His Name May Be Francis, But He's Been Less Than Frank

Here's just a partial list of the doctrinal and moral aberrations as reported by other web sites concerning the "conservative" "Pope" Francis:

• He comes from that order in the Vatican II sect, the Jesuits, most criminally involved in the sex and money scandals, as well as "Liberation Theology."

• At an "Ecumenical Meeting" at Buenos Aires on June 19, 2006, he knelt to received the imposition of hands from Protestant ministers there present. 

• He is a flaming "ecumenist" (syncretist), who has been prominently involved in all kinds of blatantly unCatholic and anti-Catholic gatherings with Protestants, Jews, and Mohammedans, many of which he allowed to be held in his own Vatican II cathedral.

• Like Ratzinger, he is a particular friend of the Jews, who hailed his election. He has regularly participated in Jewish services and in lighting the menorah.

• He has shown a hostility to the "Latin Mass," even Ratzinger's Modernist Vatican II "Motu" Mess of 1962+ additions.

• He has been described by one of his own flock as "an utter enemy of tradition."

• He has espoused a decidedly Modernist mindset of "a changing tradition."

Bergoglio is just another heretic, the sixth antipope of the Vatican II sect. He is a Modernist and will hopefully be more and more radical, putting the nail in the Vatican II coffin, and sending many into the loving arms of the True Church of Traditionalism. Don't be fooled by media reports of "humility" and being "conservative" (a label that doesn't even apply to Catholicism--you're either orthodox or heterodox). He's not about to deny those reports of false humility and conservatism either. He's not Frank; he's a phony.

Habemus Anti-Papam

Today, March 13, 2013, the Vatican II sect elected their sixth antipope, Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, who will take the name "Pope" Francis. Unfortunately, he is a surreptitious Modernist like Ratzinger, who will continue to advance "Frankenchurch" under the guise of being "conservative."
He is perceived as conservative because he will probably not introduce women priestesses, or allow abortion. The record of Mr. Bergoglio, the first layman "pope" neither validly ordained (1969) or consecrated (1992), speaks differently and has some pseudo-traditionalists scared. From one such blog, they write:

"Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.

Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.

His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.

He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was "blessed" by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the "powers" of the TV-pastors.

This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion or homosexual "marriage"[approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.

It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work."

Alas, it is EXACTLY what Ratzinger wanted, namely, another unrepentant Modernist. They may differ in style but their substance is the same--Satanic. More about Bergoglio in the days ahead.

Screaming to Heaven for Vengeance

"Archbishop" Sal Cordileone of San Francisco, who was recently arrested for drunk driving, has one of his "pastors" removing the photo of Ex-antipope Ratzinger from the Church? The reason? As the parish bulletin stated," The feeling was while he was pope, as well as his time as a cardinal, Pope Benedict had made hurtful and hateful statements regarding the LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual] Community and, thus, his picture should not be placed on the altar [sic] of Most Holy Redeemer. I was also warned, many parishioners would walk out of Sunday Mass [sic] if the picture was not removed."

 It's the normal people with any sense of the Catholic Faith who, like Lot, should walk away and not look back until they rest in a Traditionalist Catholic Church. What will happen to Cordelione who tacitly approves this mess? Like the secular law, he will get a slap on the wrist from the heretics in the Vatican. The new antipope will do nothing. Now it's becoming ever more clear that the so-called "Red Dossier," which contains of a homosexual cabal running out of the Vatican itself and 300 pages of documented corruption under Ratzinger and Wotyla, is the principle reason behind Ratzinger's abdication. It also explains why the "bishops" get away with murder---and sodomy---which are two of the four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. Such vengeance may not be far behind.

The Real March Madness Begins

Tomorrow, March 12, 2013, the Vatican II sect shall begins its false conclave to elect the next antipope. Many people wonder when a real conclave can or will occur. Will Christ Himself end this period of sedevacante since at least 1964? Are the so-called sedeprivationists (i.e., those who hold to the theory which states that an antipope-heretic is still a "material" pope who can only appoint cardinals, but becomes a "formal" and true pope should he abjure the heresies of Vatican II, embrace the One True Faith, and get validly consecrated as bishop in the Traditional Rite if needed) to be proved correct if the next antipope converts? Many people begin to have doubts about sedevacantism because of the length of time we have been without a pope.

Do not be deceived by the length of time the Chair of Peter has been empty. It's not crazy to think the Church could be without a pope for so long; it is insanity to expect anything but another heretic to emerge from this conclave. I will now quote from theologian, Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, as revised and edited by Mr. John Lane in 1999:

"In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, comprising twenty-nine essays by Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme.

For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O'Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:

1. that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
   
2. that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).

Of course Fr. O'Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:

Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850.

Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.

Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.

He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation.

The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circumstances unrelated to Fr. O'Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.

At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking "provinces" of the Society - that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.

In short Fr. O'Reilly was widely recognised as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.

Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):

"Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian - one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths - cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times."

Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what "signal benefit" we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O'Reilly's writing.

We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called "The Pastoral Office of the Church". On page 33 Fr. O'Reilly says this (emphases added):

"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."

Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".

Fr. O'Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 - our emphases added):

"A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim."

This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O'Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following. Back to Fr. O'Reilly:

"The Council assembled in 1414...

"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."

Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is "by no means manifest" that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.

And, indeed, as Fr. O'Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):

"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance...nor ever with such a following...

"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."

While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaias 55:8)"

And in Rome, the maddness begins....

Shooting Yourself In the Foot is More Than An Opinion

 After the death of my Spiritual Father, the late great Fr. Gommar A. DePauw in 2005, I began attending Mass at the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV). They are a wonderful and dedicated group of priests led by Bishops Kelly and Santay who derive their episcopal orders from the late Bishop Alfred Mendez of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The group is officially sedevacantist, but they don't want to impose a theological "opinion" on anyone else. Hence, their sermons, like the one I heard today, are of the "nice, nice, sweet, sweet" variety where we talk about spirituality and never dare bring up the topic of sedevacantism directly.

 To be sure, they make it clear that to receive Communion, one must be in the state of grace, fasting, and "embrace the Catholic Faith whole and entire, as it was always held before Vatican II." Furthermore, "one can not attend the Novus Ordo, the Motu/Indult Mass, or Masses of the Society of St Peter (FSSP)." They will only touch upon sedevacantism rarely, and then dance around the specifics as to why one must have nothing to do with the Vatican II sect. So they don't want to be controversial right? There are other things to discuss besides attacks on Modernist Rome, and sedevacantism is an "opinion" after all.

 The sad result of not taking the heretics head on hit home today as I was preparing to go into the 8:30 High Mass. I was downstairs by the excellent book shop while those attending the 7 am Low Mass were starting to leave. The nice gentleman who takes care of the bookshop (I'll call him Mr. M) seemed very sad. We had spoken on several occasions and he knew I was with Fr. DePauw for many years. He started with Father back in the 1960s when he was the "only game in town" for the True Faith, Mass and sacraments. In 1978, when the Society of St. Pius X opened up, he attended Mass there because he wanted his two sons to go to their school and insulate them from the Modernism that had taken hold everywhere since Vatican II. Father DePauw never ran a school. Later, when nine priests split to form the de facto sedevacantist Society of St Pius V, Mr. M went with them.

 This morning Mr. M said to me "I called the Ave Maria Chapel (Fr DePauw's chapel) this week to get my son's baptismal certificate. He's getting married." I congratulated him, though he seemed crestfallen. He continued, "He's marrying in the Vatican II Church. He said you're supposed to get married in the girl's parish. I'm not going, that's for sure." He looked like he was holding back tears as he turned and walked away.

 Not to place blame on the good priests of the SSPV, but perhaps if his son heard sedevacantism preached loud and proud at least once a month and had not been educated in an SSPX school where the "pope" is accepted but Vatican II rejected, he would realize that saying his fiance's "parish" is another expression of Catholicism is ludicrous. The whole idea of sedevacantism being an "opinion" is itself absurd. Either the post-Vatican II popes are legitimate and must be obeyed (in which case Vatican II can't be bad and must be accepted) or Vatican II is heretical and those who adhere to it, including the post-Vatican II "popes" (with the next one on the way), are antipopes and must be rejected. To quote from Bishop Donald Sanborn:

Opinionism places the identity of the Roman Pontiff, i.e., whether Ratzinger is the Vicar of Christ or not, in the category of "theological opinion."
The very term opinion indicates that it is not certain whether he is or he is not the pope. It is impossible to hold, however, that there is a lack of certitude on this subject.
Those who hold that he is the pope point to absolutely certain signs: (1) a legal election which was universally accepted; (2) Ratzinger's own acceptance of the election; (3) Ratzinger's functioning as pope; (4) the universal acceptance of Ratzinger as a legitimate pope.
None of these things is uncertain. If one is using these arguments as evidence of his papacy, where is there any room for doubt?

Those who argue against his papacy use arguments which are in themselves certain and incontestable: (1) that he has promulgated to the universal Church false doctrines, false moral teaching, and evil disciplines; (2) that he has said heretical things and has acted like a heretic, even an apostate, on many, many occasions; (3) that he has appointed heretics and/or apostates to the Roman Curia and to episcopal sees, maintains them in power, and is in communion with them.
None of these facts is disputable or in doubt. They are sufficient, particularly no. 1, to prevent him from being pope.

So if you hold that he IS the pope, for the reasons alleged, how could you hold that it is a legitimate opinion to say that he is not the pope? If you hold that he is NOT the pope, for the reasons alleged, how could you say that it is a legitimate opinion to say that he is the pope? Where is the doubt? Where is there, in these arguments, any fear that the opposite side may be true?

The theological underpinning and the moral justification of the traditional movement is that Vatican II and its reforms are false and evil. They are a substantial distortion of Catholicism. Why do we establish an apostolate against that of Ratzinger and the local Novus Ordo bishop, except because the doctrines, rites, and disciplines of Vatican II and its reforms are contrary to faith and morals? If they are not contrary to faith and morals, then why do we have a traditional movement? Why are we doing this? What justification would we have to do it in the eyes of God?

If, however, it is certain that Vatican II and its reforms are contrary to faith and morals, then it is certain that they are not promulgated by the Church. If, in turn, it is certain that they are promulgated by the Church, then it is certain that those who promulgate them do not represent the Catholic Church. Then it is certain that Ratzinger is not the pope.

The conclusion that Ratzinger is pope carries with it necessary conclusions: that the doctrines, disciplines, and rites which he has universally promulgated are Catholic and not sinful. If Ratzinger is pope, then by the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church, the religion which he approves and promulgates is the Catholic Faith. One could practice it in all good conscience; indeed one must.
The conclusion, on the other hand, that the doctrines, disciplines and rites of Vatican II are false and evil, and contrary to Faith, religion, and good morals, carries with it a necessary conclusion: that the person or persons who have promulgated it do not have the authority of Christ. The infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, which come from the solemnly promised assistance of Christ, cannot bear that such a thing happen. One must conclude to Ratzinger's non-papacy, if one concludes these things about Vatican II

So it is impossible, logically and theologically to say, "I accept Ratzinger as pope, but I reject Vatican II and its reforms." Likewise it is impossible, logically and theologically to go the other way, saying, "I reject Vatican II and its reforms, but I accept Ratzinger as pope."

In other words, Ratzinger's papacy necessarily means the religion he promulgates is Catholic, and the non-Catholicism of Vatican II and its reforms necessarily means that Ratzinger cannot be pope.
The Society of Saint Pius X is guilty of the first fallacy, of accepting Ratzinger but rejecting his religion. They mount a worldwide defiance of him by the establishment of a parallel apostolate in which they try to lure souls away from him and his hierarchy.

The opinionist is guilty of the second fallacy. He rejects Vatican II and its reforms, but admits the acceptance of Ratzinger is theologically viable. It makes no sense.

If you have undertaken a resistance to Vatican II and its reforms, you cannot say that it is a legitimate opinion to hold that Ratzinger is the pope. To say this is to implicitly admit that you are not certain that Vatican II and its reforms are truly contrary to faith and morals. To be opinionist about Ratzinger is to be opinionist (and therefore doubtful) about the whole basis of the resistance to Vatican II.
If it is possible that Ratzinger is pope, then it is possible that Vatican II, the New Mass, the new sacraments, the new canon law, and ecumenism are Catholic. If it is possible that Ratzinger is pope, then it is possible that we are all wrong about Vatican II."

 We are not wrong about Vatican II and the Counterfeit Catholic sect it spawned, so it's about time we ask all True priests to speak about sedevacantism often, in order to remind those born in the 1990s and later what happened, and why we fought so hard to give them the One True Faith of the One True Church. The Vatican II "parish" is NOT Catholic. If we Traditionalists fail to properly instruct our young members they will be ensnared in the ecumenical Frankenchurch--after all (they will protest), the guy in Rome might be the pope, so you can't enforce your opinion on me! I'd rather be with my friends and girlfriend/boyfriend in the closer Catholic church without all the rules. This is shooting ourselves in the foot, and it's not simply my opinion. Just ask Mr. M.

The End?

 Speculation about the end of the world and the parousia (i.e. Second Coming of Christ) have abounded since the first century. One only need to think back to 2011 when Harold Camping, a self-styled Protestant "Bible expert", predicted the so-called "rapture" to occur on May 21 of that year, and the end of the world five months later on October 21. He duped many people who sold their houses and quit their jobs in anticipation of "the end." Now, with the abdication of Ratzinger from his "papacy", Traditionalists themselves are wondering aloud about the prophesies of St. Malachy and if someone named "Peter" will fulfil his prediction that the end will occur during his "reign."

 Unfortunately, I find too many Traditionalists putting heavy reliance on private revelations (Fatima, St. Malachy, etc) instead of sound theology when dealing with many topics. You can easily fall prey to charlatans like the "seers" of Bayside and Medjugorje. To a point, I can sympathize, because of the unique situation of being in an age of near universal apostasy since Vatican II; something hitherto unknown. Does the historical situation of having a "Pope Emeritus" and a "pope" both residing in Rome and neither ever holding or having held the Petrine Office mean we're close to the end of the world? Let's do what True Catholics have always done, namely, consult the teaching of the Magisterium as expressed through the Church's approved theologians before Vatican II.


According to theologian Ludwig Ott, there will be five signs that will precede the Second Coming:
My commentary will appear in red.

1. The preaching of the Gospel to the whole world.

See, e.g. St Matt. 24:14. These words of Christ do not mean every single person must have the Gospel preached to him, nor does it mean that the end will occur immediately thereafter. It is reasonable to assert that the possibility of reaching everyone and moral certainty that most humans can attain to such knowledge would probably suffice. In this age of computers, it could be maintained that such a state is now at hand.

2. The conversion of the Jews.

In Romans 11:25-32, St. Paul reveals "the mystery": When the fullness, that is the number ordained by God, of the Gentiles has entered into the kingdom of God, "all Israel" will be converted and saved. It could well be a universal moral conversion, much akin to the preaching of the Gospel to the "whole world."  Nothing like this appears on the horizon.

3. The Falling Away from the Faith.
 
Jesus foretells that in the time before the end false prophets will appear who will lead many astray. (e.g. See St Matt. 24:4, et seq.). St. Paul asserts that before the Coming of the Lord "the schism", that is the falling away from the Catholic Faith, must happen. (See 2 Thes. 2,3). It's hard for me to resist saying that it appears with almost moral certainty to have already happened at Vatican II.

4.  The appearance of Antichrist

According to Saints Paul and John, Antichrist is to appear as a definite human personality who is the instrument of Satan. The historical interpretation of the Antichrist to a certain time (Nero, Caligula, and others) as well as the historico-religious explanation which seeks the origin of the Antichrist in Babylonian and Persian myths, is to be rejected. The falling away from the Faith will have a causal connection with the appearance of the Antichrist. He appears with the power of Satan working false miracles to lead many astray. He will be slain by Christ at His Second Coming. Could Antichrist be around the corner? Could the next antipope be the False Prophet who by using the ecumenism of the Vatican II sect will bring about a One World church, even as Antichrist seeks a One World Government?

5. Severe Tribulations.

Tremendous catastrophes of nature are to accompany the coming again of Christ. Jesus foretells of wars, famines, earthquakes, and bitter persecutions of His followers (See St. Matt. 24:9). One's mind goes to tsunamis, superstorm Sandy, terrorism, the Middle East, etc.
 (Taken from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Fr. Ludwig Ott, first published in 1952, pgs. 486-488).

Are we in the Last Days? No one knows, nor can anyone know. As Ott states (and the Church teaches) as a "Catholic Truth" guaranteed as certain as a dogma proper that, "The Time of Jesus'  Second Coming is Unknown to Men" (Ibid, pg. 488). There are certainly some scary things going on in the world as outlined above. However, we must heed our Lord's Words in the Our Father to pray for our DAILY bread, and live one day at a time for Him, whatever may come. Let's strive to have a well-grounded Faith supported by theological teaching and--while not disparaging the miraculous--don't entrust our Faith or put our hopes in crying statues, apparitions, and wild-eyed conspiracy theories with Freemasons lurking behind every door.

Stay in the One True Church. Have nothing to do with the false Vatican II sect and its antipope that falsely claim the title "Catholic." Attend the True Mass as often as you are blessed to do so. Frequent the True Sacraments. Pray the Rosary. Stay close to the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph. Do this and have no fear for the future--God will take care of His chosen in the state of sanctifying grace. One day Christ will return and the world will end as we know it. If not in our lifetime, the world will end when we die. In either case, if we persevere until the end, we will be saved. So fear no man, let alone some antipope--be he named Peter or otherwise.

God is Not Mocked

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."--Galatians 6:7

 According to yet another report, Ratzinger's abdication could have also been precipitated by a network of homosexual prelates. This would explain a lot. "Vengence is Mine saith the Lord, I shall repay." What repayment shall Ratzinger's heresy and moral turpitude bring upon the Vatican II establishment? Flaunting the sixth and seventh Commandments (homosexuality and theft of funds, cover-ups) come with consequences--both temporal and eternal. Read the following report from The Guardian (United Kingdom):


A potentially explosive report has linked the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI to the discovery of a network of gay prelates in the Vatican, some of whom – the report said – were being blackmailed by outsiders.The pope's spokesman declined to confirm or deny the report, which was carried by the Italian daily newspaper La Republica.The paper said the pope had taken the decision on 17 December that he was going to resign – the day he received a dossier compiled by three cardinals delegated to look into the so-called "Vatileaks" affair.

Last May Pope Benedict's butler, Paolo Gabriele, was arrested and charged with having stolen and leaked papal correspondence that depicted the Vatican as a seething hotbed of intrigue and infighting.According to La Repubblica, the dossier comprising "two volumes of almost 300 pages – bound in red" had been consigned to a safe in the papal apartments and would be delivered to the pope's successor upon his election.
The newspaper said the cardinals described a number of factions, including one whose members were "united by sexual orientation".In an apparent quotation from the report, La Repubblica said some Vatican officials had been subject to "external influence" from laymen with whom they had links of a "worldly nature". The paper said this was a clear reference to blackmail.It quoted a source "very close to those who wrote [the cardinal's report]" as saying: "Everything revolves around the non-observance of the sixth and seventh commandments." The seventh enjoins against theft. The sixth forbids adultery, but is linked in Catholic doctrine to the proscribing of homosexual acts.

La Repubblica said the cardinals' report identified a series of meeting places in and around Rome. They included a villa outside the Italian capital, a sauna in a Rome suburb, a beauty parlour in the centre, and a former university residence that was in use by a provincial Italian archbishop.Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said: "Neither the cardinals' commission nor I will make comments to confirm or deny the things that are said about this matter. Let each one assume his or her own responsibilities. We shall not be following up on the observations that are made about this."

He added that interpretations of the report were creating "a tension that is the opposite of what the pope and the church want" in the approach to the conclave of cardinals that will elect Benedict's successor. Another Italian daily, Corriere della Sera, alluded to the dossier soon after the pope announced his resignation on 11 February, describing its contents as "disturbing".The three-man commission of inquiry into the Vatileaks affair was headed by a Spanish cardinal, Julián Herranz. He was assisted by Cardinal Salvatore De Giorgi, a former archbishop of Palermo, and the Slovak cardinal Jozef Tomko, who once headed the Vatican's department for missionaries.

Pope Benedict has said he will stand down at the end of this month; the first pope to resign voluntarily since Celestine V more than seven centuries ago. Since announcing his departure he has twice apparently referred to machinations inside the Vatican, saying that divisions "mar the face of the church", and warned against "the temptations of power".La Repubblica's report was the latest in a string of claims that a gay network exists in the Vatican. In 2007 a senior official was suspended from the congregation, or department, for the priesthood, after he was filmed in a "sting" organised by an Italian television programme while apparently making sexual overtures to a younger man.

In 2010 a chorister was dismissed for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting. A few months later a weekly news magazine used hidden cameras to record priests visiting gay clubs and bars and having sex.The Vatican does not condemn homosexuals. But it teaches that gay sex is "intrinsically disordered". Pope Benedict has barred sexually active gay men from studying for the priesthood.

 Notice it says "sexually active gay men" not those who report to be "celibate." Since homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, they can't be trusted to be celibate and the True Church always rejected such applicants. That changed in the 1960's with Ratzinger's Vatican II Council, and now we see the results as lives-- ruined both spiritually and psychologically-- pile up.