My honeymoon with Leo lasted a couple of weeks. About the time he said Francis was in heaven and he didn’t fire Kissy Fernandez. Are you serious? It was cool that he was an American but ideology trumps nationality.
My honeymoon lasted a couple of hours. Until I heard that Father James Martin thought that Leo was a great choice. OK, I was being very judgemental and jumping to very unmerciful conclusions. But everything I have seen since 8th May confirms my horrible prejudices.
It's tragic that any faithful Catholic would ever consider the leaders of a counterfeit church could do anything other than proceed with their revolution against Catholicism.
It was only days after his Latin infused Inauguration (?) Mass in the first week of his papacy he endowed Lavender Mafia bishops with Palliums. That right there should have brought Trad. Inc. out of retirement. But nope. It was Sergeant Schultz all over “We see nuthinnnk!”
The canonization of a man is not the canonization of all his acts. He exhibited heroic virtues, but he was also a repentant sinner. God determines if his acts were prudent and what point they might not have been.
The primary case against Prevost is that he was illegally elected by a conclave that had 133 electors, 13 more than the maximum number of 120 allowable by law. The whole thing was a fraud and no one will say it. That is the real conspiracy of silence.
The case against Prevost goes a whole lot deeper than that.
In my opinion the primary case against him is that he manifestly did not have the intention to do what a pope does, that is to feed Christ's lambs with the Church's perennial truths. Without that intention, a man cannot become a true and valid pope.
But you would have great difficulty proving that. The case however that there were 133 electors in that illegal conclave when only 120 are permitted is iron clad. And it is enough to nullify the election. Which is why nobody, including the so called alternative trad media who are just as bought and paid for as everybody else, will breathe a word about it.
The problem I see is, would there be enough catholic cardinals left to elect a an orthodox catholic seeing that they would be choosing from their own warped bunch?
My interest is more in publicly shaming these men and showing them for the frauds that they are in a way that can be easily and objectively understood by a great many people, Catholic and non Catholic alike.
How can there be any Catholic cardinals when they all are heretical adherents of V2 & post-conciliar heresy & other spiritual poison, including the Masonic-inspired Novus Ordo? Is it so hard to believe we are in the time of the Great Apostasy?
Padre Pio "around 1960," as Fr Gabriele Amorth, later chief exorcist of Rome, recalls, told him, "You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church." (Interview with Fr Amorth by José María Zavala, in The Best Kept Secret of Fatima)
Cardinal Mario Ciappi, who read the (suppressed) Third Secret of Fatima, said, "In the Third Secret it is revealed, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." (letter to Prof. Baumgartner, 1995) What is "the top" but the papacy?
It would have been easier for Abraham to have found 10 righteous men in Sodom than to try and find even one righteous Cardinal in the vat2 church. If they are not all vocal supporters of the blessing of sodomy they are none-the-less complicit by.their silence. Any objectors have already been banished under Francis’ reign of terror.but even they have been party to innumerable sins against the faith.
Actions speak louder than words. The intentions of a person can be discerned through his actions. Christ himself referenced this truth in His parable of the two sons who were told by their father to go work in the vineyard. One said that he would go, but did not. The other said he would not go, but later went. As Christ made clear about this, it wasn't words that demonstrated obedience, but actions.
Prevost's actions make it clear that he did not intend to be pope. In fact it is his actions that we are constantly opposing. The things seen (his actions) give testimony to things unseen (the intentions of his heart and mind). As Christ also said, "By their fruits you shall know them"
"Prevost's actions make it clear that he did not intend to be pope."
Did Paul VI intend to be pope?
In 1964, [Paul VI], in the presence of 2000 Bishops, definitively deposed the Tiara on the altar, rejecting the three papal powers, as if to signify that he no longer wanted to govern the Church."
It doesn't matter with Paul VI, since the 5-minutes of white smoke pope of the 1958 conclave was almost certainly still alive when Paul VI was 'elected'.
He knows them but like a faithful Modernist & possibly a Freemason, he rejects them. Then again, one can say the same about John XXIII thru Benedict. See "False Popes" tab at novusordowatch.org
JP II wrote in Mulieris Dignitatem that the new and proper understanding of St Paul is now to hold that a man and wife are to be mutually subject to each other. This contradicted almost 2,000 years of what the Church actually understood and immutably taught concerning St Paul's writing, that a husband is the head of his wife.
It also contradicted reason itself, because it is irrational to say that two persons can be mutually subject to each other. And no Church teaching can be contrary to reason.
When Saint Paul wrote "be subject to one another" he obviously meant to do so according to the proper order of things. But to logically extend the dictum of JP II, a parent would have to be subject to a child just as a child is subject to a parent. Of course JP II never mentioned that.
And for all this bull-in-a-china-shop assault on marriage, JP II got an Institute for the Family named after him. Go figure.
Thank you. Unfortunately in Poland if you dare to point out JPII's errors you are called a hater, heretic etc. because of the attitude how dare you to question JPII !!!
I kbow, same here in Croatia. JP II was the pope who recognized Croatian state early, visited my country three times, beatified cardinal Stepinac (real cardinal, hero and saintly martyr). And also he endorsed Medjugorje apparitions, Charismatic Movement, for all of these things he is still like an idol, great, saintly pope. So many people in Novus ordo religion are delude. When they see actions and words of Francis or Leo XIV, they think it goes against JP II or Benedict XVI. They are all part of the same revolution, working for same freemasonic goals. I saw some photos of these pope and they knew how to make a freemasonic handshake...
Love to see that list! The one presented in this substack is a great start for Prevost, though adding more to it would strengthen the position that the entire VII ape of the church was never the Church Jesus established, but is the work of Satan.
Please consider posting the document or a link to it. God Bless!
Devastating indictment. Hard truth bombs, leaving any true, faithful Catholic hollowed. Chris, if you can, please sign up for Donorbox, so I send my donations to you there (apparently, creators keep a larger % and people are cutting back on subscriptions...but I do want to help!) Cheers, Stephen ~
I find it almost weird how Leo has made it clear again and again he is following Francis and doing his will. Surely this was what Francis had in mind. Francis wanted to be assured before he went the man who followed him would not let the worms off the hook, keep em squirming. The mission must continue! Francis could then die in his version of peace. He had met with Prevost many times in private, who knows what assurances were given. Prevost made sure to tell us worms he was continuing the gospel of Francis. Was that to us or the enforcers. He has done so, even canonized the scoundrel, which is a scandal. It seems very...obligatory, almost as if it were all agreed to beforehand, as part of an agreement.
We should not be negotiating or appeasing illegitimate squatters. These men/people infesting the church are not Catholic! Their religion is false. We were told to consider them anathema.
I have been reading Chris Jackson for only 3 or 4 months, simply because he is a one-percenter both intellectually, and ecclesially, and he presents the facts, like it or not.
Disturbing, infuriating, anxiety-producing truth is still true, and must be told regardless of the worldly protestations and acquiescence of "Trad inc."
I was compelled to write, to publicly applaud his efforts and to remind him that countless Roman Catholics who reject the heresies of the 'Post Conciliar' remember him in our prayers.
It is not just Isaac of Ninevah who is a universalist praised and informally canonised by Pope Leo. Leo has also effectively canonised Pope Francis (let's skip all the ghastly bureaucracy and paperwork). And Francis was a plain universalist, if words have any meaning. Look at his audience on 11th Oct 2017:
"On Wednesday, October 11, at the general audience in Saint Peter’s Square, Francis said that such a judgment is not to be feared, because “at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus,” and therefore “everything will be saved. Everything.”
In the text distributed to the journalists accredited to the Holy See, this last word, “everything,” was emphasized in boldface."
I am sure that any number of Popesplainers will declare, Bill Clinton style, that it all depends what you mean by "saved" and "everything". And it was not a formal ex cathedra proclamation, so it was just random noises coming out of the Papal face. Move along, nothing to see.
But if this is not universalism, universalism has no meaning.
And if it is Universalism All Round, with everyone from St Peter to Joseph Stalin in the Happy Place....what is the point of the existence of the Church?
Besides his own acts and teachings alluding to universal salvationism, JP2 helped set the scene for this new gospel when he used a quote from Julian of Norwich in his CCC (paragraphs 304-313) more or less giving credence to this belief, 'All will be well and all manner of things will be well.' if I remember correctly the full context of her quote is related to a supossed great prodigy God will work at the end of time that will astound all creation and this hope of all being saved is alluded to. However there's no reference to such an event in public revelation but actually the opposite is clearly taught.
If you read the Second Vatican II Council's documents, it is evident that there is no point (according to them) of the existence of the Catholic Church unless it makes you feel good to belong to it and not some other church and if you believe in it's heretical teachings. Because all religions, or no religion, are paths to salvation. All have some truth and none have all of the truth because truth is that which one individually experiences.
Leo lost me when he gave his acceptance speech to the cardinals after having “accepted “ the position. He told them that he wanted to be the best administrator he could be!!!!!! WHAT? PARDON ME??? Administrator???? I thought he was to be the Vicar of Christ!
I think Mr. Jackson has made a case that even Christopher Ferrara couldn't credibly dispute (and not that he would try). The only thing that could be added is a post script that mentions how Cupich and his associates along with Martin, were in no way disappointed when Prevost was announced as pope. That by itself tells us all we need to know.
Indeed... "Silence is not prudence. It is complicity." And I would add approval.
Yes, and we have the oft thrown in our face example of St. Padre Pio's obedience used as a club against Trads for not going along with the Vatican II revolution. Different context. I think it could be argued that at first, he was, maybe. But even St. Thomas More reached a point where he had to choose a side, so to speak. When that moment came, he spoke out and he lost his earthly life, becoming a martyr, thus gaining an eternal crown in heaven, which I suspect Henry did not.
As for St. Padre Pio, what most people conveniently forget is that he was a Religious, bound by a vow of obedience, St. Thomas More was not. Also, seriously, no b.s., no games here, do you think for even a nanosecond that if some scumbag bishop had ordered St. Padre Pio to bend over the altar under obedience that that Bishop wouldn't have gotten his butt kicked?
One last point, as I'm sure you know, there are 9 ways a person can be complicit in another's sin. One of those is silence. Not my opinion, Church teaching.
Sometimes silence is necessary, granted. Other times... not so much.
What do you think Padre Pio would say about Paul VI's Mass? The enemy colonizers of the Vatican didn't want to wait and find out.
There is reliable testimony that Padre Pio was slowly poisoned by his Masonic physician and was made to die in 1968, before the universal imposition of the supernaturally gutted “New Mass” of the homosexual Antipope Paul VI, which Padre Pio would certainly have opposed. There also used to be an article, “Who Poisoned Padre Pio,” but unseen powers have apparently scrubbed it from the internet. Here are some quotes from it, though:
"... Everyone saw that Padre Pio was declining day to day....several Capuchins assigned to him agreed in affirming that Padre Pio was being poisoned by medicines. Padre Pio had been “stuffed” with sleeping pills and barbiturates....Professor Giuseppe Gusso, a man of integrity and most devoted to Padre Pio, said that «Some doctors in favor of Padre Pio, without the friars knowing it, have analyzed some of Padre Pio’s urine in the laboratory of the Clinic... traces of barbiturates have been found that would have killed a horse in three days.» "One day Padre Pio told [one] who had come to visit him: «Take that bottle of pills and throw it away, before the nurse arrives.»"It was said that Montini (future Paul VI) and the head of the Capuchin Friars, Father Clemente directed the poisoning of Padre Pio in the 60s. Incredibly, Pio, knowing he was being poisoned, took the drinks anyway, submitting to God's will in the matter.
"Pio's body was shipped to the US by a military aircraft....A wooden mannequin sculpted by Val Gardena replaced his body in the tomb. Apparently, the whole affair was managed by Skull and Bonesman, Robert A. Lovett, former US Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of State. Why and where? Who knows at this point. Ironically, San Giovanni Rotondo was going broke and needed a body, even a mannequin appearing as a body of Pio to display to get tourists to come and venerate and give money to the friary. They were losing billions of lira at the time and needed what looked like Pio's corpse to help raise cash."
"Pio, knowing he was being poisoned, took the drinks anyway, submitting to God's will in the matter."
I cannot believe the Padre Pio believed that it was okay to take poison as a matter of religious obedience. You can't ever legitimately sin to fulfill religious obedience, and voluntarily taking poison is a sin.
He was "poisoned" but it was with sleeping pills and barbiturates, not poison per se. I think rather that Padre Pio had the right to refuse the excessive "medication" but not the moral duty to do so.
While I think that St. Padre Pio would have not gone along with the "new mass", as evidenced by his seeking permission to continue offering the TLM, I think there is a fine line between "conspiracy theories" so called and things that are nothing but conspiracy theories which might sound good but are just a bunch of made up b.s.
For instance, there is no way he would knowingly continue to consume poison in any form writing it off as "the will of God". He was well aware that suicide was a mortal sin. Period. And God does not will someone to die by suicide. He might 'permit' someone to kill themselves, but he would not (nor could) ordain that someone would end their own life.
Could some of the things you quoted have been accurate? Possibly, but not necessarily proven.
Re: St. Padre Pio, true, he died in '68, and the Novus Ordo as we know it today was imposed around '70. (Some sources say 3 April 1969). Either way, there was experimentation before he died, there was a 1965 missal that had changes to the Mass. And he wanted nothing to do with that of course.
I typed the term 1965 Catholic Missal into duckduckgo and a couple links I found might be of interest:
I need some new conspiracy theories as all my old ones have come true.
There was a lot of scullduggery going on at that time and will we ever get to know what happened Sr Lucia of Fatima? She would have had much to say about the vat2 church.
Sr Lucia was almost certainly murdered. She might have also revealed the REAL Third Secret (as opposed to what the enemy colonized Vatican revealed in 2000). I'm fairly certain that it included this:
And that can only happen under a false pope, "the top," as Cardinal Mario Ciappi revealed. Cardinal Ciappi, who read the Third Secret, said, "In the Third Secret it is revealed, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top" (letter to Prof. Baumgartner, 1995), i.e., the papacy, which we can be quite certain means John XXIII & his successors, allowing the counterfeit, Masonic-inspired Vatican II church to be created.
As a lawyer, Thomas More knew that silence implies consent. That is as far as he went. He refused to give actual consent to Henry VIII's plan to marry Anne Boleyn. The classic movie "A Man for All Seasons" elucidates the situation quite well.
Yep, pretty much the way I have been seeing this pontificate but with much of the larger context filled out. Leo seems here to congeal the mush of the Church into a bland paste after Francis tried to smash everything into a pulp.
Please remember, St. Paul did not say, 'Women must wear a veil'. He said we must not pray in a Church with our head uncovered. Hats. scarves, etc, fill this description. How many centuries have passed when machine-made lace was unavailable to most of the population, and hand-made lace was extremely expensive. But covering the head was specified.
I grew up before Vatican II and hats and scarves (and even a clean tissue and bobby pin for a quick visit to the Eucharist) were acceptable signs of female respect in church. We never called it "veiling." Veils were worn by brides, girl First Communicants, and religious sisters and nuns.
Catholic Action is what is required. That is what Christ is calling us to do. Neither you nor Chris Jackson aknowledge the truth: there was no election, because more than 120 cardinals partook in the vote, hence it broke the law governing papal elections by Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis; hence according to said law, what took place is irritus: it never happened. The man dressed in white is play acting. There is no pope in Rome. There is. a way to elect the pope and that is by apostolic law, that set by Saint Peter himself. It is truly Catholic law to arrange an assembly of the faithful of Rome to elect the pope. Without the cardinals. That is what Catholic Action is calling each and every one of us to do. Ignore Chris Jackson and all of Trad inc. They know the answer but will never go there. They want to keep you believing that someone called Leo XIV is the pope. Wake up!
Thank you! That's a practical/helpful comment for a change.
I do almost all that stuff (no tie though), wear my Scapular, and will be surely doing First Saturday Mass tomorrow (the 6th). Yet, reading lots of these comments the past few days, I still feel accused of being "counterfeit" or "masquerading" as a Catholic.
It is not necessary, but shows more respect than the men wearing slogan tee-shirts--in one case endorsing a brand of beer-- I have seen at Sunday Mass. When I was a child, pre-Vatican II, we dressed up for Mass. No plunging necklines or short shorts.
I agree that much of the clothing worn at Mass is not merely inappropriate but inherently disgraceful on virtually any occasion in any place. It should not be allowed at Mass at least.
If you knew more about the Novus Ordo, you might think differently about attending it.
Few know that the Third Secret of Fatima was read by Pius XII in 1957 in the company of various prelates (unpublicized), one of them being the American Cardinal Samuel Stritch, who indirectly revealed 2 parts of it to 2 priest associates, one of the parts foretelling the New Mass:
The Novus Ordo is based on a different doctrine of the Mass than the Traditional Mass, as even its creators admit. See the scholarly (esp. in the notes) but easy to understand Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI by Fr Anthony Cekada, which covers the history & development of both the Traditional & New Mass: sggresources.org/products/work-of-human-hands-by-rev-anthony-cekada
Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824, whose visions inspired much of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ) had seen in her visions a “counterfeit church of darkness” occupying Rome at some time in the future, in an era when she also saw the priest facing the people when saying Mass.
Leo is continuing the wave of apostasy in the Vatican with greater subtlety than Francis. Remember Christ's warning that the False Prophet would be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Thanks for this excellent comprehensive compendium that shows us quite clearly Leo XIV is more of a Francis II. Like many people I was praying that would not be the case but it’s a little too obvious now. Kyrie Eleison Christe Eleison. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
When addressing Prevost’s muted behavior on abortion, I find it salient to juxtapose it to his condemnation of capital punishment. It is a diabolical dichotomy that deserves exposure.
My honeymoon with Leo lasted a couple of weeks. About the time he said Francis was in heaven and he didn’t fire Kissy Fernandez. Are you serious? It was cool that he was an American but ideology trumps nationality.
My honeymoon lasted a couple of hours. Until I heard that Father James Martin thought that Leo was a great choice. OK, I was being very judgemental and jumping to very unmerciful conclusions. But everything I have seen since 8th May confirms my horrible prejudices.
As soon as the election was announced, my wife said “It was baked in already”.
Guess you are saying , you were being human.Our work seems to be to accept endless disappointments without losing our Hope and trust.
No small thing.
It's tragic that any faithful Catholic would ever consider the leaders of a counterfeit church could do anything other than proceed with their revolution against Catholicism.
It was only days after his Latin infused Inauguration (?) Mass in the first week of his papacy he endowed Lavender Mafia bishops with Palliums. That right there should have brought Trad. Inc. out of retirement. But nope. It was Sergeant Schultz all over “We see nuthinnnk!”
As an American his being an American means nothing to me. In fact it seems a calculated move to pester Trump and get American money.
I agree. . Silence is complicit.
To be fair, we have the example of St Thomas More's prudent choice to remain silent as long as he could. Was his silence complicit?
Weak straw man. A pope isn’t a sovereign king. In this case he only plays one on TV.
Actually, the pope is considered a monarch.
The canonization of a man is not the canonization of all his acts. He exhibited heroic virtues, but he was also a repentant sinner. God determines if his acts were prudent and what point they might not have been.
There couldn't have been a worse pope in church history. Every time francis opened his mouth heresy flowed like water!!!
Context is always important.
Above all St. Thomas had the virtue of prudence and understood being politic. Both of those are in short supply in the current discourse.
St Thomas was an expert on REALITY,and you lack the ability to see reality!!!
The primary case against Prevost is that he was illegally elected by a conclave that had 133 electors, 13 more than the maximum number of 120 allowable by law. The whole thing was a fraud and no one will say it. That is the real conspiracy of silence.
The case against Prevost goes a whole lot deeper than that.
In my opinion the primary case against him is that he manifestly did not have the intention to do what a pope does, that is to feed Christ's lambs with the Church's perennial truths. Without that intention, a man cannot become a true and valid pope.
But you would have great difficulty proving that. The case however that there were 133 electors in that illegal conclave when only 120 are permitted is iron clad. And it is enough to nullify the election. Which is why nobody, including the so called alternative trad media who are just as bought and paid for as everybody else, will breathe a word about it.
The problem I see is, would there be enough catholic cardinals left to elect a an orthodox catholic seeing that they would be choosing from their own warped bunch?
My interest is more in publicly shaming these men and showing them for the frauds that they are in a way that can be easily and objectively understood by a great many people, Catholic and non Catholic alike.
I can definitely say yes to that. Being publicly held to account for the fraudsters they are would be justice being seen to be done.
How can there be any Catholic cardinals when they all are heretical adherents of V2 & post-conciliar heresy & other spiritual poison, including the Masonic-inspired Novus Ordo? Is it so hard to believe we are in the time of the Great Apostasy?
novusordowatch.org
Padre Pio "around 1960," as Fr Gabriele Amorth, later chief exorcist of Rome, recalls, told him, "You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church." (Interview with Fr Amorth by José María Zavala, in The Best Kept Secret of Fatima)
Cardinal Mario Ciappi, who read the (suppressed) Third Secret of Fatima, said, "In the Third Secret it is revealed, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." (letter to Prof. Baumgartner, 1995) What is "the top" but the papacy?
It would have been easier for Abraham to have found 10 righteous men in Sodom than to try and find even one righteous Cardinal in the vat2 church. If they are not all vocal supporters of the blessing of sodomy they are none-the-less complicit by.their silence. Any objectors have already been banished under Francis’ reign of terror.but even they have been party to innumerable sins against the faith.
"...cardinals when they all are heretical adherents..."
Many of them may only be material heretics, meaning they are not aware of their heresies. In such a case they would not cease to be Catholics.
There’s no legit cardinals of the One Holy Catholic church Conciliar church is another story
Actions speak louder than words. The intentions of a person can be discerned through his actions. Christ himself referenced this truth in His parable of the two sons who were told by their father to go work in the vineyard. One said that he would go, but did not. The other said he would not go, but later went. As Christ made clear about this, it wasn't words that demonstrated obedience, but actions.
Prevost's actions make it clear that he did not intend to be pope. In fact it is his actions that we are constantly opposing. The things seen (his actions) give testimony to things unseen (the intentions of his heart and mind). As Christ also said, "By their fruits you shall know them"
"Prevost's actions make it clear that he did not intend to be pope."
Did Paul VI intend to be pope?
In 1964, [Paul VI], in the presence of 2000 Bishops, definitively deposed the Tiara on the altar, rejecting the three papal powers, as if to signify that he no longer wanted to govern the Church."
chiesaviva.com/lettera%20ai%20cardinali/letter%20to%20cardinals.pdf (p. 5)
It doesn't matter with Paul VI, since the 5-minutes of white smoke pope of the 1958 conclave was almost certainly still alive when Paul VI was 'elected'.
I think Leo XIV doesn't even know anymore what the Church's perrenial truths are..this top hierarchy blindness is beyond my comprehension..
Of course he doesn't know what the Catholic Church's teachings are because he grew up being taught the non-Catholic religion of Modernism.
I know. My first comment was meant to be like bitter irony.
He is not stupid. I bet he does know when he is changing a perennial Church teaching.
He knows them but like a faithful Modernist & possibly a Freemason, he rejects them. Then again, one can say the same about John XXIII thru Benedict. See "False Popes" tab at novusordowatch.org
I kept a similar list about John Paul II. After a few years, the list had grown to about ten pages and I gave up.
JP II wrote in Mulieris Dignitatem that the new and proper understanding of St Paul is now to hold that a man and wife are to be mutually subject to each other. This contradicted almost 2,000 years of what the Church actually understood and immutably taught concerning St Paul's writing, that a husband is the head of his wife.
It also contradicted reason itself, because it is irrational to say that two persons can be mutually subject to each other. And no Church teaching can be contrary to reason.
When Saint Paul wrote "be subject to one another" he obviously meant to do so according to the proper order of things. But to logically extend the dictum of JP II, a parent would have to be subject to a child just as a child is subject to a parent. Of course JP II never mentioned that.
And for all this bull-in-a-china-shop assault on marriage, JP II got an Institute for the Family named after him. Go figure.
For those interested in a very long list of JPII's betrayal of the Catholic faith, see
novusordowatch.org/john-paul-ii, especially Fr Luigi Villa's ebook there.
Thank you. Unfortunately in Poland if you dare to point out JPII's errors you are called a hater, heretic etc. because of the attitude how dare you to question JPII !!!
I kbow, same here in Croatia. JP II was the pope who recognized Croatian state early, visited my country three times, beatified cardinal Stepinac (real cardinal, hero and saintly martyr). And also he endorsed Medjugorje apparitions, Charismatic Movement, for all of these things he is still like an idol, great, saintly pope. So many people in Novus ordo religion are delude. When they see actions and words of Francis or Leo XIV, they think it goes against JP II or Benedict XVI. They are all part of the same revolution, working for same freemasonic goals. I saw some photos of these pope and they knew how to make a freemasonic handshake...
All heretics should be denounced. Abp Vigano's excellent letter Lapides Clamabunt proved that, if we needed more proof.
Love to see that list! The one presented in this substack is a great start for Prevost, though adding more to it would strengthen the position that the entire VII ape of the church was never the Church Jesus established, but is the work of Satan.
Please consider posting the document or a link to it. God Bless!
Devastating indictment. Hard truth bombs, leaving any true, faithful Catholic hollowed. Chris, if you can, please sign up for Donorbox, so I send my donations to you there (apparently, creators keep a larger % and people are cutting back on subscriptions...but I do want to help!) Cheers, Stephen ~
Thank you! I will look into it.
Superb synopsis. Thank you for that.
I find it almost weird how Leo has made it clear again and again he is following Francis and doing his will. Surely this was what Francis had in mind. Francis wanted to be assured before he went the man who followed him would not let the worms off the hook, keep em squirming. The mission must continue! Francis could then die in his version of peace. He had met with Prevost many times in private, who knows what assurances were given. Prevost made sure to tell us worms he was continuing the gospel of Francis. Was that to us or the enforcers. He has done so, even canonized the scoundrel, which is a scandal. It seems very...obligatory, almost as if it were all agreed to beforehand, as part of an agreement.
We should not be negotiating or appeasing illegitimate squatters. These men/people infesting the church are not Catholic! Their religion is false. We were told to consider them anathema.
They ARE anathema, by their own deeds!
I have been reading Chris Jackson for only 3 or 4 months, simply because he is a one-percenter both intellectually, and ecclesially, and he presents the facts, like it or not.
Disturbing, infuriating, anxiety-producing truth is still true, and must be told regardless of the worldly protestations and acquiescence of "Trad inc."
I was compelled to write, to publicly applaud his efforts and to remind him that countless Roman Catholics who reject the heresies of the 'Post Conciliar' remember him in our prayers.
† Deo Iuvante, semper fidelis.
It is not just Isaac of Ninevah who is a universalist praised and informally canonised by Pope Leo. Leo has also effectively canonised Pope Francis (let's skip all the ghastly bureaucracy and paperwork). And Francis was a plain universalist, if words have any meaning. Look at his audience on 11th Oct 2017:
"On Wednesday, October 11, at the general audience in Saint Peter’s Square, Francis said that such a judgment is not to be feared, because “at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus,” and therefore “everything will be saved. Everything.”
In the text distributed to the journalists accredited to the Holy See, this last word, “everything,” was emphasized in boldface."
https://onepeterfive.com/worlds-end-update-last-things-according-francis/
I am sure that any number of Popesplainers will declare, Bill Clinton style, that it all depends what you mean by "saved" and "everything". And it was not a formal ex cathedra proclamation, so it was just random noises coming out of the Papal face. Move along, nothing to see.
But if this is not universalism, universalism has no meaning.
And if it is Universalism All Round, with everyone from St Peter to Joseph Stalin in the Happy Place....what is the point of the existence of the Church?
Besides his own acts and teachings alluding to universal salvationism, JP2 helped set the scene for this new gospel when he used a quote from Julian of Norwich in his CCC (paragraphs 304-313) more or less giving credence to this belief, 'All will be well and all manner of things will be well.' if I remember correctly the full context of her quote is related to a supossed great prodigy God will work at the end of time that will astound all creation and this hope of all being saved is alluded to. However there's no reference to such an event in public revelation but actually the opposite is clearly taught.
If you read the Second Vatican II Council's documents, it is evident that there is no point (according to them) of the existence of the Catholic Church unless it makes you feel good to belong to it and not some other church and if you believe in it's heretical teachings. Because all religions, or no religion, are paths to salvation. All have some truth and none have all of the truth because truth is that which one individually experiences.
John Paul II taught universal salvation also, or at least that "all religions lead to salvation."
chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf (p. 24, 25, 41)
Leo lost me when he gave his acceptance speech to the cardinals after having “accepted “ the position. He told them that he wanted to be the best administrator he could be!!!!!! WHAT? PARDON ME??? Administrator???? I thought he was to be the Vicar of Christ!
I think Mr. Jackson has made a case that even Christopher Ferrara couldn't credibly dispute (and not that he would try). The only thing that could be added is a post script that mentions how Cupich and his associates along with Martin, were in no way disappointed when Prevost was announced as pope. That by itself tells us all we need to know.
Indeed... "Silence is not prudence. It is complicity." And I would add approval.
But we have the example of St Thomas More's prudent choice to remain silent as long as he could. Was his silence complicit? I don't think so.
Yes, and we have the oft thrown in our face example of St. Padre Pio's obedience used as a club against Trads for not going along with the Vatican II revolution. Different context. I think it could be argued that at first, he was, maybe. But even St. Thomas More reached a point where he had to choose a side, so to speak. When that moment came, he spoke out and he lost his earthly life, becoming a martyr, thus gaining an eternal crown in heaven, which I suspect Henry did not.
As for St. Padre Pio, what most people conveniently forget is that he was a Religious, bound by a vow of obedience, St. Thomas More was not. Also, seriously, no b.s., no games here, do you think for even a nanosecond that if some scumbag bishop had ordered St. Padre Pio to bend over the altar under obedience that that Bishop wouldn't have gotten his butt kicked?
One last point, as I'm sure you know, there are 9 ways a person can be complicit in another's sin. One of those is silence. Not my opinion, Church teaching.
Sometimes silence is necessary, granted. Other times... not so much.
What do you think Padre Pio would say about Paul VI's Mass? The enemy colonizers of the Vatican didn't want to wait and find out.
There is reliable testimony that Padre Pio was slowly poisoned by his Masonic physician and was made to die in 1968, before the universal imposition of the supernaturally gutted “New Mass” of the homosexual Antipope Paul VI, which Padre Pio would certainly have opposed. There also used to be an article, “Who Poisoned Padre Pio,” but unseen powers have apparently scrubbed it from the internet. Here are some quotes from it, though:
"... Everyone saw that Padre Pio was declining day to day....several Capuchins assigned to him agreed in affirming that Padre Pio was being poisoned by medicines. Padre Pio had been “stuffed” with sleeping pills and barbiturates....Professor Giuseppe Gusso, a man of integrity and most devoted to Padre Pio, said that «Some doctors in favor of Padre Pio, without the friars knowing it, have analyzed some of Padre Pio’s urine in the laboratory of the Clinic... traces of barbiturates have been found that would have killed a horse in three days.» "One day Padre Pio told [one] who had come to visit him: «Take that bottle of pills and throw it away, before the nurse arrives.»"It was said that Montini (future Paul VI) and the head of the Capuchin Friars, Father Clemente directed the poisoning of Padre Pio in the 60s. Incredibly, Pio, knowing he was being poisoned, took the drinks anyway, submitting to God's will in the matter.
"Pio's body was shipped to the US by a military aircraft....A wooden mannequin sculpted by Val Gardena replaced his body in the tomb. Apparently, the whole affair was managed by Skull and Bonesman, Robert A. Lovett, former US Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of State. Why and where? Who knows at this point. Ironically, San Giovanni Rotondo was going broke and needed a body, even a mannequin appearing as a body of Pio to display to get tourists to come and venerate and give money to the friary. They were losing billions of lira at the time and needed what looked like Pio's corpse to help raise cash."
See "The Secret of Padre Pio's Empty Tomb": chiesaviva.com/tomba%20vuota%20ing.pdf
"Pio, knowing he was being poisoned, took the drinks anyway, submitting to God's will in the matter."
I cannot believe the Padre Pio believed that it was okay to take poison as a matter of religious obedience. You can't ever legitimately sin to fulfill religious obedience, and voluntarily taking poison is a sin.
He was "poisoned" but it was with sleeping pills and barbiturates, not poison per se. I think rather that Padre Pio had the right to refuse the excessive "medication" but not the moral duty to do so.
While I think that St. Padre Pio would have not gone along with the "new mass", as evidenced by his seeking permission to continue offering the TLM, I think there is a fine line between "conspiracy theories" so called and things that are nothing but conspiracy theories which might sound good but are just a bunch of made up b.s.
For instance, there is no way he would knowingly continue to consume poison in any form writing it off as "the will of God". He was well aware that suicide was a mortal sin. Period. And God does not will someone to die by suicide. He might 'permit' someone to kill themselves, but he would not (nor could) ordain that someone would end their own life.
Could some of the things you quoted have been accurate? Possibly, but not necessarily proven.
See my reply to DJG below.
Re- the Novus Ordo, it wasn't imposed until 1970 & P Pio died in 1968.
Yes, I had read that before I replied to you.
Re: St. Padre Pio, true, he died in '68, and the Novus Ordo as we know it today was imposed around '70. (Some sources say 3 April 1969). Either way, there was experimentation before he died, there was a 1965 missal that had changes to the Mass. And he wanted nothing to do with that of course.
I typed the term 1965 Catholic Missal into duckduckgo and a couple links I found might be of interest:
https://www.ccwatershed.org/2013/11/15/1965-missale-romanum-online/
https://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/
I need some new conspiracy theories as all my old ones have come true.
There was a lot of scullduggery going on at that time and will we ever get to know what happened Sr Lucia of Fatima? She would have had much to say about the vat2 church.
Sr Lucia was almost certainly murdered. She might have also revealed the REAL Third Secret (as opposed to what the enemy colonized Vatican revealed in 2000). I'm fairly certain that it included this:
1. Judeo-Masonic overthrow of the papacy
2. bad council
3. bad mass
youtube.com/watch?v=nO-8UhGOagg&t=4s (3 min, 40 sec; the YT channel has more)
Even Benedict XVI when cardinal credibly revealed to Fr Dollinger, a close friend of his, that the Third Secret of Fatima included the foretelling of "a bad council and a bad mass": onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima
And that can only happen under a false pope, "the top," as Cardinal Mario Ciappi revealed. Cardinal Ciappi, who read the Third Secret, said, "In the Third Secret it is revealed, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top" (letter to Prof. Baumgartner, 1995), i.e., the papacy, which we can be quite certain means John XXIII & his successors, allowing the counterfeit, Masonic-inspired Vatican II church to be created.
Yes.
I just wanted to make the point that silence is not always complicity
Ok, fair enough.
As a lawyer, Thomas More knew that silence implies consent. That is as far as he went. He refused to give actual consent to Henry VIII's plan to marry Anne Boleyn. The classic movie "A Man for All Seasons" elucidates the situation quite well.
"...silence implies consent" vs. "actual consent"
Is there then a difference between the consent which is 'implied' and the consent which is 'actual'?
I would think there would have to be. Silence may be a result of prudence, fear or some other cause rather than actual consent.
Yes, I agree. And that is how "A Man for All Seasons" presents it.
Yep, pretty much the way I have been seeing this pontificate but with much of the larger context filled out. Leo seems here to congeal the mush of the Church into a bland paste after Francis tried to smash everything into a pulp.
How do we recognize and resist?
-Read Chris Jackson's blog to stay informed 😉
-Go to a TLM chapel.
-Only support your local parish priest and the traditional orders.
-Refuse to attend any safe environment training (e.g., Virtus)
-Homeschool your children (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/09/news-from-charlotte-bishops-comes-for.html?m=1#more)
Uniform/weaponry/training:
-Men: wear a tie at Mass
-Women: wear a veil at Mass
-Women: stay out of the sanctuary
-Bring your TLM missal to Mass (Novus Ordo)
-Use your knees
-Holy Communion on the tongue (Novus Ordo)
-Holy Hour of Adoration
-Pray as the martyrs did
-Read good commentaries on the Mass (https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/The_Church_Year/)
-Read the Saints' lives for inspiration
Be Gideon's Army! 🪖💪
Pray the Rosary daily.
Read good spiritual books.
Please remember, St. Paul did not say, 'Women must wear a veil'. He said we must not pray in a Church with our head uncovered. Hats. scarves, etc, fill this description. How many centuries have passed when machine-made lace was unavailable to most of the population, and hand-made lace was extremely expensive. But covering the head was specified.
I grew up before Vatican II and hats and scarves (and even a clean tissue and bobby pin for a quick visit to the Eucharist) were acceptable signs of female respect in church. We never called it "veiling." Veils were worn by brides, girl First Communicants, and religious sisters and nuns.
Catholic Action is what is required. That is what Christ is calling us to do. Neither you nor Chris Jackson aknowledge the truth: there was no election, because more than 120 cardinals partook in the vote, hence it broke the law governing papal elections by Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis; hence according to said law, what took place is irritus: it never happened. The man dressed in white is play acting. There is no pope in Rome. There is. a way to elect the pope and that is by apostolic law, that set by Saint Peter himself. It is truly Catholic law to arrange an assembly of the faithful of Rome to elect the pope. Without the cardinals. That is what Catholic Action is calling each and every one of us to do. Ignore Chris Jackson and all of Trad inc. They know the answer but will never go there. They want to keep you believing that someone called Leo XIV is the pope. Wake up!
Thank you! That's a practical/helpful comment for a change.
I do almost all that stuff (no tie though), wear my Scapular, and will be surely doing First Saturday Mass tomorrow (the 6th). Yet, reading lots of these comments the past few days, I still feel accused of being "counterfeit" or "masquerading" as a Catholic.
It is not a necessary decorum to wear a tie to Mass.
It is not necessary, but shows more respect than the men wearing slogan tee-shirts--in one case endorsing a brand of beer-- I have seen at Sunday Mass. When I was a child, pre-Vatican II, we dressed up for Mass. No plunging necklines or short shorts.
I agree that much of the clothing worn at Mass is not merely inappropriate but inherently disgraceful on virtually any occasion in any place. It should not be allowed at Mass at least.
If you knew more about the Novus Ordo, you might think differently about attending it.
Few know that the Third Secret of Fatima was read by Pius XII in 1957 in the company of various prelates (unpublicized), one of them being the American Cardinal Samuel Stritch, who indirectly revealed 2 parts of it to 2 priest associates, one of the parts foretelling the New Mass:
youtube.com/watch?v=nO-8UhGOagg&t=4s (3 min, 40 sec; the YT channel has more)
Even Benedict XVI when cardinal credibly revealed to Fr Dollinger, a close friend of his, that the Third Secret of Fatima included the foretelling of "a bad council and a bad mass": onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima
More at novusordowatch.org/holy-catholic-mass
The Novus Ordo is based on a different doctrine of the Mass than the Traditional Mass, as even its creators admit. See the scholarly (esp. in the notes) but easy to understand Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI by Fr Anthony Cekada, which covers the history & development of both the Traditional & New Mass: sggresources.org/products/work-of-human-hands-by-rev-anthony-cekada
youtube.com/watch?v=KN7oftiL4XY (chapter summaries)
Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824, whose visions inspired much of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ) had seen in her visions a “counterfeit church of darkness” occupying Rome at some time in the future, in an era when she also saw the priest facing the people when saying Mass.
A "bad mass" is a contradiction in terms.
Really? If there can be an invalid Mass, even a Satanic Black Mass, is not the term "bad mass" legitimate?
An invalid mass is not a mass at all. The same would apply to a Satanic Black Mass. Erroneous use of the word Mass does not make it a Mass.
Leo is continuing the wave of apostasy in the Vatican with greater subtlety than Francis. Remember Christ's warning that the False Prophet would be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
https://tjgerminator.substack.com/p/the-false-prophet-chapter-one-the
What a great summary of Leo XIV’s “accomplishments”, Chris!
It’s quite a long list already at this early stage of his “pontificate”.
Given Leo’s age, It makes one think that this trend will go on for the next two decades, unless he has a conversion of heart.
Thanks for this excellent comprehensive compendium that shows us quite clearly Leo XIV is more of a Francis II. Like many people I was praying that would not be the case but it’s a little too obvious now. Kyrie Eleison Christe Eleison. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
When addressing Prevost’s muted behavior on abortion, I find it salient to juxtapose it to his condemnation of capital punishment. It is a diabolical dichotomy that deserves exposure.
It is certainly an irrational dichotomy.