their clothes to acquire weapons. Right after He instituted the Eucharist and commissioned the apostles comes this:

He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied. He said to them, “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.” Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!” Luke 22:35-38

The last verse is a reference to the situation at hand (in the garden, which follows in the very next verse). The first three verses are a general instruction related to the missionary nature of the Church; a warning for disciples to be prepared, because the world will always be opposed to Truth.

May I also say, we are talking here about full-blown “assault weapons” of the day — swords. It was the most powerful weapon a man could carry with him.  If it were today, in the United States, the equivalent instruction would be to sell your clothes to acquire a semi-automatic rifle. But why, you say? Why would I want that, you say?

Because God doesn’t want the bad guys to have more firepower than you have.

Soooo… here is some very detailed advice from a recent veteran of multiple combat deployments, sent to me for the purpose of sharing here. Bear in mind, tools are useless or even worse than useless without training.

“If you don’t have one, you need one, and you need it now. When this thing comes down, which it will, a pistol isn’t going to cut it in defending yourself, your family, your home, your neighborhood, or in a mobile operation. “A pistol is a tool to get to your rifle”- anonymous SOF operator. You need a fighting rifle, designed to be used in open and close environments against hostile threats. This is a guideline for choosing that rifle, with various specs for you to consider.

Semi automatic: A semi automatic, magazine fed rifle allows for a rate of fire sufficient to rapidly engage threats with multiple rounds. No bolt actions; you are not going to win a close range fight with less than semi automatic.

Accuracy: A fighting rifle needs to have the accuracy to engage targets from 0-300 yards. Any AR or AK produced by a reputable manufacturer, chambered in an appropriate rifle round will be able to accomplish this.

Recoil management: The ability to control recoil to deliver rapid follow up shots. Downing an aggressor with one shot only happens in the movies, unless it’s a headshot. There are numerous examples of aggressors continuing to attack after taking ten or more hits, so you need to manage recoil to get back on target quickly. Example: The recoil of an AR15 or AK47 is manageable and easy to learn to control, but a battle rifle chambered in .308 is a much more difficult weapon to deliver rapid, accurate fire.

Caliber: Choosing a caliber that is both common, easily accessible, and is sufficient for neutralizing a human threat. Example; your chances with a 22 LR at 200 yards is low. Your chance of being able to find large stocks 6.8 SPC is low. It really comes down to just a few practical alternatives, which I will discuss in a moment.

Maneuverability: Your rifle should be of a size and weight that is easily handled in close quarters, and light enough to move rapidly. The same goes for the rest of your gear, i.e. body armor. Example; Deltas don’t clear rooms with a heavy chassis, 26″ barreled M1A, they used short barreled ARs.

Reliability: A fighting rifle should be made with capability to be extremely reliable, with proper maintenance. Your budget determines your options. You can buy a $500-600 dollar AK that will function reliably, but a $500 dollar budget isn’t going to work for a reliable AR.

These factors generally limit you to 2 platforms, an AK chambered in 7.62×39 or 5.45×39, or an AR15 chambered in 5.56. Both of these weapons are plentiful, AT THE MOMENT. They are the most common fighting rifles in the world, and their ammo just as common. These weapons are user friendly, easy to learn the basic operation, and therefore fast to train and become effective with. Yes there are other platforms that fire these cartridges, Tavor, Galil, G36, ACR, etc etc. If you are versed in these weapons, that’s great, if not, your best bet is AR or AK.

The AK and the AR both have ups and downs.  AK is cheaper not only in buying a quality rifle, but cheaper to buy ammo. The AR has greater accuracy and better recoil management. You can buy a quality AK for around $600. A high end AK might get up to $1200. A quality AR will run about $1000, high end ARs run from $1800 to $2600.
The importance is in buying a QUALITY weapon. Your life hangs in the balance of your weapon and level of training. If you are just starting out, its better to go with a quality $1200 rifle and a thousand dollars towards a solid training course than spend 3 grand on a rifle with no training. Training is life.

Lastly, attachments: Once again, just basics. Two things, a proper weapon light, because night time, and sights, because aiming. A proper weapon sight should be able to illuminate a target 50 yards away. Sights, Iron sights at a bare minimum, and a non magnified, quality red dot if you can. Nothing beats a red dot in CQB shooting, super fast. Furthermore, a red dot zeroed at the proper range will ensure that your point of impact will not drift more than 4″ off point of aim from 0-250 yards, depending on your platform and ammo used. You put that dot on a targets chest, and it doesn’t matter if they are 25 yards away or 200, you will hit your target. It is much easier to accurately engage targets at range with a red dot than with iron sights.

The time is now. You can go look at any website that sells weapons parts. They are wiped out. But your local gun shop still has plenty of ARs and AKs. When SHTF, they will be sold out in a day, and prices will skyrocket to the point people will be selling stripped lower receivers (a $150 part) for $550. It’s happened before, in the aftermath of various events.

A fighting rifle, and the training to use it, is the first piece of the puzzle, but not the last.”

Yet how many of you, after reading these 1900 words, instead of immediately seeking to strengthen and protect you and your family’s supernatural life, and immediately seeking to strengthen and protect you and your family’s corporeal life , will just go about your day like none of this is real?

Contraception, abortion, mass murder, long guns and tyranny

I give you the queen of irony, the very likely 2020 Democrat nominee for POTUS, with a pro-abort voting record rated 100% by NARAL, the junior senator from the great state of Californication, Kamala Harris.

Too bad she doesn’t know how right she is. Too bad she doesn’t know that the slaughter she tirelessly promotes is in fact a direct cause of the slaughter she abhors.

Do you understand the intrinsic connection between contraception and abortion? Do you understand how acceptance of abortion must invariably lead to the devaluing of all human life? There was a two page pamphlet put out in the wake of Columbine that explains it in five minutes HERE

This will only accelerate. Once God is out of the picture, everything goes. Even with massive (unlikely) reform of mental healthcare and the drugs that go with it, which would be a positive step, we are stil in deep trouble.

Also, do you understand that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with “hunting”, and is only secondarily concerned with personal self-defense? The Second Amendment is primarily aimed at ensuring an armed citizenry, as a counterweight to tyranny. The 20th century saw around 15 million conventional murders, but over 200 million deaths at the hands of tyrannical governments.  It’s not even close. It’s worth fighting for. A good article exploring the many aspects of the issue is HERE.

The next time someone whines, “why would anyone need an AR-15?” explain it to them. The next time someone wants to talk to you about “gun control,” explain to them that there are at least 30 million patriots who are willing to fight a civil war to safeguard the protections provided by 2A, to protect the citizenry against the threat of tyranny.

Explain to them that, at best, they are wasting their time.




Five Years Later: You’re never going to make any sense out of this if you’re still operating from a false base premise

11 February 2013, Pope Benedict read out the Declaratio in which he intended to bifurcate the papacy, which lead to the subsequent invalid conclave and the invalid election of his “successor.” I remember being absolutely blindsided by his announcement (believing it to be valid at that point). The timing was so strange it seemed to me, and many priests I spoke with, especially given the Year of Faith which was then underway.

The Year of Faith had begun on 11 October 2012, the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II. It was first announced by Benedict a year earlier, 11 October 2011, precisely 16 months before the announcement of his faux abdication. What exactly happened in those 16 months which made Benedict retreat from the battlefield and run from the wolves? Perhaps there are many reasons we will never know, but it is insightful to understand the two main objectives of the Year of Faith as laid out in the motu proprio PORTA FIDEI HERE.

The first key element reveals that Benedict thought that perhaps he had done enough housecleaning in what at that point had been a six and a half year reign that he could launch a final assault on an objective we all know he held dear: definitively establishing the “hermeneutic of continuity” as the sole arbiter of Vatican II. It’s truly hard to believe that such a thing was really plausible only six or seven years ago, but it was.

“It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.” I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.””  PF #5

Hopefully everyone reading this has done enough research to know by now that this is complete BS, not that I doubt Benedict honestly believed it was true.  Vatican II was a totally failed council containing errors and pathways to error at a magnitude never before seen in the history of the Church. Yes, you can read the vast majority of the documents in a traditional light if you so choose, but they can also be read in many different ways precisely because of their ambiguity, and this was done INTENTIONALLY WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. It’s a false floor; if you think you can use it as a backstop so long as you treat it with respect to Tradition, you haven’t done enough research. The entire thing needs to be suppressed, and someday it will be. If you haven’t learned the reasons why, and you think Vatican II is just dandy, you’re operating from a false base premise.

The second key element of the Year of Faith was an honest admission of the hideous state of catechesis in the Church today, and Benedict’s desire at a serious effort to correct this by way of the new Catechism. Of course there is no mention of Vatican II as a direct cause of the problem.

“In order to arrive at a systematic knowledge of the content of the faith, all can find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a precious and indispensable tool. It is one of the most important fruits of the Second Vatican Council. In the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, signed, not by accident, on the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Blessed John Paul II wrote: “this catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of renewing the whole life of the Church … I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

It is in this sense that the Year of Faith will have to see a concerted effort to rediscover and study the fundamental content of the faith that receives its systematic and organic synthesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here, in fact, we see the wealth of teaching that the Church has received, safeguarded and proposed in her two thousand years of history. From Sacred Scripture to the Fathers of the Church, from theological masters to the saints across the centuries, the Catechism provides a permanent record of the many ways in which the Church has meditated on the faith and made progress in doctrine so as to offer certitude to believers in their lives of faith.” PF #11

So perhaps it was these two elements, the lack of movement in the intervening months, or the additional wolves which came prowling as a result of the offensive, which caused Benedict to despair. We know there were other factors, probably threats. Whatever the truth of the matter, here we sit. So again, if you haven’t done the research into why Benedict’s abdication was invalid, and you think he really resigned, and Antipope Bergoglio really is the Vicar of Christ on earth, with all the supernatural protection from error that comes with it, then you are operating from a false base premise and you will never be able to make any sense about what’s going on here.

If you would like to read more about how Benedict began to lay out the breadcrumbs for us about his plans for a bifurcated papacy in his speech five years ago today, go HERE

I will leave you with Matthew 24, which I can’t stop thinking about:

When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. Matt 24:15, 21-25