The Restoration – It’s Breaking Through In The UK…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For your information…

NB: Please note the part about the new bishops coming up through the ranks…

All we are asking is: give us benign neglect…

Meanwhile in NOLand: (see here)

Müller: “All Elements of the Lived Faith Have Collapsed”

 Rome (idea) – Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller – until the beginning of July Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine and the Faith – has drawn a dramatic image of Christianity and the Catholic Church in Europe. “All the elements of the faith lived, the popular piety, have collapsed”, he said in an interview with the Italian daily “Il Foglio” (issue 21 July). All of Europe is in a “process of forced de-Christianization, which goes far beyond simple secularization.” Man is defined “strictly without God and without transcendence.” In the Catholic Church, participation in ecclesiastical life, the spread of faith and the new vocations of priests and religious, has greatly diminished. Müller warned the church not to waste its powers in internal struggles. According to him, “so-called progressives” seek victory, “persecuting all so-called conservatives”. The 69-year-old was Bishop of Regensburg from 2002 to 2012, and from 2012 to 2017 Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith.

And more on Pope Benedict’s abdication being invalid: (see here) Well worth the read.

And Ed Pentin also attends his first Roman Forum:

Notice the part about what the College of Cardinals are thinking…

Aside, when will Raymond Arroyo make his initial appearance?

And bringing up the rear, and on the back of the Sandro Magister post here, we get this: (see here)

Groundswell of Clergy Oppose Pope Francis!

I have to say I found this very heartening today! The pro-Francis spin-meisters are clearly in overdrive and have pumped out another “scathing” article in the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano attacking a “large part” of the community of bishops & priests who it accuses of being resistant or positively hostile to Pope Francis direction of travel. This all feels wearily familiar now.

The article, authored by Italian Father Giulio Cirignano, a native of Florence and a longtime Scripture scholar at the Theological Faculty of Central Italy, accuses clergy of being attached to outmoded traditions and suggests

 “The clergy is holding the people back, who should instead be accompanied in this extraordinary moment,”

This comes a little over a week after the publication of an essay by Italian Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro and Argentine Protestant Marcelo Figueroa, two close friends of Pope Francis, in the Jesuit-edited journal La Civilità Cattolica. In it, Spadaro and Figueroa described what they see was a “Manichean vision” underlying growing closeness in America between Evangelicals and “Catholic Integralists.” See my blog here. Their piece has been characterised as being a bit Dan Brown!

In contrast, Fr Cirignano’s piece didn’t focus on the United States, and appears to be more concerned with Italian realities, though he does not specify which country or region he is addressing. He writes:

“The main obstacle that stands in the way of the apostasy conversion that Pope Francis wants to bring to the Church is constituted, in some measure, by the attitude of a good part of the clergy, at levels high and low … an attitude, at times, of closure if not hostility,”

Thank God for that I say! I am greatly heartened to hear that Pope Francis isn’t getting it all his own way and that we have faithful clergy who are prepared to stand up for Christ and His Church!

I had heard whispers from Rome that no one is happy with Pope Francis pontificate and it was widely considered to be a disaster by all, regardless of their degree of fidelity to the Church of Christ. As predicted at the outset of this pontificate, Jorge Bergoglio has confounded liberals and conservatives alike and, following his own advice to the youth at World Youth Day in Brazil, he has made a big mess. Similarly as I reported here Bishop Forte said during a presentation on Amoris Laetitia back in May 2016, that Pope Francis told him at the Synod on the Family that he didn’t want to speak “plainly” about the question of admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion because doing so would make a “terrible mess.”

There is a certain irony in the fact that the Pope is discovering “obstacles” in a decentralised & now increasingly synodal Church. How shocking!

Clearly this is meant as a telling off, but I found it brought me great comfort. A great majority of clergy I know are in despair over this papacy and despite making this known publicly it has seemed at times there were only four cardinals prepared to stand up for the obvious truth in all this. Now it appears there is indeed a great groundswell of opposition, and a majority of clergy loyal to Christ and His Church, Deo gratias!

So it ain’t all that bad…

And Our Lord has it under control…

On The Nature Of Good And Evil – Putting It All Together…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Before I fly out for my long overdue rest, I am re-blogging the post that appeared at the Rorate Caeli website and written by His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan. (see original here)

But before we get to the post, I will try to frame this essay in a wider CONTEXT.

For CONTEXT purposes, I have embedded several videos produced by an individual who your humble blogger considers THE BEST SECULAR SOCIAL MEDIA PHILOSOPHER plying his trade currently. He goes by the name of Rocking Mr. E. His YouTube channel can be viewed here.

So what I would like you dear readers to do, until my next next posting that is, is the following:

First I would like you to watch the video at the top of the post.

This video provides an insight into how Catholicism is being subverted internally.

Next, I would like you to go and watch this video here:

This video provides an insight into the conscious and premeditated awareness on the part of those fighting Catholicism, as to what it is in fact that they are engaged in.

Next, I would like you to go and watch another video below:

This video provides an insight into the OBJECTIVE REALITY that EVERYONE falls somewhere on what can be called the CONTINUUM OF BELIEF SYSTEMS.

More over, this CONTINUUM has an inflection point.

Therefore, one is either on one side of the CONTINUUM or on the other side of that CONTINUUM.

And the two sides of this CONTINUUM can be objectively designated as: GOOD and EVIL.

Here is that video:

And finally, now that we have established the proper frame of reference, please go and read the Bishop Schneider essay, which I am re-posting below.

While reading the below, please be cognizant of the continuous, dare I say eternal struggle between GOOD AND EVIL that is playing itself out within those Vatican II documents themselves.

To restate the last sentence in terms of our above CONTINUUM, the authors of those documents made the conscious effort to incorporate both sides of the CONTINUUM into those documents.

Which now is the crux of the problem that Bishop Schneider is addressing in his essay.

Going one step further, this eternal struggle between “right and left”, which are in fact proxies for GOOD AND EVIL, is currently playing itself out through the medium of INTERPRETATION.

And it is the “chosen” INTERPRETATION, that gives the game away, i.e. as to the position on the CONTINUUM where the INTERPRETERS have positioned themselves.

Linear?: Yes

Rigid?: Yes

Objectively Correct?: Absolutely…



The interpretation of Vatican II and its connection with the current crisis of the Church

The current situation of the unprecedented crisis of the Church is comparable with the general crisis in the 4th century, when the Arianism had contaminated the overwhelming majority of the episcopacy, taking a dominant position in the life of the Church. We must seek to address this current situation on the one hand with realism and, on the other hand, with a supernatural spirit – with a profound love for the Church, our mother, who is suffering the Passion of Christ because of this tremendous and general doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral confusion.

We must renew our faith in believing that the Church is in the safe hands of Christ, and that He will always intervene to renew the Church in the moments in which the boat of the Church seems to capsize, as is the obvious case in our days. 

As to the attitude towards the Second Vatican Council, we must avoid two extremes: a complete rejection (as do the sedevacantists and a part of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or a “infallibilization” of everything the council spoke.

Vatican II was a legitimate assembly presided by the Popes and we must maintain towards this council a respectful attitude. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we are forbidden to express well-founded doubts or respectful improvement suggestions regarding some specific items, while doing so based on the entire tradition of the Church and on the constant Magisterium.

Traditional and constant doctrinal statements of the Magisterium during a centuries-old period have precedence and constitute a criterion of verification regarding the exactness of posterior magisterial statements. New statements of the Magisterium must, in principle, be more exact and clearer, but should never be ambiguous and apparently contrast with previous magisterial statements.

Those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous must be read and interpreted according to the statements of the entire Tradition and of the constant Magisterium of the Church.

In case of doubt the statements of the constant Magisterium (the previous councils and the documents of the Popes, whose content demonstrates being a sure and repeated tradition during centuries in the same sense) prevail over those objectively ambiguous or new statements of the Vatican II, which difficultly concord with specific statements of the constant and previous Magisterium (e.g. the duty of the state to venerate publicly Christ, the King of all human societies, the true sense of the episcopal collegiality in relation to the Petrine primacy and the universal government of the Church, the noxiousness of all non-Catholic religions and their dangerousness for the eternal salvation of the souls).

Vatican II must be seen and received as it is and as it was really: a primarily pastoral council. This council had not the intention to propose new doctrines or to propose them in a definitive form. In its statements the council confirmed largely the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church.

Some of the new statements of Vatican II (e.g. collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, the attitude towards the world) have not a definitive character, and being apparently or truly non-concordant with the traditional and constant statements of the Magisterium, they must be complemented by more exact explications and by more precise supplements of a doctrinal character. A blind application of the principle of the “hermeneutics of continuity” does not help either, since thereby are created forced interpretations, which are not convincing and which are not helpful to arrive at a clearer understanding of the immutable truths of the Catholic faith and of its concrete application.

There have been cases in the history, where non-definitive statements of certain ecumenical councils were later – thanks to a serene theological debate – refined or tacitly corrected (e.g. the statements of the Council of Florence regarding the matter of the sacrament of Orders, i.e. that the matter were the handing-over of the instruments, whereas the more sure and constant tradition said that the imposition of the hands of the bishop were sufficient, a truth, which was ultimately confirmed by Pius XII in 1947). If after the Council of Florence the theologians would have blindly applied the principle of the “hermeneutics of the continuity” to this concrete statement of the Council of Florence (an objectively erroneous statement), defending the thesis that the handing-over of the instruments as the matter of the sacrament of Orders would concord with the constant Magisterium, probably there would not have been achieved the general consensus of the theologians regarding the truth which says that only the imposition of the hands of the bishop is the real matter of the sacrament of Orders.

There must be created in the Church a serene climate of a doctrinal discussion regarding those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous or which have caused erroneous interpretations. In such a doctrinal discussion there is nothing scandalous, but on the contrary, it will be a contribution in order to maintain and explain in a more sure and integral manner the deposit of the immutable faith of the Church.

One must not highlight so much  a certain council, absolutizing it or equating it in fact with the oral (Sacred Tradition) or written (Sacred Scripture) Word of God. Vatican II itself said rightly (cf. Verbum Dei, 10), that the Magisterium (Pope, Councils, ordinary and universal Magisterium) is not above the Word of God, but beneath it, subject to it, and being only the servant of it (of the oral Word of God = Sacred Tradition and of the written Word of God = Sacred Scripture).

From an objective point of view, the statements of the Magisterium (Popes and councils) of definitive character, have more value and more weight compared with the statements of pastoral character, which have naturally a changeable and temporary quality depending on historical circumstances or responding to pastoral situations of a certain period of time, as it is the case with the major part of the statements of Vatican II.

The original and valuable contribution of the Vatican II consists in the universal call to holiness of all members of the Church (chap. 5 of Lumen gentium), in the doctrine about the central role of Our Lady in the life of the Church (chap. 8 of Lumen gentium), in the importance of the lay faithful in maintaining, defending and promoting the Catholic faith and in their duty to evangelize and sanctify the temporal realities according to the perennial sense of the Church (chap. 4 of Lumen gentium), in the primacy of the adoration of God in the life of the Church and in the celebration of the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 2; 5-10). The rest one can consider to a certain extent secondary, temporary and, in the future, probably forgettable, as it was the case with some non-definitive, pastoral and disciplinary statements of various ecumenical councils in the past.

The following issues – Our Lady, sanctification of the personal life of the faithful with the sanctification of the world according to the perennial sense of the Church and the primacy of the adoration of God – are the most urgent aspects which have to be lived in our days. Therein Vatican II has a prophetical role which, unfortunately, is not yet realized in a satisfactory manner.

Instead of living these four aspects, a considerable part of the theological and administrative “nomenclature” in the life of the Church promoted for the past 50 years and still promotes ambiguous doctrinal, pastoral and liturgical issues, distorting thereby the original intention of the Council or abusing its less clear or ambiguous doctrinal statements in order to create another church – a church of a relativistic or Protestant type.

In our days, we are experiencing the culmination of this development.

The problem of the current crisis of the Church consists partly in the fact that some statements of Vatican II – which are objectively ambiguous or those few statements, which are difficultly concordant with the constant magisterial tradition of the Church – have been infallibilisized. In this way, a healthy debate with a necessarily implicit or tacit correction was blocked.

At the same time there was given the incentive in creating theological affirmations in contrast with the perennial tradition (e.g. regarding the new theory of an ordinary double supreme subject of the government of the Church, i.e. the Pope alone and the entire episcopal college together with the Pope, the doctrine of the neutrality of the state towards the public worship, which it must pay to the true God, who is Jesus Christ, the King also of each human and political society, the relativizing of the truth that the Catholic Church is the unique way of salvation, wanted and commanded by God).

We must free ourselves from the chains of the absolutization and of the total infallibilization of Vatican II. We must ask for a climate of a serene and respectful debate out of a sincere love for the Church and for the immutable faith of the Church.

We can see a positive indication in the fact that on August 2, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a preface to the volume regarding Vatican II in the edition of his Opera omnia. In this preface, Benedict XVI expresses his reservations regarding specific content in the documents Gaudium et spes and Nostra aetate. From the tenor of these words of Benedict XVI one can see that concrete defects in certain sections of the documents are not improvable by the “hermeneutics of the continuity.”

An SSPX, canonically and fully integrated in the life of the Church, could also give a valuable contribution in this debate – as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre desired. The fully canonical presence of the SSPX in the life of the Church of our days could also help to create a general climate of  constructive debate, in order that that, which was believed always, everywhere and by all Catholics for 2,000 years, would be believed in a more clear and in a more sure manner in our days as well, realizing thereby the true pastoral intention of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

The authentic pastoral intention aims towards the eternal salvation of the souls — a salvation which will be achieved only through the proclamation of the entire will of God (cf. Act 20: 7). The ambiguity in the doctrine of the faith and in its concrete application (in the liturgy and in the pastoral life) would menace the eternal salvation of the souls and would be consequently anti-pastoral, since the proclamation of the clarity and of the integrity of the Catholic faith and of its faithful concrete application is the explicit will of God.

Only the perfect obedience to the will of God — Who revealed us through Christ the Incarnate Word and through the Apostles the true faith, the faith interpreted and practiced constantly in the same sense by the Magisterium of the Church – will bring the salvation of souls.

Second Front Against Bergoglio Opens, And Why…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is significant!

Over the life of this blog, your humble blogger has been picking up on the “tension” between Francis, the bishop of Rome and Cardinal Muller.

If there is one incident that can be seen as the straw that broke the camel’s back, it would be the attempt by the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to gain control over Francis’ “magisterium”. Card. Muller named this “theological structuring” and we documented this EVENT for posterity in a post titled Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring!

Fast forward to the beginning of July, a post appeared at the OnePeterFive blog about the circumstance around the unprecedented firing of Card. Muller by Francis. (see here) What was of interest in this post, outside of the detailed information that it contained, is that… wait for it… detailed information of this sort was released into the public domain.

Your humble blogger, or rather the news filters, picked up on what appeared to be a second front opening up against this Francis bishopric. The first is the Dubia Fathers initiative, an initiative that Cardinal Muller has been at pains to not be seen as being a part of. I would even go as far as to say “artificially”.

I even posted a Tweet about just this:

On the back of this above EVENT, we found out that Pope Benedict XVI has not been happy about the Card. Muller firing. (see here)

Today, we find out that a “personality cult” has been formed around the current bishop of Rome. I have republished the Eponymous Flower post below. (see original here)

Cardinal Müller Questions Cult of Personality Around Pope Francis

[Katholisches] “Every Catholic, especially every bishop and every cardinal, has a positive and constructive relationship with the Pope. But this is anything but courtly manners and the groveling of subordinates, against which Pope Francis always spoke.”

“That means that not everything he does and says is, from the outset, already perfect and unquestionable.”

“There should be no personal cult and a pope-touching tourism.”

Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Congregation of the Doctrine and the Faith, no longer in office, on Pope Franziskus, report of the German Press Agency (DPA), quoted from Der Spiegel v. July 19, 2017.

So today, we see more EVIDENCE that two “distinct” groups have formed to resist Francis.

Now, regardless of whether this “bifurcation” is artificial or not, one thing is certain, two fronts opened against Francis is better than one.

I would also like to throw in one other EVENT which appears to be related. The recent report of Cardinal Sarah’s attempt to “resurrect” the reform of the reform. What I suspect is behind this move, a move which took much of the Catholic world by surprise, is an attempt by Card. Sarah to “move to the center ground”.

What I think is happening is that Cardinal Sarah, and his advisors realize that it is the “center ground” within the Church, i.e. the JPII folks, that is the largest constituency. I also think that for most of the bishops and especially the cardinals, they most likely have a good opinion of those JPII years. If for no other reason than those same bishops and cardinals were young, and everyone has positive memories of their youth.

Aside, one anecdote that could be helpful to understand the above observation. I grew up in Chicago and am the son of Polish immigrants. Growing up in Chicago, when discussing what was happening in the Old Country, we always explained away an OBJECTIVE REALITY, i.e. how it was that Poles could be Communist collaborators and be doing what they were doing to their fellow countrymen.

When the subject came up, one useful rationalization was: these people must be transplanted Russians. (Which in fact a lot of them were. But I digress…)

But when I started traveling to Poland post transformation, I was shocked to find out how many people had a “warm and fuzzy” memory of the Communist era. Talk about TRANSRATIONAL?

One explanation that I heard, and it makes sense and is this: these people were young during those times, so when they remember the bad 1970’s and 1980’s, their memories are skewed by the fact that they were young during this time. Therefore, their memory is experiencing something called “duration neglect”. Here is that definition:

Duration neglect (Peak-End rule): The way we remember events is not necessarily made up of a total of every individual moment. Instead, we tend to remember and overemphasize the peak (best or worst) moment and the last moment, and neglect the duration of an experience. This explains why normally the bad ending ruins the whole experience. For example, when you remember your summer vacation to Canada, there is just too much information to evaluate whether it was an enjoyable trip. So, you apply the peak-end rule and you more heavily weight the best moment and the most recent moment.

Concluding, what could be happening is that a conclave is slowly approaching. The rule of thumb is that after the end of any conclave, the job of the cardinals is to start looking for the next pontiff. Therefore, they start identifying the papabile.

So what we are seeing now, is the beginning of the papabile beauty pageant. We see a DavosPontiff (Card. Parolin- “I know how to get the money in”), we see a DissidentPontiff (Card. Tagle – who is trying to sheld the GermanPuppetPope impression and is also trying to make himself acceptable to the center) and we see a CatholicPontiff (Card. Sarah – “reasonable” Catholicism), positioning themselves on the papal battleground.

And with respect to Cardinal Sarah, if in fact it is a “peak-end rule” strategy, I think a strategy based on “reasonable” Catholicism combined with a harking for the good old days of JPII “the great” could be as good a strategy as any.

A black pope?

Downright “transformational”!


And it does provide an explanation…

And now, back to vacation…

TeamFrancis Directs Catholics To Read Francis Through Derrida…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lot happening folks, and I am getting ready to go on an extended vacation. Extended in my case means more than a long weekend. But I digress… The reason I am mentioning this is that I will be posting sporadically, at least until the 20th of August.

However, before I take off, I have posted some links in the right hand margin that can be viewed during my absence. These links should provide you dear reader, with a daily “fix” of reason, logic and objective reality, if the need arises.

Today’s post therefore, will be my last post before I leave. And I will leave off with what I think is the most important OCCURRENCE to have taken place since the beginning of the Francis bishopric of Rome.

Is this hyperbole?


But you dear reader will have to make up your mind for yourselves.

So here goes…

A few days ago, an article appeared written by our friend “Fr.” Antonio “2+2=5” Spadaro and a co-conspirator, a Presbyterian named Marcelo Figueroa, titled Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A surprising ecumenism. The article can be read here.

Moreover, a most excellent (or as a post-modernist can say: “excellentest”) response came from another favorite of this blog, in a positive sense this time, Maureen Mullarkey, titled In God They Don’t Trust: Anti-American Syllabus in Vatican journal. This article can be read here.

And finally, to understand why the two above mentioned articles constitute an OCCURRENCE being the most important since the start of the Francis bishopric of Rome, two concepts need to be understood.

The first of these concepts is one that your humble blogger explained in the post titled NUChurch Shocked… Shocked That Francis Lies…, namely the Overton Window. Here is that passage:

The Overton Window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept…. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy….

Devers refines the definition:

The Overton Window is a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.

The second concept that needs to be understood here is that of the post- Modernist NARRATIVE. In a post titled The Soap Bubble Papacy™ : The Battle Is In Your Mind – Francis’ Gaslighting we explained that:


An example from the POLITICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium can be seen here:

Guess which one the FAKE NEWS MEDIA is focusing on?

Back to the subject at hand.

“Fake news” is in essence any news that contradicts or questions an “official” NARRATIVE. And the reason that real news is lethal to the post-Modernist is that it “corrupts” their FAKE NARRATIVE(S), i.e. it “corrupts” their corrupt information. Here is how the process works:

Just to sum up what we have defined above, what we are dealing with is information that is injected into the public domain that is CORRUPTED (FAKE NEWS / FrancisCoprophagia). The CORRUPTION is intended to create a FAKE NARRATIVE (Gas-lighting). The most likely explanation for why this FAKE NARRATIVE is created is to allow individuals/entities to act on this FAKE NARRATIVE. In other words, this FAKE NARRATIVE allows these individuals to act when they otherwise would not be able to act. I.e. it provides them with justification.

By understanding the above, we can now deconstruct the Spadaro/Figueroa article and the Mullarkey response. So here are some observations:

First, notice the emotional tone of the Spadaro/Figueroa article. The emotions, negative in this case, were no doubt brought about first by their observation that a “great deal” of the discussions in... let’s call it the affairs of the Catholic Church, (specifically in the blogo-sphere) are taking place outside of the FrancisChurch Overton Window.

In other words, the discussion i corrupting their NARRATIVE.

How to we know this?

In the last paragraph, the authors tell us outright that this is the case. Here is that passage:

This is why Francis is carrying forward a systematic counter-narration with respect to the narrative of fear. There is a need to fight against the manipulation of this season of anxiety and insecurity.

What the above tells us, the initiated, is that TeamFrancis think in terms of NARRATIVES and counter-NARRATIVES. Therefore Francis, through his proxies is admitting that he is in fact a post-Modernist. 


By extension, the significance of the above is that now Francis’ proxies have provided us with confirmation of the PROPER and CORRECT framework through which we can read Francis.

And it’s not Benedict, but rather Derrida.

But I digress…

And as my long time readers know, what defines a post-Modernist is a person who sees the world in terms of fractioned special interest (identity) groups, who in turn produce their foundational NARRATIVES, which then battle it out in a Hobbesian battlefield of identity groups. These identity groups do not dialogue, because the post-Modernists don’t believe in dialogue. Therefore, it is just one big struggle for POWER and the winning identity group, with their winning NARRATIVE, takes it all.

As for the rest of the unlucky identity groups and their NARRATIVES, they are subjugated. Hmmm…. where have I read that before? Why yes, here.

But just in case you dear readers need a refresher, here is Dr. Jordan Peterson to explain the post-Modernist mindset:

Now for the Mullarkey response. What is of critical significance in the Mullarkey response is that she names post-Modernism and by extension the Francis post-Modernists for what they are, and she names them in the third paragraph. Here is that passage:

On exhibit in this chosen opener is the post-modern denial of the existence of objective reality. The past’s own utterances are not steadfast. The truth of them, like that of any text, is unfixed, determined by current ideological needs.


What we see therefore is that Mullarkey understands the foundational “philosophy” read ideology upon which the Francis proxies Spadaro/Figueroa constructed their document and criticises that document in its proper CONTEXT.

On a more general note, the significance of this OCCURRENCE is that the Mullarkey response is an example (the first that I have come across) where individual Catholic authors are beginning to use the proper philosophical/ideological “template” through which Francis must be read and understood.

If the above is more than just an isolate incident of a Catholic writer using the post-Modernist “template” to understand and explain the “product” produced by TeamFrancis, and other writers begin to reference the post-Modernist underlying ideology of this pseudo-intellectual gibberish, we will obtain a powerful weapon to counteract this rubbish and re-orient the collective Catholic thought process onto a footing based in OBJECTIVE REALITY.

And this in turn will be lethal not only for TeamFrancis and FrancisCurch in general, but also lethal to the post-concicliar sect that has taken over the Bride of Christ during this “new springtime of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II”.

Leaving off before my vacation, I will end with another Jordan Peterson video on post-Modernism.




Proselytization Through Philosophy…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Over the last few days, and especially with the untimely death of Cardinal Joachim Meisner (requiescat in pace), the Bergoglian “Joy of Sex” document has been getting a lot of air time in the Catholic blogo-sphere.

Furthermore, what appears to be the case is that the “Joy of Sex” and the Catholic response to it, i.e. the Dubia of the Four Cardinals, has in fact metamorphosed into a wider examination of the Bergoglio “bishopric of Rome”, a.k.a. the Francis “papacy”.

Now, there is a lot being written presently that examines this Francis PHENOMENON from the doctrinal and moral perspective. I will also add my voice to this effort, but will however approach it from a philosophical perspective.

The reason that I am doing this is two-fold:

First I need to emphasis that what we are witnessing in the Francis “bishopric of Rome” is in fact part and parcel of a wider PROCESS. By observing and more importantly, understanding this PHENOMENON, we can place these events in a proper CONTEXT. And like it has been said ad nauseam on this blog, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

Lastly, by understanding the ROOT CAUSE of this wider PHENOMENON, we are afforded the proper tools through which we can counteract the negative, dare I say lethal effects of this Bergoglian Theology of Death on us, our families and wider society in general.

So today, I will examine the larger issue, let’s call this the PHILOSOPHY OF DEATH, or the platform on which the Bergoglian Theology of Death is constructed.

And as it just so happens, your humble blogger has come across another rising internet personality (tipped off by one of our loyal readers). I would like to introduce you dear reader to RockingMrE. What is interesting about this RockingMrE is that he produces videos in what I would call a Nietzschean style, i.e. short, concise and packed with content.

One more important point needs to be noted. RockingMrE is another example of thinking people who have found themselves in what I would call a “dead end ideology”, such as libertarianism, leftism, agnosticism/”atheism”, et al. What differentiates people like RockingMrE and others, such as Stefan Molyneux, Dr. Jordan Peterson or Robyn of the Critical Condition YouTube channel, is that these folks, realizing that they have found themselves in a philosophical (spiritual, in reality) dead-end, and are using their God-given ability to reason in order to get themselves out.

Now, this is not to say that either of the above named individuals have gotten themselves out of their personal spiritual darkness fully and have come to embracing the light, i.e. Catholicism. As we know from what Mother Church teaches us, our reason can only take us so far, but eventually Faith has to take over. But what is important to note is that if these folks go the full route, they will get the point where they will have to voluntarily submit to that which Eternal Rome teaches and has always taught.

But back to the specific subject at hand.

The first video of RockingMrE that I would like to present is titled The Cultural Marxist Agenda Explained.

What is of importance in this post begins at the 2:26 minute mark. Here RMrE states the following:

The academic name for cultural Marxism is Critical Theory. And this term is key to understanding the Cultural Marxist agenda. The point of Critical Theory is to quite literally criticize society so much, that people are too demoralized to defend their culture. This Critical Theory is how Marx’s own criticisms of class, religion and the family were adapted into anything and everything that can create conflict in society by constantly pushing an atmosphere of conflict between victims and oppressors, leftist can appeal for more and more socialism from the state. No matter what the problem, the solution is always the same: government, government, government.

And what is the aim of Cultural Marxism:

Destroy Western society by attacking objective truth and morality wherever you find it. Replacing it with subjective truth and morality. This causes chaos as people are encouraged to seek refuge in groups that they can identify with in some way.

Does the Lavender-mafia ring a bell?

Thought so…

So now that you dear reader understand the above, please go to this OnePeterFive blog and see how many of the above elements you can identify in this post HERE.

And speaking of the Lavender-mafia, the next video I would like to present addresses the recent “moves” by TeamFrancis to “platform” intrinsic disorder inside the Catholic Church.

So now that you dear reader understand the above, please go and read the following two post HERE and HERE and try to identify the elements identified in the above video.

Does it not seem odd that the Intrinsically Disordered Agenda is being promoted in the secular and ecclesiastical sub-sets of the Visibilium Omnium?

Here is the explanation from RockingMrE (starts at about the 9:00 minute mark)

By promoting sexual behaviour as separate from reproduction, it allows the (social) engineers to control the birthrate in society. This also allows the state to take control of parenting by using the cover of equality. Rather than marriage and parenting being a natural right, it becomes a state sanctioned privilege once we have to be inclusive to couples who can’t conceive children naturally. The breakdown of the family then accelerates the more couples aren’t pair bonding through the act of having children together. 

People need to understand that leaving others alone has nothing to do with this agenda. Otherwise, they are going to realize that it’s all about control when it’s too late to do anything about it.

And finally, I will leave you with this video titled Destroying Christianity From Within.

As you can see dear readers, we are not alone.

Now, the people who are our natural allies might not be overt, nominal Catholics per se, but they are people who believe in the same things as we do.

Therefore, it would serve us to take onboard and become familiar with what these folks are saying, if only to use the material that they produce to pass on to others who are hopelessly lost, yet recoil when religious subjects are broached.

Therefore, what we have at hand is in fact a means by which we can…

Proselytize Through Philosophy.

And it is another self avowed “atheist” who is providing us with the material.

PS Extra Credit assignment: View this…

Soros’ (Migrant) La Dolce Vita…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Soros-Sponsored Immigration Network Exposed In Italy


The following article is based on Francesca Totolo’s research published on

Open Borders, Media Censorship

Why is there a migrant crisis in the Mediterranean? Why are NGOs involved? Because there is an extensive network of open borders activists and organizations behind it; many of them are directly funded by or cooperated with George Soros’ Open Society. Is it illegal? Not really. Political activism is an essential part of democratic societies. However, sometimes it goes too far, or the promoted causes prove to be either unrealistic or unsustainable.

The network of the “immigration lobby’’ in Italy is made up of International NGOs financed by the Open Society Foundation (green), Italian NGOs financed by OSF (blue), and organizations with shared projects with OSF (purple).

1. Open Society Foundations and Associazione Carta di Roma

Associazione Carta di Roma was founded in December 2011 to put into execution a moral code for correct information on immigration. Since February 2016 the “Glossary’’ of the Charter of Rome (Carta di Roma) is an integral part of the “Unified charter of duties of the journalist’’. Permanent invited members are the UN High Council for Refugees, the International Organization for Migrations and the National Office against Racial Discrimination.

The glossary of the Charter of Rome been revised and corrected by the editors to guarantee political correctness, limiting the use of words that are deemed not adequate when the subject of a piece of news is without citizenship and in a foreign country. The accepted terms are: -asylum seeker, refugee, person protected by subsidiary protection, beneficiary of humanitarian protection, victim of smuggling, irregular migrant (previously commonly defined as clandestine), mixed migratory influx. The term “clandestine’’ is now punished with fines, and warnings from the Order of Journalists.

In the majority of cases the Charter of Rome considers redundant mentioning the nationality of those who commit crime on Italian territory.

Sponsors of the Charter are Open Society Foundations, the UNHCR and the Valdese Church.

Associazione Carta di Roma lists the following “reliable’’ sources, many of which are Italian or international NGOs directly funded by the Open Society Foundation: Amnesty International, ASGI, COSPE, 21 Luglio, Fortress Europe, A Buon Diritto, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Save The Children, currently involved in the migrant traffic in the Mediterranean and finally UNAR, recently involved in a scandal of gay prostitution.

2. Open Society and COSPE ONLUS

Cospe Onlus is a non-profit, private organization founded in 1983. It operates in 30 countries with 150 projects “to favour equal and sustainable development, respect of human rights, peace and justice for people’’, supporting the right to international mobility. Its goal is a world where “diversity is considered a value, a world with many voices, where the meeting of different people results in mutual enrichment and where social justice goes through equal rights and opportunities’’.

Cospe and NGOs in the Mediterranean

Cospe is among the original founders and promoters of SOS Mediterranee Italia, an NGO that works in the Mediterranean cooperating with Médecins Sans Frontières on the ship Acquarius

Cospe’s partners, include the already mentioned Associazione Carta di Roma, which shares Cospe’s platform on “correct communication’’ on the immigration question; they organized seminaries for journalists on the topics of immigration and racial discrimination. Carta di Lampedusa (Charter of Lampedusa) is a free association of individuals born in 2014 to work against laws limiting immigration and for the abolition of all European laws that limit freedom of movement.

Cospe Budget

The last budget published is from 2015. Cospe gathered funding of approximately €9.5 million, of which €7.5 million was from public subjects, the most relevant of which are the European Union (66%) and the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs (27%).

3. Open Society and ASGI (Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration)

ASGI’s task is to disseminate ideas on immigration laws among lawyers, jurists and academics; it has contributed to the creation of national and EU laws on immigration, asylum and citizenship, promoting political dialogue and protection of foreigners. ASGI was founded by the Open Society Foundation and is directly funded by it.

ASGI projects

ASGI focuses heavily on the current situation in Hungary. The UNHCR requested a temporary suspension of asylum requests to Hungary, according to the rules of the Dublin Treaty: ‘“Given the worsening conditions of asylum seekers in Hungary, we ask to suspend the transfer of any asylum seeker to this country, until the policies of the Hungarian government are not in line with European and international law’’.

Anti-discrimination service: ASGI provides juridical support against ethnic, racial and religious discrimination in Italy, with an operative centre in Milan and a number of secondary centres in Turin, Florence, Naples, Rome and Verona, a network of professionals that collaborate in monitoring discrimination matters. It is funded by Charlemagne Onlus, Tavola Valdese and the Open Society Foundations.12)

ASGI’s Manifesto

According to ASGI, the reasons for migration to Europe are: wars, repressive regimes and dictatorships, consequences of colonialism, exploitation of natural resources of the African continent, demographic growth, climate change.

In terms of immigration, asylum and citizenship reform, ASGI proposes:

–channels for free access to a country for job seeking purposes;
-ways to make temporary visas permanent;
-easier family reunion processes;
–voluntary repatriation or alternative measures as opposed to forced repatriation;
–right to vote in administrative elections for non-EU foreigners, on the same conditions as for EU nationals and easier acquisition of citizenship;
-on asylum the EU should: desist from hostile policies adopted in the last years such as the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016, and collaboration with dictatorships such as those in Libya, Sudan, and Niger; create an obligatory redistribution plan for refugees, adjust the current Dublin regulation with the possibility of requesting asylum in the country chosen by the asylum seeker.

ASGI’s network

Migregroup: it participates in the project Boats4people, and supports the online platform WatchTheMed, that maps deaths and violations of migrant rights at the external frontiers of the EU.

WatchTheMed was founded by NGO Habeshia run by father Mussie Zerai, (self-proclaimed father Moses for his ability to make migrants arrive in Europe). The organization has a list for ‘’the good migrant’’, where interested people can find information on how to arrive in Europe through the Mediterranean. ONG Sea-Watch, currently present in the Mediterranean transporting migrants to Europe, is a part of the platform of WatchTheMed.

ASGI collaborates with Associazione 21 Luglio, Senza Confine (No Borders), Doctors for Human Rights, SIMM (Italian society for medicine of migrations).

4. Open Society and CILD (Italian coalition for freedoms and civil rights)

Created in 2014, CILD is a network of organizations to promote rights and freedoms for everyone, with advocacy campaigns, public and legal actions. CILD supports easier access for migrants in face of “mixed influxes’’. After a recent change in the law to welcome unaccompanied minors in Italy, it pushed for a change in citizenship laws, currently materialized in the attempt to switch from Ius Sanguinis to Ius Soli.

Its manifesto includes a change of vision on immigration, as a system of asylum, not criminal, based on welcoming duties and enlargement of citizenship.

CILD activities include, the project Open Migration, which focuses on a fact-checking of news on immigration; its articles cover criticism of the investigation of NGOs in the Mediterranean, a claim that refugee appeals are not overburdening the judicial system, and another claim that immigrants are overrepresentated in the jail system due to preventive custody, ignoring the data showing that migrants commit crimes in Italy at 6 times the rate of natives.

CILD’s network

It includes, among others:

A Buon Diritto: an advocacy group on the immigration issue. Funded by the Open Society;
ANSI (National Association Intercultural Press): promoted and constituted by foreign journalists, supported by Cospe and Open Society;
Antigone: organization for the rights and warranties of the penal system, funded by the Open Society;
ARCI: large popular movement to promote emancipation, with over a million subscribers, supported by Open Society;
ASGI: detailed above;
Associazione 21 Luglio: focuses on the Roma minority. Funded by the Open Society;
CIR (Italian Council for Refugees): funded by Open Society;
Cittadini del Mondo (Citizens of the world): open borders promoter, funded by Open Society;
Cospe Onlus: referred above
Fondazione Leone Moressa: think thank with a focus on immigration, funded by the Open Society;
Lunaria: non-profit with a focus on globalization and migration, regularly collaborates with the Open Society;
NAGA: migrant rights with a focus on Roma, funded by the Open Society;
PARSEC: social studies research institute with a focus on immigration, created the project “parlare civile’’ (civil talking) that focuses on politically correct wording, supported by the Open Society;

5. Open Society and A Buon Diritto

A Buon Diritto (For good law) is an advocacy group focused on immigration, its website is full of the contributions from the Open Society. Its president is Luigi Manconi, also known as Simone Dessì, a former activist of Lotta Continua (Contiued Fight), a communist party. Its publications include “Accogliamoli Tutti’’ (Let’s welcome all of them), a book that claims that “the only efficient immigration policy is welcoming everyone’’, citing replacement migration, the replacement of elderly, dying Italians with young immigrants as the core element of its thesis. It claims that this approach is based on “common sense and a pragmatic approach to govern immigration, not passively receive it’’. The foreword is by former Ministry of Integration of Italy Cécile Kyenge.

Another publication is “Abolire il Carcere’’ (Abolish jail), a “reasonable proposal of reform for the safety of citizens’’.

Its initiatives include:

-‘’Navigare a vista’’ (Navigate in sight), a “tale of the search and rescue activities by NGOs in the Mediterranean’’.
-‘’The great lie of taxi-ships: NGOs and rescue in the sea’’, a conference attended by Luigi Manconi, Emma Bonino, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and representatives of the NGOs Proactiva Open Arms, MSF and Save the Children, all currently active in the Mediterranean.


The network, as exemplified by CILDI, is extensive and intricate. It ranges from former ministers, Kyenge (Immigration) and Bonino (foreign affairs), both directly responsible for the large influx of migrants being forcefully accepted into Italy, to support groups promoting press censorship, but also providing juridical support, advocacy and publications.

Only in few cases one can inspect their budgets, not exactly a trait suggesting transparency and openness.

The main theme of the Open Society network is to use anti-discrimination laws to promote unlimited migration via the abolition of borders. The idea is clearly stated in the manifesto of many organizations. Most organizations promote their extreme views as “fact based’’ or “common sense’’ to give themselves an aura of scientific approach, while providing subjective and ideological interpretation of data and omitting inconvenient information. That is also why they omit the nationality of the criminal. It’s equivalent to admitting there is a problem but it should not be talked about. This is typical of totalitarian regimes, not democratic and certainly not “open’’ societies. The stated goal of “correct information on the theme of immigration’’ is certainly not achieved this way.

Finally, the no-borders strategy is being implemented with the widespread action of the immigration lobby in favour of NGOs operating in the Mediterranean. Whether through its funding or publications covering the topic, conferences, research or information channels for migrants, the network effectively provides support for migrants, regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.

Francis Out Of Time…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The time has come.

After the events of the recent couple of weeks and especially with the passing of one of the Dubia Fathers, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, it would appear to this humble blogger that the time has come for Jorge Bergoglio, a.k.a. the bishop of Rome Francis to decide whether he is in fact, as he presented himself to Cardinal Joachim Meisner (Requiescat in pace) at their meeting in the later part of 2013, ” a son of the church”. Here is that description that Francis offered Cardinal Meisner, which is widely know, but has never been either corrected or retracted: (see here)

And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name.

I would also like to add my voice and the voice of the DEUS EX MACHINA blog to the words of Steve Skojec and his OnePeterFive blog. Here is the relevent passage: (emphasis added)

Relativism. All is now relativism within the Church. The intentional obliteration of absolute moral values and the notion of objective grave sin is a gateway to the justification of every kind of evil. The true “Francis effect” is nothing less than the near-total erosion of the Catholic Faith in pastoral practice. And yet this revolution — for it most certainly is a revolt —  is shrouded in cowardice. Its leaders are so accustomed to slinking around in darkness that they cannot bring themselves — even though they control the entire visible hierarchy of the Church — to make bold and unequivocal their heretical aims.

You want to unmake the Church? Say so. Stop conniving like snakes. Be men of action. Stake your claim. Make clear your purpose. See if you really can “be as gods,” triumphant and without the burden of consequence.

Cardinals and Bishops, Priests and Religious, laity of every kind who love Our Lord Jesus and His mystical bride, it is time to rise up together as a unified body and stand our ground. There is no more “wait and see”. There is no more benefit of the doubt, because there is no more doubt. No more trepidation about whether this, at last, is the hill to die on. There are no more hills.

Cardinal Burke, you — and by extension, those courageous prelates who joined you in issuing and supporting the dubia — promised us an act of formal correction in the event that Francis did not respond to the dubia as he should. We are awaiting the discharge of your sacred duty; we are anticipating the revelation to the Church of that which only the successors of the apostles can declare: whether the apparent material heresy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio — thus far accepted by the Universal Church as Pope Francis — is now manifest and obdurate, and whether the faithful have, therefore, a duty not to follow him.

Holy Father, time is running short, but you still have a chance to repent of what you have done. You could yet calm the storm with those five words: “No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.” Our Blessed Lord made clear that no other answer will suffice. (Mt. 5:37)

Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before a full-blown schism is upon us — and it will not be one of our making.

Actually, I think it would be fair to say that “time has run out”.




Francis In Proper Character…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


From the Rorate Caeli website (see here)

Over the life of this blog, your humble blogger has been chronicling the evidence that Francis, the bishop of Rome appears to be more of a politician and a religious leader.

Below is just the next piece of empirical evidence in what is a mounting pile…


For the Record: The Anti-American Pope: Two of Francis’ Closest Confidantes Attack US, American Conservatives in Pope’s own journal

The article was written in Civiltà Cattolica, the journal considered the official voice of the Vatican, and its diplomatic department (the Secretariat of State), and authored by two of the Pope’s own closest confidantes, Fr. Antonio Spadaro SJ (the editor) and Argentine Presbyterian Pastor Marcelo Figueroa (shockingly, the editor of the Spanish-language edition of the journal).

Due to its unprecedented nature, and the direct attack it makes on the United States, its current administration, American Evangelicals, Conservative Catholics in the United States (and Europe and Africa, concerned with the rise of Islamism), and even on a specific website and person (Church Militant and Michael Voris), its overreach is nothing if not breathtaking.

The Osservatore site is down at the moment, so before any item is changed, this is what was originally published:

Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A surprising ecumenism

Antonio Spadaro S.J., Editor-in-chief of La Civiltà Cattolica

Marcelo Figueroa, Presbyterian pastor, Editor-in-chief of the Argentinean edition of L’Osservatore Romano

In God We Trust. This phrase is printed on the banknotes of the United States of America and is the current national motto. It appeared for the first time on a coin in 1864 but did not become official until Congress passed a motion in 1956. A motto is important for a nation whose foundation was rooted in religious motivations. For many it is a simple declaration of faith. For others, it is the synthesis of a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy.

 Religion, political Manichaeism and a cult of the apocalypse

Religion has had a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions over recent decades, especially in some US governments. It offers a moral role for identifying what is good and what is bad.

At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil. In fact, after President George W. Bush spoke in his day about challenging the “axis of evil” and stated it was the USA’s duty to “free the world from evil” following the events of September 11, 2001.  Today President Trump steers the fight against a wider, generic collective entity of the “bad” or even the “very bad.” Sometimes the tones used by his supporters in some campaigns take on meanings that we could define as “epic.”

These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist principles dating from the beginning of the 20th Century that have been gradually radicalized. These have moved on from a rejection of all that is mundane – as politics was considered – to bringing a strong and determined religious-moral influence to bear on democratic processes and their results.

The term “evangelical fundamentalist” can today be assimilated to the “evangelical right” or “theoconservatism” and has its origins in the years 1910-1915. In that period a South Californian millionaire, Lyman Stewart, published the 12-volume work The Fundamentals. The author wanted to respond to the threat of modernist ideas of the time. He summarized the thought of authors whose doctrinal support he appreciated. He exemplified the moral, social, collective and individual aspects of the evangelical faith. His admirers include many politicians and even two recent presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

The social-religious groups inspired by authors such as Stewart consider the United States to be a nation blessed by God. And they do not hesitate to base the economic growth of the country on a literal adherence to the Bible. Over more recent years this current of thought has been fed by the stigmatization of enemies who are often “demonized.”

The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims. To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the “promised land,” rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels.

Within this narrative, whatever pushes toward conflict is not off limits. It does not take into account the bond between capital and profits and arms sales. Quite the opposite, often war itself is assimilated to the heroic conquests of the “Lord of Hosts” of Gideon and David. In this Manichaean vision, belligerence can acquire a theological justification and there are pastors who seek a biblical foundation for it, using the scriptural texts out of context.

Another interesting aspect is the relationship with creation of these religious groups that are composed mainly of whites from the deep American South. There is a sort of “anesthetic” with regard to ecological disasters and problems generated by climate change. They profess “dominionism” and consider ecologists as people who are against the Christian faith. They place their own roots in a literalist understanding of the creation narratives of the book of Genesis that put humanity in a position of “dominion” over creation, while creation remains subject to human will in biblical submission.

In this theological vision, natural disasters, dramatic climate change and the global ecological crisis are not only not perceived as an alarm that should lead them to reconsider their dogmas, but they are seen as the complete opposite: signs that confirm their non-allegorical understanding of the final figures of the Book of Revelation and their apocalyptic hope in a “new heaven and a new earth.”

Theirs is a prophetic formula: fight the threats to American Christian values and prepare for the imminent justice of an Armageddon, a final showdown between Good and Evil, between God and Satan. In this sense, every process (be it of peace, dialogue, etc.) collapses before the needs of the end, the final battle against the enemy. And the community of believers (faith) becomes a community of combatants (fight). Such a unidirectional reading of the biblical texts can anesthetize consciences or actively support the most atrocious and dramatic portrayals of a world that is living beyond the frontiers of its own “promised land.”

Pastor Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) is the father of so-called “Christian reconstructionism” (or “dominionist theology”) that had a great influence on the theopolitical vision of Christian fundamentalism. This is the doctrine that feeds political organizations and networks such as the Council for National Policy and the thoughts of their exponents such as Steve Bannon, currently chief strategist at the White House and supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics.[1]

“The first thing we have to do is give a voice to our Churches,” some say. The real meaning of this type of expression is the desire for some influence in the political and parliamentary sphere and in the juridical and educational areas so that public norms can be subjected to religious morals.

Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart. We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible. So, it is not just accidental that George W. Bush was seen as a “great crusader” by Osama bin Laden.

Theology of prosperity and the rhetoric of religious liberty

Together with political Manichaeism, another relevant phenomenon is the passage from original puritan pietism, as expressed in Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, to the “Theology of Prosperity” that is mainly proposed in the media and by millionaire pastors and missionary organizations with strong religious, social and political influence. They proclaim a “Prosperity Gospel” for they believe God desires his followers to be physically healthy, materially rich and personally happy.

It is easy to note how some messages of the electoral campaign and their semiotics are full of references to evangelical fundamentalism. For example, we see political leaders appearing triumphant with a Bible in their hands.

Pastor Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) is an important figure who inspired US Presidents such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. He officiated at the first wedding of the current president and the funeral of his parents. He was a successful preacher. He sold millions of copies of his book The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) that is full of phrases such as “If you believe in something, you get it”, “Nothing will stop you if you keep repeating: God is with me, who is against me” or “Keep in mind your vision of success and success will come” and so on. Many prosperity prosperous televangelists mix marketing, strategic direction and preaching, concentrating more on personal success than on salvation or eternal life.

A third element, together with Manichaeism and the prosperity gospel, is a particular form of proclamation of the defense of “religious liberty.” The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism. But we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a “religion in total freedom,” perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.

Fundamentalist ecumenism

Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.

Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.

However, the most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations. The word “ecumenism” transforms into a paradox, into an “ecumenism of hate.” Intolerance is a celestial mark of purism. Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key.

Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”

 The temptation of “spiritual war”

The religious element should never be confused with the political one. Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other. An evident aspect of Pope Francis’ geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends. Francis empties from within the narrative of sectarian millenarianism and dominionism that is preparing the apocalypse and the “final clash.”[2] Underlining mercy as a fundamental attribute of God expresses this radically Christian need.

Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church. Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes. Yet it is this very dynamic with a spurious theological flavor that tries to impose its own law and logic in the political sphere.

There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself. This abuse is called “authentic Christianity.” And to show its own preferences, it has created a close analogy between Donald Trump and Emperor Constantine, and between Hilary Clinton and Diocletian. The American elections in this perspective were seen as a “spiritual war.”[3]

This warlike and militant approach seems most attractive and evocative to a certain public, especially given that the victory of Constantine – it was presumed impossible for him to beat Maxentius and the Roman establishment – had to be attributed to a divine intervention: in hoc signo vinces.

Church Militant asks if Trump’s victory can be attributed to the prayers of Americans. The response suggested is affirmative. The indirect missioning for President Trump is clear: he has to follow through on the consequences. This is a very direct message that then wants to condition the presidency by framing it as a divine election. In hoc signo vinces. Indeed.

Today, more than ever, power needs to be removed from its faded confessional dress, from its armor, its rusty breastplate. The fundamentalist theopolitical plan is to set up a kingdom of the divinity here and now. And that divinity is obviously the projection of the power that has been built. This vision generates the ideology of conquest.

The theopolitical plan that is truly Christian would be eschatological, that is it applies to the future and orients current history toward the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of justice and peace. This vision generates a process of integration that unfolds with a diplomacy that crowns no one as a “man of Providence.”

And this is why the diplomacy of the Holy See wants to establish direct and fluid relations with the superpowers, without entering into pre-constituted networks of alliances and influence. In this sphere, the pope does not want to say who is right or who is wrong for he knows that at the root of conflicts there is always a fight for power. So, there is no need to imagine a taking of sides for moral reasons, much worse for spiritual ones.

Francis radically rejects the idea of activating a Kingdom of God on earth as was at the basis of the Holy Roman Empire and similar political and institutional forms, including at the level of a “party.” Understood this way, the “elected people” would enter a complicated political and religious web that would make them forget they are at the service of the world, placing them in opposition to those who are different, those who do not belong, that is the “enemy.”

So, then the Christian roots of a people are never to be understood in an ethnic way. The notions of roots and identity do not have the same content for a Catholic as for a neo-Pagan. Triumphalist, arrogant and vindictive ethnicism is actually the opposite of Christianity. The pope on May 9 in an interview with the French dailyLa Croix, said: “Yes Europe has Christian roots. Christianity has the duty of watering them, but in a spirit of service as in the washing of feet. The duty of Christianity for Europe is that of service.” And again: “The contribution of Christianity to a culture is that of Christ washing the feet, or the service and the gift of life. There is no room for colonialism.”

 Against fear

Which feeling underlies the persuasive temptation for a spurious alliance between politics and religious fundamentalism? It is fear of the breakup of a constructed order and the fear of chaos. Indeed, it functions that way thanks to the chaos perceived. The political strategy for success becomes that of raising the tones of the conflictual, exaggerating disorder, agitating the souls of the people by painting worrying scenarios beyond any realism.

Religion at this point becomes a guarantor of order and a political part would incarnate its needs. The appeal to the apocalypse justifies the power desired by a god or colluded in with a god. And fundamentalism thereby shows itself not to be the product of a religious experience but a poor and abusive perversion of it.

This is why Francis is carrying forward a systematic counter-narration with respect to the narrative of fear. There is a need to fight against the manipulation of this season of anxiety and insecurity. Again, Francis is courageous here and gives no theological-political legitimacy to terrorists, avoiding any reduction of Islam to Islamic terrorism. Nor does he give it to those who postulate and want a “holy war” or to build barrier-fences crowned with barbed wire. The only crown that counts for the Christian is the one with thorns that Christ wore on high.[4]


[1] Bannon believes in the apocalyptic vision that William Strauss and Neil Howe theorized in their book The Fourth Turning: What Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. See also N. Howe, “Where did Steve Bannon get his worldview? From my book”, in The Washington Post, February 24, 2017.

[2] See A. Aresu, “Pope Francis against the Apocalypse”, in Macrogeo(, June 9, 2017.

[3] See “Donald ‘Constantine’ Trump? Could Heaven be intervening directly in the election?”, in Church Militant (

[4] For further reflection see D. J. Fares, “L’antropologia politica di Papa Francesco», in Civ. Catt. 2014 I 345-360; A. Spadaro, “La diplomazia di Francesco. La misericordia come processo politico”, ib 2016 I 209-226; D. J. Fares, “Papa Francesco e la politica”, ib 2016 I 373-385; J. L. Narvaja, “La crisi di ogni politica cristiana. Erich Przywara e l’‘idea di Europa’”, ib 2016 I 437-448; Id., “Il significato della politica internazionale di Francesco”, ib 2017 III 8-15.

NUChurch Shocked… Shocked That Francis Lies…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Interesting development today.

But first, background…

A couple of days ago, a post appeared at the excellent OnePeterFive blog appeared titled Source: Before Dismissal of Cardinal Müller, Pope Asked Five Pointed Questions, written by Maika Hickson. Needless to say, it caused quite a stir.

The reason it caused quite a stir, as best I can tell, is that it used “unnamed sources”. Furthermore, and as best I can tell, the complaints are originating from the Leftist “catholic” circles, circles who have no problem with information appearing in FakeNews Media based on “unnamed sources” with respect to the “Russian collusion conspiracy”, for example.

Hypocrisy, yes?

But it gets better…

It would also appear that the key “crime” perpetrated by Maika Hickson pertained to question 3). Here is the pertinent quote from the followup post titled Getting Perspective: There’s Nothing New in the Five Questions Story and reads as follows:

3.) “Are you in favor of, or against, female priests?”

This is the sole standout question, the one point of discussion that has ruffled the most feathers. And this is understandable, because the pope has made clear — that is to say, as clear as he ever makes things — that he believes the door to this question was closed by John Paul II.

Now the reason that it is understandable is that it implies that Francis, the bishop of Rome is dishonest.

Let’s put this another way, it implies that Francis, the bishop of Rome is a LIAR.

Two things need to be mentioned at this point.

First, it is known that Francis, the bishop of Rome LIES. One good example of just this comes to mind, and it relates to Communion to serial adulterers and the Joy of Sex document that Francis promulgated after the bi-Synod of 2014 and 2015. Furthermore, it encompasses the recently deceased Cardinal Joachim Meisner.

Just as a reminder, in December of 2013 and in another “3rd answer”, when asked a question about the possibility that Francis, the bishop of Rome would agree to change Catholic doctrine and teaching on Natural Moral Law, here is what the good Cardinal stated: (see herehighlighted parts are Fr. Z’s, emphasis is your truly)

“At my last meeting with Pope Francis, I had the opportunity to talk very open to him about a lot of things. And I told him that some questions remain unanswered in his style of spreading the gospel through interviews and short speeches, questions which need some extended explanation for people who are not so involved. The pope looked at me “with big eyes” and asked me to give an example. And my response was : During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried. And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t. In the orthodox church you can marry twice. And then he talked about mercy, which, according to my view, is seen in this country only as a surrogate for all human faults. And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name. Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“.

Once again, this post was from 24 of December, 2013, or two months before the notorious Kasper Conclave.

On an aside, is it any wonder that Cardinal Meisner could have died from a “broken heart”. The current occupant of the See of Peter… wait for it…

lied to him.

Moreover, this interview appeared in the German language Deutschlandrundfunk which is a widely disseminated periodical inside the “catholic” circles, so this information is NOT anything that should surprise any of these people.

Which brings us to an even more important issue, namely, what’s behind the feigning indignation that Francis, the bishop of Rome is.. shall we say… liberal (in the bad sense of that word) with the truth?

And as it just so happens, from the COMMUNICATIONS sub-set of the et Invisibilium, we get a post at the Zero Hedge website titled Americans Are Living Under “Intellectual Martial Law”. This post explains the PHENOMENON of what is known as the Overton Window. It uses examples from POLITICS, but analogous examples can be drawn from the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set.

Here is the modified explanation about the underlying motivation:

Now, the question of motive. Why does the thinking class in America leftist NUChurch circles embrace ideas that are not necessarily, and surely not self-evidently, truthful, and even self-destructive? Because this class is dangerously insecure and perversely needs to insist on being right about its guiding dogmas and shibboleths at all costs.

And if that means the bishop of Rome LYING, so be it…

But what else does this tell us about that self-interest group? Here is that modified passage:

The thinking classes leftist NUChurch circles are also the leaders and foot-soldiers in American post-conciliar institutions. When they are unable or unwilling to think clearly, then you get a breakdown of authority, which leads to a breakdown of legitimacy. That’s exactly where we’re at today in our national politics ecclesiastical affairs— our their (in) ability to manage the NUChurch polity.


Below is the Zero Hedge post that can be seen here.


Americans Are Living Under “Intellectual Martial Law”

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via,

The disgrace of America’s putative intellectual class is nearly complete as it shoves the polity further into dysfunction and toward collapse. These are the people Nassim Taleb refers to as “intellectuals-yet-idiots.” Big questions loom over this dynamic: How did the thinking class of America sink into this slough of thoughtlessness? And why – what is motivating them?

One path to understanding it can be found in this sober essay by Neal Devers, The Overton Bubble, published two years ago on — a friend turned me on to it the other day (dunno how I missed it). The title is a reference to the phenomenon known as the Overton Window. Wikipedia summarizes it:

The Overton Window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept…. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy….

Devers refines the definition:

The Overton Window is a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.

This raises another question: who exactly is in this corps of “respectable people” who set the parameters of acceptable thought? Primarily, the mainstream media — The New York Times, The WashPo, CNN, etc. — plus the bureaucratic functionaries of the permanent government bureaucracy, a.k.a. the Deep State, who make and execute policy, along with the universities which educate the “respectable people” (the thinking class) into the prevailing dogmas and shibboleths of the day, and finally the think tanks and foundations that pay professional “experts” to retail their ideas.

The Overton Window can be viewed as a mechanism of political control, demonizing anyone who departs from the consensus of respectable thought, and especially if they express their heresies in public speech.

This has consequences.

Deavers explains:

The trouble with the Overton Window as a mechanism of political control, and with politicization of speech and thought in general, is that it causes significant collateral damage on the ability of your society to think clearly.

If some thoughts are unthinkable and unspeakable, and the truth happens in some case to fall outside of polite consensus, then your ruling elite and their society will run into situations they simply can’t handle….

An unwise political elite is one incapable of thinking clearly about their strategic situation, acting in concert, or sticking to a plan….

An insecure political elite is one which has either no sufficient mechanisms of political power short of the politicization of speech and thought, or is faced by such powerful but somehow never decisively powerful enemies that they need to permanently escalate to a state of vigorous politicization of speech and thought. We can compare this state to “intellectual martial law” for its structural similarity to the physical-security equivalent.

We’re now living under that condition of “intellectual martial law.” The consequent degradation of thinking means that the polity can’t construct a coherent consensus about what is happening to it (or devise a plan for what to do about it). This is exactly the point where the Overton Window turns into an Overton Bubble, as described by Devers. The bubble comprises ideas that are assumed to be self-evident (though they actually aren’t) and notions that are potentially destructive of society, even suicidally so.

Here is a partial list of the current dogmas and shibboleths inside today’s Overton Bubble:

  • Russia hacked the election of 2016 (no evidence required).
  • Russia (Vladimir Putin in particular) is bent on destroying the USA.
  • All immigrants, legal or illegal, have equal status before the law.
  • National borders are inconvenient, cruel, and obsolete.
  • Western Civilization is a malign force in human history.
  • Islam is “the religion of peace,” no matter how many massacres of “infidels” are carried out in its name.
  • Men are a negative force in society.
  • White men are especially negative.
  • Brownie points given for behaviors under the rubric LBGTQ.
  • All discussion about race problems and conflicts is necessarily racist.
  • The hijab (head covering worn in public by some Muslim women) is a device of liberation for women.
  • There should be a law against using the wrong personal pronoun for people who consider themselves neither men nor women (recently passed by the Canadian parliament).
  • A unifying common culture is unnecessary in national life (anything goes).
  • Colonizing Mars is a great solution to problems on Earth.

That list defines the general preoccupations of the thinking classes today – to the exclusion of other issues.

Here is an alternative list of matters they are not generally concerned about or interested in:

  • The energy quandary at the heart of our economic malaise.
  • The enormous debt racked up to run society in the absence of affordable energy inputs.
  • The dangerous interventions and manipulation in markets by unelected officials of the Federal Reserve.
  • The extraordinary dysfunction of manipulated financial markets.
  • The fragility of a banking system based on accounting fraud.
  • The dysfunction and fragility of the American suburban living arrangement.
  • The consequences of a catastrophic breakdown in the economy due to the above.
  • The destruction of planetary ecology, threatening the continuation of the human race, and potentially all life.

Now, the question of motive. Why does the thinking class in America embrace ideas that are not necessarily, and surely not self-evidently, truthful, and even self-destructive? Because this class is dangerously insecure and perversely needs to insist on being right about its guiding dogmas and shibboleths at all costs. That is why so much of the behavior emanating from the thinking class amounts to virtue signaling — we are the good people on the side of what’s right, really we are! Of course, virtue signaling is just the new term for self-righteousness. There is also the issue of careerism. So many individuals are making a living at trafficking in, supporting, or executing policy based on these dogmas and shibboleths that they don’t dare depart from the Overton Bubble of permissible, received thought lest they sacrifice their status and incomes.

The thinking classes are also the leaders and foot-soldiers in American institutions. When they are unable or unwilling to think clearly, then you get a breakdown of authority, which leads to a breakdown of legitimacy. That’s exactly where we’re at today in our national politics — our ability to manage the polity.

Read Neal Devers’ excellent article, The Overton Bubble.

Perspective Is The Key…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today I do a “feel good” post, one that should provide all my dear, loyal readers with a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. The reason I am writing this post is due to a very despondent mindset that I have been noticing, one which exists inside the Catholic community, or to be more precise, that part of the community that is active on social media.

Before I get to the linked publication and the “good news” however, I would first like to propose a THEORY for why I believe this is so.

From what I can gather, many of the Faithful Catholics who are doing this great work of chronicling and explaining the current situation that exists inside the Sacred Vatican Walls on social media and in the wider blogo-sphere, appear to be rather new to Tradition. In other words, they have “converted” recently from the post-conciliar NUChurch.

Therefore, the problem with this mindset is most likely one of PERSPECTIVE.

By coming from the NUChurch, still a rather large institution, over to the numerically small Remnant of Catholics who have been fighting the neo-Modernists and now the post-Modernists for over 50 years, it appears to these new “Traditionalists”, aka Catholics, that “nothing is happening”, or worse yet, that it’s all falling apart.

I also notice observations about how few of us there in fact are. Hey, welcome to the RESISTANCE. 

They also have this idea that since they have “seen” the light, it must follow that other Catholics, and especially the priests, bishops and cardinals in the wider church, especially those who are resisting the latest iteration of novelties, should have also “seen the light” to the same degree as they have, and therefore aren’t acting forcefully enough.

Could be true, but hard to say…

Now, my loyal readers know that I do not intend to be unduly critical, since it’s not in my nature. So if I offend anyone, I apologize in advance.

But I think that there are certain things now that need to be said.

So below, I will pen my counter argument to the above thought process, so as to provide a different persepective, and it is as follows:

The reference point of any new “Traditionalist” should be changed to that of the Remnant circa 1970, when overnight, as if by magic, there were NO (as in ZERO) TLM Masses offered to the general population publicly, anywhere. And if one was to be found, it was offered by what used to known back then as a “renegade” priest.

In 1970, the Society of St. Pius X had 7 priests, one bishop and a couple of buildings that they used for a seminary, in a Swiss university town.

For the general Catholic population, or rather that part that was lucky, the situation changed in 1984 when JPII “the great”, allowed for Indult Masses to be offered. But first permission needed to be secured from the local ordinary, and good luck finding a priest.

This situation was constant up until the later part of the 1980’s. If you were lucky enough to live in the US, and provided you lived in a big city, you could be one of the luck ones and actually found a TLM being offered “from time to time”, within 50 miles of where you lived.

That slowly started changing in the 1990’s, but the change was slow and limited. It was limited to usually one church in an inner city neighborhood, one that was completely abandoned due to “white flight”, and occupied by one priest who was still hanging on. In order to save the trouble of shutting down the parish, the local ordinary would allow that priest, one faithful to Tradition, to experiment and offer a Latin Mass. (I think the revitalization story of St. John Cantius in Chicago is a good representation of just this phenomenon.)

This slow process continued and started getting some legs only in the early 2000’s. The reason being, as best I can tell, due to the SSPX and the 1988 Consecrations. When Archbishop Lefebvre (Requescat in pace) consecrated the 4 SSPX bishops, a breakaway group formed and became the Fraternity of St. Peter. It came under the new church law, the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (MPED), which was created in order to form a split within the SSPX and destroy that organization. On an aside, sound familiar? But I digress… The purpose behind the MPED and the FSSP was in essence to erect Latin Mass churchs (1962 Missale Romanum) next to any new SSPX chapel that was beginning to spring up, mostly across the US and France. This was done with the intent to drain off the Faithful from the SSPX into the FSSP. And it is also suspected that if this strategy would have been successful, the ED community(ies) would have slowly been wound down into the NUChurch. It is for this reason that the FSSP still doesn’t have their own bishop, after one was promised them in 1988.

Needless to say, the real “God of surprises” then took matters into His hands, and once the Ecclesia Dei Commission was set up and started to spread, many diocesan and religious communities started asking for the Indult Mass also. This created an atmosphere whereby some of the responsible yet disheartened and despondent ordinaries, and non-mathematically challenged, allowed for these Indult Masses of be offered just to save some of their crumbling, disintegrating diocesan infrastructure. Think Detroit, which now has one of the most active TLM environments anywhere!

And then came the election of Benedict XVI. I will never forget the moment when it was learned that Cardinal Ratzinger has ascended to the Throne of St. Peter. It is as if a NEW SPRINGTIME had appeared from what seemed to be a never ending winter of NUChurch discontent.

This really gave us all a powerful boost at that time, and the election of Benedict XVI did not disappoint, as far as your humble blogger is concerned.

And then two years later came the Motu Proprio Summarum Pontificum. For those who do not remember what the lay of the land looked like at that point in time, the Traditional community looked like Nagasaki after the bomb. The Faithful began asking about TLM’s at their local parishes, but nobody was prepared. And I would say that after an initial 6 months to 1 year of excitement, reality dawned on us all.

And it is that reality, i.e. the one that the Catholic Church has to be rebuilt,… to use a famous Michael Davies quote: BRICK BY BRICK, that overcame the Catholic Faithful. And it was that realization, one that was even more devastating than the one in 1970 when no more TLM could be found, that was even more cruel on the psyche.

The reason it was more cruel was that up to then, the Faithful just focused on “their church” or their TLM community. They were focused on rebuilding that Remnant of the Church that they were familiar with. But in 2005 and 2006, when the Faithful looked around inside the wider Church and saw how devastated it was, and the task before them, it dawned on us all of just how massive the Restoration in fact needed to be.

So most of us returned to focus on our local churches, chapels or TLM communities to continue the work of rebuilding.

Over these last 10 years, the rebuilding has been nothing short of spectacular, provided the starting point of reference is 1970, 1988 and 2007.

One example of this rebuilding effort is St. John Cantius and the Canons that arose under the leadership of Fr. Frank Phillips. The Canons are now being invited to take over churches in other diocese. Now the Canons are not strictly Traditional (they do NO masses), which makes them less “toxic” to any entrenched “hippie sects” that may still exist in the taken over church. But one thing is for sure, the proper Catholic faith will be found at these churches post takeover.

The next and last milestone that I will mention here is that as of this year, there is a Traditional Latin Mass offered in ALL of the diocese in Poland. This is by far nothing short of a miracle, given that Poland is a country that is the heart of the JPII “sect”, a “sect” that was “personally offended” by the 1988 consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre. Next, the Polish church transitioned into a “nationalist” oriented church after Vatican II, using the native language masses as a big “selling point”. On the other hand, it is a church where 40+% of the people still regularly go to mass, and 95% of the population has contact with the Catholic Faith at one point in their lives. Furthermore, it is the Polish church that is the most threatened by FrancisChurch just across the Oder River. The Polish hierarchy don’t want to go the way of the German Church and are realizing slowly that a return to Tradition is the ONLY OPTION. And it is the Polish Church that should be viewed as the bellweather for progress of the Restoration.

And speaking of Polish and churches, here is some eye candy from Fr. Z…

Ok, so that’s that…

Now to the linked post. It comes by way of Zero Hedge. (see here)

In that post, we can read about a PHENOMENON that has went through the cycle of 1) random observance, 2) consistent pattern and is now in the definable PROCESS phase of its existence in the wider population.

This PHENOMENON has to do with the latest generation, i.e. GENERATION Z becoming quite conservative. It works nicely with and helps explain to a large degree, the popularity of internet PHENOMENA like Jordan Peterson, Sterfan Molyneux, et al, which I have been regularly featuring on this blog.

I will leave off here for today, but please read the linked post. It dovetails very nicely with the parallel PHENOMENON of young Catholics being attracted to Tradition.

And I will return to this subject in a follow-up post…