From Canterbury to Germany, Leo XIV keeps honoring frauds, rewarding rebels, and dressing the public humiliation of Catholic truth in the language of charity.
"We are not of one religion" was Saint Margaret Clitherow's famous response when she refused while in prison awaiting her execution to pray with the Anglicans who had asked her to do so.
She was crushed to death for the 'crime' of harboring Catholic priests.
Prevost is a disgrace to her revered memory. That charlatan contradicts the holy words of a blessed martyr every time he says "we are already one" to those who are in fact not of one religion with Catholicism.
He should go and study this Scripture warning against the welcoming of heretics: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, Welcome. For he who says to him, Welcome, is a sharer in his evil works." (2 John 1:10–11)
'Zackly, DJG! Back in the Covid "lock-down" era where some Parishes were "CLOSED" bowing to demands of THE STATE, a courageous Jewish commentator, Dennis Prager, commented: "If THE STATE and secularism is the be-all and end-all of society--why do we need religion?"
Prevost has never read and studied Sacred Scripture or has but doesn't believe a word of it, as he has made perfectly clear over and over, so why would we expect him to do so now?
The heavy lifting in the Anglican example was done before Sarah Mullally was born. The then Archlayman of Canterbury Geoffrey Fisher visited Pope John XXIII in 1960. The near total surrender was publicly visible in 1966 when Archlayman Michael Ramsey and Paul VI signed the first Common Declaration and Paul placed his episcopal ring on Michael's hand.
I suppose that we should be grateful that Paul did not go down on his knees and kiss Michael's feet, as he did in 1975 with Metropolitan Meliton. No public grovelling, please, we're British!
As for the "fruits of ARCIC", I am sure that the paper and hospitality industries appreciated their work. There were the mountains of paper consumed by those Agreed Statements and the surrounding news reports, commentaries, explanations and correspondence. And later meetings tended to be in very agreeable places like Malta and Northern Italy.
Other people had noticed off stage comedy Anglican characters like "Bishop" John Robinson of Woolwich and Don Cupitt. One cruel reviewer of Robinson's bestseller "Honest to God" in 1963 observed that the most obvious thing about the author was that he was an atheist. Which did not prevent him continuing as a fellow "Bishop" alongside Michael Ramsey.
As the ARCIC discussions continued through the 1980s, there was Don Cupitt on BBC TV presenting "The Sea of Faith". According to Wiki: "He was described as a "radical theologian", noted for his ideas about "non-realist" philosophy of religion."
He carried on presiding at Anglican services up to the 1990s. Which was around the time when ARCIC really hit the rocks with the Anglican decision to ordain women. But ARCIC still exists today.....
This rot beginning with Roncalli reflects the truth of the 5 minutes of white smoke in the 1958 conclave. A different pope had been elected (and had accepted the papacy and therefore became a valid pope) before the subsequent 'election' of Roncalli. The valid pope never validly resigned, and therefore by Divine impediment Roncalli was never a valid pope.
I wish one of the Cardinals present at that conclave would have made a deathbed confession about the truth of what really happened. Are any still alive?
There were only 49 cardinals who could vote when Roncalli was elected. How many were already on board with the revolution against the Church or too cowardly to stand up for the truth?
It appears that all of them thought that what happened was sufficient. Or maybe they felt bound by the vow of secrecy that they had taken regarding the conclave, without realizing that the scriptural command to expose the deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11) should override such a vow.
As to their actions during the conclave, they should have recalled that even God Incarnate insisted on proper protocols even when there might have appeared to be no need for them: when John the Baptist told Jesus, "It is I who ought to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me?", Jesus replied: "Let it be so now; for so it becomes us to fulfill all justice."
By submitting to John, Jesus modeled obedience and the righteous conduct required of everyone.
Such conduct most certainly includes the obligation of cardinals to abide strictly with the set procedures and fundamental truths as to the election of a pope. But human beings are all too susceptible to fall into an attitude not unlike that of an old boys club and just handle things secretly and informally as it may seem good to them to do.
"Or maybe they felt bound by the vow of secrecy that they had taken regarding the conclave, without realizing that the scriptural command to expose the deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11) should override such a vow."
If that is true, it highlights their obviously defective catechesis at even a basic level. There is no way pre-VII Cardinals should have thought that fleecing the sheep of a true Pope - that is being traitors to truth and justice and consenting to duplicity and falsehood - was the correct path here. Ditto, ditto concerning the 'true' Pope who never spoke up.
The only other possibility is that they were all bribed or something. The perpetrators are very unlikely to have been able to threaten them into silence unless they were all already spiritually suspect. The rot started way before 1958.
God permitted all this to happen, maybe a test for us faithful? Maybe a sign that will lead up to His Son, to return to us? God has a permissive will in man's life and we must accept it. We just have to stand firm in His Word and what we were taught, looking neither right nor left, but straight towards the SON, and His word
At some point, that excuse no longer has credibility. Two thousand years of excuses and apologetics long ago reached their expiration date. If Popes Urban II and Innocent III had simpishly wrung their hands over the Muslim takeover of Palestine and left it to God to fix, then Europe would've been made Muslim centuries ago.
Saying that God permitted all this evil and that we must submit to His Will (?) is feminine logic. It is also the sinister whispering of Jews to their victims to just give in and let the worms enter and feed upon their flesh and souls.
But, Popes Urban II and Innocent III, along with Charles Martel, took up sword and shield and went to WAR. Not with words but, with righteous violence and action. Do you think God just wanted to understand Satan and hope for the best when the Devil offended Him on the Throne? NO HE DID NOT. This is why women and weak men must be removed from all positions of authority and red-blooded White racialist MEN must take over and take action. The Church may shrink by 70% or more but, we will end up with a lean, mean, fighting Church that is ready for a Crusades to cleanse the West.
What of the poor Anglicans who fled to Rome in 2009 because of womens's ordination and other theological issues under Benedict XVI? Feeling a little gobsmacked?
Unfortunately, to expand Mr. Jackson, this is not just the ecclesiology of Prevost but of Vatican II.
I remember the exodus of Anglicans after the early 1990s decision on women's ordination. As one outrage after another arrived during the Francis pontificate, many must have wondered why they converted to a Church which promotes gay blessings, universal salvation, total indifferentism, etc.
Thanks CJ for another fine piece that has set my hair on fire! I call this one ...Why would anyone support a religion founded upon the balls of a king? (Yes I said it!).... Now with spleen vented I shall proceed. The question that must be asked — calmly, seriously, and theologically — is this: What happens when a pope appears to publicly affirm, honor, or legitimize positions that the Church has previously and definitively taught are false? This is not a question of personality, diplomacy, or public relations. It is a question about the nature and purpose of the papal office itself.
The Pope is not simply a global religious figure, a diplomat, or a symbol of goodwill. The Pope is the successor of St. Peter, and the specific role of Peter, given by Christ, was to “strengthen the brethren” in the faith and to guard the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The papacy exists to preserve and defend what the Church has always taught, not to blur its boundaries or create ambiguity about matters that were once considered settled.
This is why the situation many Catholics are reacting to is so troubling. When a pope speaks or acts in a way that appears to recognize as legitimate what the Church has previously declared invalid, or praises leadership that is built upon theological or moral positions contrary to Catholic teaching, it creates a contradiction in the minds of the faithful. The average Catholic does not read doctrinal decrees or theological documents — they learn from gestures, public statements, and symbolic actions. When the highest authority in the Church appears to honor those who publicly reject Catholic teaching, the message received by the faithful is not one of subtle diplomacy; it is one of practical acceptance.
This creates a profound ecclesiological problem. The papacy is supposed to be the visible principle of unity and the guardian of doctrinal continuity. But unity cannot be built on ambiguity, and charity cannot be built on the suspension of truth. If the Church has definitively taught that Anglican orders are invalid, that the Church has no authority to ordain women, and that certain moral teachings are unchangeable, then publicly speaking and acting as though those who reject these teachings hold legitimate parallel ministries or moral authority risks undermining the very office that is supposed to defend the truth.
The issue is not whether the Pope should be polite, charitable, or diplomatic. Of course he should. The issue is whether charity can be expressed in a way that appears to contradict truth. Historically, the Church has always insisted that true charity is ordered toward truth and salvation, not toward the affirmation of error. Mercy and clarity were never opposed in Catholic tradition; they were always meant to work together.
Therefore, the real concern many Catholics have is not rooted in anger or disobedience, but in a theological dilemma: If the Pope is the guardian of the faith, what are the faithful to think when the guardian appears to publicly legitimize what previous popes and councils explicitly rejected? At what point does diplomacy become confusion? At what point does outreach become endorsement? And at what point does the failure to clearly distinguish truth from error begin to undermine confidence in the very office that is meant to preserve unity in truth?
These are not easy questions, but they are real ones. And pretending they do not exist does not make them go away. The history of the Church shows that clarity, not ambiguity, is what ultimately preserves unity. The papacy is strongest when it clearly confirms what the Church has always taught. When that clarity is replaced by symbolic gestures that appear to contradict prior teaching, the result is not unity, but confusion — and confusion, in matters of faith, is never harmless. Pax
"Therefore, the real concern many Catholics have is not rooted in anger or disobedience, but in a theological dilemma..."
Well put response. My only disagreement is phrasing this as a dilemma. A dilemma classically is a choice between equal alternatives, either for good or bad. There is no dilemma here, only a choice between good and bad.
Beautifully written with no ambiguity, thank you. Someone else said the only thing we have left is the decision to follow Truth, or follow Authority. Since Truth is Christ and “Authority” is man (who isn’t following truth)… I shall serve Christ.
I guess we are all just really waiting for the SSPX consecrations while the V2 circus continues. Nothing much else going on that provides hope for Mother Church.
I suppose this Christmas Pope Leo will be giving his Faithful an exhortation to stand as one with Santa's Elves. The Vatican really is that silly at this point. This man is a Satanist, and he has reduced his Church to a Cosmic Joke.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only hope!
“When men entrusted with guarding the Catholic line keep honoring those who stand outside it, blur it, mock it, or dissolve it, the line does not hold. It fades.”
Think part of Adam ‘s Fall was that he Loved Eve and in the moment relinquished his calling and could not say “No!” when necessary… something every man must still today fight against.)
At this point, the only path possible to restore the Unam, Sanctam, Catolicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam to its proper place as being the Defender of the Catholic Faith and Church is for the long prophesied global chastisement followed by the return of Jesus Christ. The ape of the church located in Rome can no longer be called "Catholic" in any way, for it has descended into the depths of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry, decisions that are not leading Jesus' flock to the glory of Heaven but, with pure intent, straight to hell. May God save those of us who refuse to worship at the temple of the Evil One, but who only worship at the true Altare Dei. Amen.
The thing is this....if you recognise this women as legitimate there is absolutely no point on the same day giving a homily on the all male priesthood. If the valid Priesthood is always male then this women is not the Archbishop of Canterbury, regardless of your position on Anglican Orders actually as that is an entirely separate conversation.
Plain for all to see the hypocrisy is actually breathtaking and nauseating. Our Lord once said of the Pharisees, do everything they say but nothing that they do, the problem is you cannot even do that with these people because everything they say is with a forked tounge and this is what makes this actually worse than the corruption of the Jewish Priesthood at Our Lords first coming.
Sister, Kaylene; hope and trust that the petrol situation with you and yours improves so you can motor to your nearest Parish each and every Sunday--especially for Palm Sunday and the Resurrection of our Lord's Holy Mass. I hear Aussies have a tight supply of petrol these days because of world events; hope I'm wrong. Walking with you in faith and hope.
Leo is denying the Faith by his action; what a scandal! -- he can't be a true pope. I first went sour on John Paul II early in his papacy when he appeared with the Anglican archbishop, I believe Ramsey, at the Canterbury (?) Cathedral. After some kind of "ecumenical service,' the two blessed the attendees at the same time, clearly implying that each was a valid bishop. Alas, John Paul II lived up to my negative assessment of that time. Perhaps a worse story: sometime in the early days of ecumenical scandal, the bishop of Sherbrooke, Canada, attended the Episcopalian "consecration" of a woman bishop and received "Communion" at the "Mass." But all religions are just dandy, ours is just the dandiest, or so the "Church" continually suggests there days.
I thought this was the money quote from above, “…the replacement of moral clarity with therapeutic symbolism, the substitution of sentiment for doctrine, the transformation of pastors into endorsers of disorder. …”. Is this not the process of “solve et coagula (dissolve and coagulate) at work as written on the demon Baphomet’s forearms?
I watched the video and found they made their point well. “By their fruits you will know them”. I respond in not trying to be political, but rather catholic seeking the truth. I am as conservative as they come but in truth and love, open to correction in seeking the truth. That being said, our government (who has operation control of it?) has caused a lot of suffering and death needlessly overseas in the name of self-protection, righteousness or the ideals of “Americanism”. One could argue the same ideals expressed by Baphomet and his required sacrifices for these libertine ideals. Most Catholics don’t know “Americanism” was condemned as heresy by Pope Leo XIII. The ones who do know, easily forget, or justify its principles under Vatican 2. Bishop Barron comes to mind. There should be a catholic SNL skit for that guy where people come across asking him benign questions and all his answers invoke Vatican II in some clever way. Where is his voice by the way? No cameras i guess.
"Leo XIII settled the central issue long ago in Apostolicae Curae" - and John Paul II publicly mocked him, giving in May 1982, in Canterbury a "solemn pontifical blessing" together with an impostor and cosplayer.
The one world religion will not need martyrs as there will be no firm doctrine to defend (other than 'woke' ones). And people will wonder why there were ever martyrs for the true Catholic faith. I think of the incredible martyrs of the protestant revolt, especially in England such as St. John Fisher--the only bishop to stand fast at first--and St. Thomas More, St. Edmund Campion, St. Margaret Clitherow, St. Nicholas Owen and many more. They gave their lives to witness the Truths of the Faith that many ones in high places now are throwing away or denying. I stand with the martyrs!
The house where St Edmund Campion operated his printing press is open to the public. It is still in the possession of the recusant Stonor family, about 40 miles west of London. Train from Paddington station to Henley-on-Thames, then a 15 minute taxi ride.
I understand that the printing press was in the attic, so Campion could duck out the rear window onto the steeply sloping wooded ground behind the house. You might have a good view down the valley to see if the King's men were riding up to the house.
"We are not of one religion" was Saint Margaret Clitherow's famous response when she refused while in prison awaiting her execution to pray with the Anglicans who had asked her to do so.
She was crushed to death for the 'crime' of harboring Catholic priests.
Prevost is a disgrace to her revered memory. That charlatan contradicts the holy words of a blessed martyr every time he says "we are already one" to those who are in fact not of one religion with Catholicism.
He should go and study this Scripture warning against the welcoming of heretics: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, Welcome. For he who says to him, Welcome, is a sharer in his evil works." (2 John 1:10–11)
The Papal seat is obviously vacant!
If Catholic religious truth does not matter, what does matter? Glad-handing and fat smiles?
'Zackly, DJG! Back in the Covid "lock-down" era where some Parishes were "CLOSED" bowing to demands of THE STATE, a courageous Jewish commentator, Dennis Prager, commented: "If THE STATE and secularism is the be-all and end-all of society--why do we need religion?"
And Aquinas, who warns of Cooperation in evil… as well as the sin of bringing or causing scandal to the Church.
My tolerance for the phrase, “People of God” and its utter misinterpretation as a “unity” thing is stretched to the breaking point.
Thank you DJG, we most certainly are not “of one religion”.
Exactly on point
Prevost has never read and studied Sacred Scripture or has but doesn't believe a word of it, as he has made perfectly clear over and over, so why would we expect him to do so now?
Thanks very much, Chris.
The heavy lifting in the Anglican example was done before Sarah Mullally was born. The then Archlayman of Canterbury Geoffrey Fisher visited Pope John XXIII in 1960. The near total surrender was publicly visible in 1966 when Archlayman Michael Ramsey and Paul VI signed the first Common Declaration and Paul placed his episcopal ring on Michael's hand.
https://iarccum.org/event/54/
I suppose that we should be grateful that Paul did not go down on his knees and kiss Michael's feet, as he did in 1975 with Metropolitan Meliton. No public grovelling, please, we're British!
https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2014/10/18/my-favorite-story-about-blessed-paul-vi/
As for the "fruits of ARCIC", I am sure that the paper and hospitality industries appreciated their work. There were the mountains of paper consumed by those Agreed Statements and the surrounding news reports, commentaries, explanations and correspondence. And later meetings tended to be in very agreeable places like Malta and Northern Italy.
Other people had noticed off stage comedy Anglican characters like "Bishop" John Robinson of Woolwich and Don Cupitt. One cruel reviewer of Robinson's bestseller "Honest to God" in 1963 observed that the most obvious thing about the author was that he was an atheist. Which did not prevent him continuing as a fellow "Bishop" alongside Michael Ramsey.
As the ARCIC discussions continued through the 1980s, there was Don Cupitt on BBC TV presenting "The Sea of Faith". According to Wiki: "He was described as a "radical theologian", noted for his ideas about "non-realist" philosophy of religion."
He carried on presiding at Anglican services up to the 1990s. Which was around the time when ARCIC really hit the rocks with the Anglican decision to ordain women. But ARCIC still exists today.....
This rot beginning with Roncalli reflects the truth of the 5 minutes of white smoke in the 1958 conclave. A different pope had been elected (and had accepted the papacy and therefore became a valid pope) before the subsequent 'election' of Roncalli. The valid pope never validly resigned, and therefore by Divine impediment Roncalli was never a valid pope.
I wish one of the Cardinals present at that conclave would have made a deathbed confession about the truth of what really happened. Are any still alive?
There were only 49 cardinals who could vote when Roncalli was elected. How many were already on board with the revolution against the Church or too cowardly to stand up for the truth?
Precisely!!
It appears that all of them thought that what happened was sufficient. Or maybe they felt bound by the vow of secrecy that they had taken regarding the conclave, without realizing that the scriptural command to expose the deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11) should override such a vow.
As to their actions during the conclave, they should have recalled that even God Incarnate insisted on proper protocols even when there might have appeared to be no need for them: when John the Baptist told Jesus, "It is I who ought to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me?", Jesus replied: "Let it be so now; for so it becomes us to fulfill all justice."
By submitting to John, Jesus modeled obedience and the righteous conduct required of everyone.
Such conduct most certainly includes the obligation of cardinals to abide strictly with the set procedures and fundamental truths as to the election of a pope. But human beings are all too susceptible to fall into an attitude not unlike that of an old boys club and just handle things secretly and informally as it may seem good to them to do.
"Or maybe they felt bound by the vow of secrecy that they had taken regarding the conclave, without realizing that the scriptural command to expose the deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11) should override such a vow."
If that is true, it highlights their obviously defective catechesis at even a basic level. There is no way pre-VII Cardinals should have thought that fleecing the sheep of a true Pope - that is being traitors to truth and justice and consenting to duplicity and falsehood - was the correct path here. Ditto, ditto concerning the 'true' Pope who never spoke up.
The only other possibility is that they were all bribed or something. The perpetrators are very unlikely to have been able to threaten them into silence unless they were all already spiritually suspect. The rot started way before 1958.
God permitted all this to happen, maybe a test for us faithful? Maybe a sign that will lead up to His Son, to return to us? God has a permissive will in man's life and we must accept it. We just have to stand firm in His Word and what we were taught, looking neither right nor left, but straight towards the SON, and His word
At some point, that excuse no longer has credibility. Two thousand years of excuses and apologetics long ago reached their expiration date. If Popes Urban II and Innocent III had simpishly wrung their hands over the Muslim takeover of Palestine and left it to God to fix, then Europe would've been made Muslim centuries ago.
Saying that God permitted all this evil and that we must submit to His Will (?) is feminine logic. It is also the sinister whispering of Jews to their victims to just give in and let the worms enter and feed upon their flesh and souls.
But, Popes Urban II and Innocent III, along with Charles Martel, took up sword and shield and went to WAR. Not with words but, with righteous violence and action. Do you think God just wanted to understand Satan and hope for the best when the Devil offended Him on the Throne? NO HE DID NOT. This is why women and weak men must be removed from all positions of authority and red-blooded White racialist MEN must take over and take action. The Church may shrink by 70% or more but, we will end up with a lean, mean, fighting Church that is ready for a Crusades to cleanse the West.
What of the poor Anglicans who fled to Rome in 2009 because of womens's ordination and other theological issues under Benedict XVI? Feeling a little gobsmacked?
Unfortunately, to expand Mr. Jackson, this is not just the ecclesiology of Prevost but of Vatican II.
I remember the exodus of Anglicans after the early 1990s decision on women's ordination. As one outrage after another arrived during the Francis pontificate, many must have wondered why they converted to a Church which promotes gay blessings, universal salvation, total indifferentism, etc.
Thanks CJ for another fine piece that has set my hair on fire! I call this one ...Why would anyone support a religion founded upon the balls of a king? (Yes I said it!).... Now with spleen vented I shall proceed. The question that must be asked — calmly, seriously, and theologically — is this: What happens when a pope appears to publicly affirm, honor, or legitimize positions that the Church has previously and definitively taught are false? This is not a question of personality, diplomacy, or public relations. It is a question about the nature and purpose of the papal office itself.
The Pope is not simply a global religious figure, a diplomat, or a symbol of goodwill. The Pope is the successor of St. Peter, and the specific role of Peter, given by Christ, was to “strengthen the brethren” in the faith and to guard the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The papacy exists to preserve and defend what the Church has always taught, not to blur its boundaries or create ambiguity about matters that were once considered settled.
This is why the situation many Catholics are reacting to is so troubling. When a pope speaks or acts in a way that appears to recognize as legitimate what the Church has previously declared invalid, or praises leadership that is built upon theological or moral positions contrary to Catholic teaching, it creates a contradiction in the minds of the faithful. The average Catholic does not read doctrinal decrees or theological documents — they learn from gestures, public statements, and symbolic actions. When the highest authority in the Church appears to honor those who publicly reject Catholic teaching, the message received by the faithful is not one of subtle diplomacy; it is one of practical acceptance.
This creates a profound ecclesiological problem. The papacy is supposed to be the visible principle of unity and the guardian of doctrinal continuity. But unity cannot be built on ambiguity, and charity cannot be built on the suspension of truth. If the Church has definitively taught that Anglican orders are invalid, that the Church has no authority to ordain women, and that certain moral teachings are unchangeable, then publicly speaking and acting as though those who reject these teachings hold legitimate parallel ministries or moral authority risks undermining the very office that is supposed to defend the truth.
The issue is not whether the Pope should be polite, charitable, or diplomatic. Of course he should. The issue is whether charity can be expressed in a way that appears to contradict truth. Historically, the Church has always insisted that true charity is ordered toward truth and salvation, not toward the affirmation of error. Mercy and clarity were never opposed in Catholic tradition; they were always meant to work together.
Therefore, the real concern many Catholics have is not rooted in anger or disobedience, but in a theological dilemma: If the Pope is the guardian of the faith, what are the faithful to think when the guardian appears to publicly legitimize what previous popes and councils explicitly rejected? At what point does diplomacy become confusion? At what point does outreach become endorsement? And at what point does the failure to clearly distinguish truth from error begin to undermine confidence in the very office that is meant to preserve unity in truth?
These are not easy questions, but they are real ones. And pretending they do not exist does not make them go away. The history of the Church shows that clarity, not ambiguity, is what ultimately preserves unity. The papacy is strongest when it clearly confirms what the Church has always taught. When that clarity is replaced by symbolic gestures that appear to contradict prior teaching, the result is not unity, but confusion — and confusion, in matters of faith, is never harmless. Pax
"Therefore, the real concern many Catholics have is not rooted in anger or disobedience, but in a theological dilemma..."
Well put response. My only disagreement is phrasing this as a dilemma. A dilemma classically is a choice between equal alternatives, either for good or bad. There is no dilemma here, only a choice between good and bad.
Beautifully written with no ambiguity, thank you. Someone else said the only thing we have left is the decision to follow Truth, or follow Authority. Since Truth is Christ and “Authority” is man (who isn’t following truth)… I shall serve Christ.
I guess we are all just really waiting for the SSPX consecrations while the V2 circus continues. Nothing much else going on that provides hope for Mother Church.
"guess we are all just really waiting for the SSPX consecrations while the V2 circus continues.." and after..... expect the circus to escalate.
EXACTLY!!
I suppose this Christmas Pope Leo will be giving his Faithful an exhortation to stand as one with Santa's Elves. The Vatican really is that silly at this point. This man is a Satanist, and he has reduced his Church to a Cosmic Joke.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only hope!
“When men entrusted with guarding the Catholic line keep honoring those who stand outside it, blur it, mock it, or dissolve it, the line does not hold. It fades.”
Think part of Adam ‘s Fall was that he Loved Eve and in the moment relinquished his calling and could not say “No!” when necessary… something every man must still today fight against.)
What is being witnessed today is something else.
At this point, the only path possible to restore the Unam, Sanctam, Catolicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam to its proper place as being the Defender of the Catholic Faith and Church is for the long prophesied global chastisement followed by the return of Jesus Christ. The ape of the church located in Rome can no longer be called "Catholic" in any way, for it has descended into the depths of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry, decisions that are not leading Jesus' flock to the glory of Heaven but, with pure intent, straight to hell. May God save those of us who refuse to worship at the temple of the Evil One, but who only worship at the true Altare Dei. Amen.
Excellent post. You hit the nail on the head!!! Thanks!!
Thanks, though I wish there was a less painful way.
The thing is this....if you recognise this women as legitimate there is absolutely no point on the same day giving a homily on the all male priesthood. If the valid Priesthood is always male then this women is not the Archbishop of Canterbury, regardless of your position on Anglican Orders actually as that is an entirely separate conversation.
Plain for all to see the hypocrisy is actually breathtaking and nauseating. Our Lord once said of the Pharisees, do everything they say but nothing that they do, the problem is you cannot even do that with these people because everything they say is with a forked tounge and this is what makes this actually worse than the corruption of the Jewish Priesthood at Our Lords first coming.
Thanks Chris.
Sister, Kaylene; hope and trust that the petrol situation with you and yours improves so you can motor to your nearest Parish each and every Sunday--especially for Palm Sunday and the Resurrection of our Lord's Holy Mass. I hear Aussies have a tight supply of petrol these days because of world events; hope I'm wrong. Walking with you in faith and hope.
Your analysis is as sharp as a razor, as usual!
Leo is denying the Faith by his action; what a scandal! -- he can't be a true pope. I first went sour on John Paul II early in his papacy when he appeared with the Anglican archbishop, I believe Ramsey, at the Canterbury (?) Cathedral. After some kind of "ecumenical service,' the two blessed the attendees at the same time, clearly implying that each was a valid bishop. Alas, John Paul II lived up to my negative assessment of that time. Perhaps a worse story: sometime in the early days of ecumenical scandal, the bishop of Sherbrooke, Canada, attended the Episcopalian "consecration" of a woman bishop and received "Communion" at the "Mass." But all religions are just dandy, ours is just the dandiest, or so the "Church" continually suggests there days.
Even most Anglicans do not recognize the episcopacy of that fraud Sarah Mullally.
Fake Archbishop of Canterbury.
Fake Pope.
All "popes" from Roncalli forward have not been popes but servants of the Evil One, for they denied and rejected the truth of Christ's Church.
lololololol
I thought this was the money quote from above, “…the replacement of moral clarity with therapeutic symbolism, the substitution of sentiment for doctrine, the transformation of pastors into endorsers of disorder. …”. Is this not the process of “solve et coagula (dissolve and coagulate) at work as written on the demon Baphomet’s forearms?
Brother, Kevin--talk about the demon, Baphomet? Gander at how Iran and her populace of 92M view America as honoring Baal in a propaganda meme:
https://rumble.com/v77mvgu-iranian-propaganda-one-vengeance-for-all.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o&sci=be742e64-fceb-42b3-956b-13adc81a0d0a
I watched the video and found they made their point well. “By their fruits you will know them”. I respond in not trying to be political, but rather catholic seeking the truth. I am as conservative as they come but in truth and love, open to correction in seeking the truth. That being said, our government (who has operation control of it?) has caused a lot of suffering and death needlessly overseas in the name of self-protection, righteousness or the ideals of “Americanism”. One could argue the same ideals expressed by Baphomet and his required sacrifices for these libertine ideals. Most Catholics don’t know “Americanism” was condemned as heresy by Pope Leo XIII. The ones who do know, easily forget, or justify its principles under Vatican 2. Bishop Barron comes to mind. There should be a catholic SNL skit for that guy where people come across asking him benign questions and all his answers invoke Vatican II in some clever way. Where is his voice by the way? No cameras i guess.
Here is a video to ponder, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0-Csly5dNE
Thank you, Brother, Kevin!
Also a Freemason/Illuminati/Occult/you name it related phrase.
Excellent point!
Church of England = Kabuki theater.
Nothing more.
That is an insult to Kabuki which I find fascinating.
So is the Roman Methodist Episcopal Church with its fraudulent hierarchy.
Brilliant
"Leo XIII settled the central issue long ago in Apostolicae Curae" - and John Paul II publicly mocked him, giving in May 1982, in Canterbury a "solemn pontifical blessing" together with an impostor and cosplayer.
The one world religion will not need martyrs as there will be no firm doctrine to defend (other than 'woke' ones). And people will wonder why there were ever martyrs for the true Catholic faith. I think of the incredible martyrs of the protestant revolt, especially in England such as St. John Fisher--the only bishop to stand fast at first--and St. Thomas More, St. Edmund Campion, St. Margaret Clitherow, St. Nicholas Owen and many more. They gave their lives to witness the Truths of the Faith that many ones in high places now are throwing away or denying. I stand with the martyrs!
The house where St Edmund Campion operated his printing press is open to the public. It is still in the possession of the recusant Stonor family, about 40 miles west of London. Train from Paddington station to Henley-on-Thames, then a 15 minute taxi ride.
https://www.stonor.com/st-edmund-campion/#
I understand that the printing press was in the attic, so Campion could duck out the rear window onto the steeply sloping wooded ground behind the house. You might have a good view down the valley to see if the King's men were riding up to the house.
Thank you for this information and link. The stations of the cross in the chapel are what interested me the most.