“Friedrich Hayek took one of the two epigraphs for his book, The Road to Serfdom, from the philosopher David Hume. “It is seldom,” Hume wrote, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Much as I admire Hume, I wonder whether he got this quite right. Sometimes, I would argue, liberty is erased almost instantaneously.”

Posted on October 6, 2021 by abyssum

The January 6 Insurrection Hoax

September 2021 • Volume 50, Number 9 • Roger Kimball

Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion

Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journaland The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator World, American Greatness, and The Epoch Times. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

Download Issue

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”

Notwithstanding all the hysterical rhetoric surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, two critical things stand out. The first is that what happened was much more hoax than insurrection. In fact, in my judgment, it wasn’t an insurrection at all.

An “insurrection,” as the dictionary will tell you, is a violent uprising against a government or other established authority. Unlike the violent riots that swept the country in the summer of 2020—riots that caused some $2 billion in property damage and claimed more than 20 lives—the January 6 protest at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. lasted a few hours, caused minimal damage, and the only person directly killed was an unarmed female Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol Police officer. It was, as Tucker Carlson said shortly after the event, a political protest that “got out of hand.”

At the rally preceding the events in question, Donald Trump had suggested that people march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”—these were his exact words—in order to make their voices heard. He did not incite a riot; he stirred up a crowd. Was that, given the circumstances, imprudent? Probably. Was it an effort to overthrow the government? Hardly.

I know this is not the narrative that we have all been instructed to parrot. Indeed, to listen to the establishment media and our political masters, the January 6 protest was a dire threat to the very fabric of our nation: the worst assault on “our democracy” since 9/11, since Pearl Harbor, and even—according to Joe Biden last April—since the Civil War!

Note that phrase “our democracy”: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and various talking heads have repeated it ad nauseam. But you do not need an advanced degree in hermeneutics to understand that what they mean by “our democracy” is their oligarchy. Similarly, when Pelosi talks about “the people’s house,” she doesn’t mean a house that welcomes riff-raff like you and me.

I just alluded to Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed supporter of Donald Trump who was shot and killed on January 6. Her fate brings me to the second critical thing to understand about the January 6 insurrection hoax. Namely, that it was not a stand-alone event.

On the contrary, what happened that afternoon, and what happened afterwards, is only intelligible when seen as a chapter in the long-running effort to discredit and, ultimately, to dispose of Donald Trump—as well as what Hillary Clinton might call the “deplorable” populist sentiment that brought Trump to power.

In other words, to understand the January 6 insurrection hoax, you also have to understand that other long-running hoax, the Russia collusion hoax. The story of that hoax begins back in 2015, when the resources of the federal government were first mobilized to spy on the Trump campaign, to frame various people close to Trump, and eventually to launch a full-throated criminal investigation of the Trump administration.

From before Trump took office, the Russia collusion hoax was used as a pretext to create a parallel administration shadowing the elected administration. Remember the Steele dossier, the fantastical document confected by the “well-regarded” former British spy Christopher Steele? We know now that it was the only relevant predicate for ordering FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page and other American citizens.

But in truth, the Steele dossier was just opposition dirt covertly paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. From beginning to end, it was a tissue of lies and fabrications. Everyone involved knew all along it was garbage—rumors and fantasies fed to a gullible Steele by shady Russian sources. But it was nonetheless used to deploy, illegally, the awesome coercive power of the state against a presidential candidate of whom the ruling bureaucracy and its favored candidate disapproved.

The public learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for the manufactured evidence only because of a court order. James Comey, the disgraced former director of the FBI, publicly denied knowing who paid for it, but emails from a year earlier prove that he knew all along. And what was the penalty for lying in Comey’s case? He got a huge book deal and toured the country denouncing Trump to the gleeful satisfaction of his anti-Trump audiences.

What was true of Comey was also true of the entire intelligence apparat, from former CIA Director John Brennan to Congressman Adam Schiff and other Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee to senior members of the FBI. All these people said publicly that they had seen clear evidence of collusion with Russia. But they admitted under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t.

General Michael Flynn, Trump’s original National Security Advisor, had his career ruined and was bankrupted as part of this political vendetta. Meanwhile James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and all the rest of the crew at the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies suffered nothing. When it came to light that an FBI lawyer altered an email in order to help get a FISA warrant—in other words, that he doctored evidence to spy on a political opponent, which is a felony—he got probation.

The recent news that Special Counsel John Durham is indicting Michael Sussman, a lawyer who covertly worked for the Clinton campaign and lied to the FBI, is welcome news. But it seems like small beer given the rampant higher-level corruption that saturated the Russia collusion hoax.

At least 74 million citizens voted for Donald Trump in 2020, which is at least 11 million more than voted for him in 2016. Many of those voters are profoundly disillusioned and increasingly angry about this entire story—the years-long Robert Mueller “investigation,” the two impeachments of President Trump, the cloud of unknowing that surrounds the 2020 election, and the many questions that have emerged not only from the January 6 protest at the Capitol, but even more from the government’s response to that protest.

Which brings me back to Ashli Babbitt, the long-serving Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a nervous Capitol Police officer. Babbitt was a useful prop when the media was in overdrive describing the January 6 events as an “armed insurrection” in which wild Trump supporters, supposedly at Trump’s instigation, attacked the Capitol with the intention of overturning the 2020 election.

According to that narrative, five people, including Babbitt, died in the skirmish. Moreover, it was said, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was bludgeoned to death by a raging Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher. That gem of a story about the fire extinguisher, reported in our former paper of record, The New York Times, was instantly picked up by other media outlets and spread like a Chinese virus.

Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution accords American citizens the right to a speedy trial. But most of the political prisoners of January 6—many of whom have been kept in solitary confinement—are still waiting to be brought to trial. And although the media was full of predictions that they would be found guilty of criminal sedition, none has.

Indeed, the prosecution’s cases seem to be falling apart. Most of the hundreds who have been arrested are being charged with trespassing. Another charge being leveled against them is “disrupting an official proceeding.” This is a felony charge designed not for ceremonial procedures like the January 6 certification of the vote, but rather for disrupting Congressional inquiries—for example, by shredding documents relevant to a Congressional investigation. It originated during the George W. Bush administration to deal with the Enron case.

The indisputable fact about January 6 is that although five people died at or near the Capitol on that day or soon thereafter, none of these deaths was brought about by the protesters. The shot fired by Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd that hit Ashli Babbitt in the neck and killed her was the only shot fired at the Capitol that day. No guns were recovered from the Capitol on January 6. Zero.

The liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald further diminished the “armed insurrection” narrative in an important column last February titled “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.” The title says it all. Kevin Greeson, Greenwald notes, was killed not by the protesters but died of a heart attack outside the Capitol. Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke that day. Rosanne Boyland, another Trump supporter, was reported by The New York Times to have been inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.” But later video shows that, far from that, the police pushed protesters on top of Boyland and would not allow other protesters to pull her out.

Four of the five who died, then, were pro-Trump protesters. And the fifth? Well, that was Officer Sicknick—also a Trump supporter, as it turned out—who, contrary to the false report gone viral of The New York Times, went home, told his family he felt fine, but died a day later from, as The Washington Post eventually and grudgingly reported, “natural causes.” No fire extinguishers were involved in his demise.

***

The January 6 insurrection hoax prompts lots of questions.

Why, for example, did the government mobilize 26,000 federal troops from all across the country to surround “the people’s house” following January 6? Why were those troops subjected to FBI vetting, with some of them sent packing?

Why is there some 14,000 hours of video footage of the event on January 6 that the government refuses to release? What are they afraid of letting the public see? More scenes of security guards actually opening doors and politely ushering in protesters? More pictures of FBI informants covertly salted among the crowd?

My own view is that turning Washington into an armed camp was mostly theater. There was no threat that the Washington police could not have handled. But it was also a show of force and an act of intimidation. The message was: “We’re in charge now, rubes, and don’t you forget it.”

In truth, there is little threat of domestic terror in this country. But there is plenty of domestic conservatism. And that conservatism is the real focus of the establishment’s ire.

It is important to note that while the government provides the muscle for this war on dissent, the elite culture at large is a willing accomplice. Consider, for example, the open letter, signed by more than 500 “publishing professionals” (authors, editors, designers, and so on), calling on the industry to reject books written by anyone who had anything to do with the Trump administration.

These paragons pledged to do whatever they could to stop “enriching the monsters among us.” But here’s their problem: over 74 million people voted for Trump. That’s a lot of monsters.

Many people have been quoting Benjamin Franklin’s famous response when asked what sort of government they had come up with at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.” Right now, it looks like we can’t. It looks as if the American constitutional republic has given way, as least temporarily, to an American oligarchy.

As the years go by, historians, if the censors allow them access to the documents and give them leave to publish their findings, may well count the 2016 presidential election as the last fair and open democratic election in U.S. history. I know we are not supposed to say that. I know that the heads of Twitter and Facebook and other woke guardians of the status quo call this view “The Big Lie” and do all they can to suppress it. But every honest person knows that the 2020 election was tainted.

The forces responsible for the taint had tried before. Hitherto, their efforts had met with only limited success. But a perfect storm of forces conspired to make 2020 the first oligarchic installation of a president. It would not have happened, I think, absent the panic over the Chinese virus. But that panic, folded in a lover’s embrace by the Democratic establishment, was not only a splendid pretext to clamp down on civil liberties; it also provided an inarguable excuse to alter the rules for elections in several key states.

“Inarguable” is not quite the right word. There could have been plenty of arguments, and many lawsuits, against the way the executive branches in these states usurped the constitutionally guaranteed prerogative of state legislatures to set the election rules when they intervened to allow massive mail-in voting. But the Trump administration, though foreseeing and complaining about the executive interventions, did too little too late to make a difference.

Among the many sobering realities that the 2020 election brought home is that in our current and particular form of oligarchy, the people do have a voice, but it is a voice that is everywhere pressured, cajoled, shaped, and bullied. The people also have a choice, but only among a roster of candidates approved by the elite consensus.

The central fact to appreciate about Donald Trump is that he was elected president without the permission, and over the incredulous objections, of the bipartisan oligarchy that governs us. That was his unforgivable offense. Trump was the greatest threat in history to the credentialed class and the globalist administrative state upon which they feed. Representatives of that oligarchy tried for four years to destroy Trump. Remember that the first mention of impeachment came 19 minutes after his inauguration, an event that was met not only by a widespread Democratic boycott and hysterical claims by Nancy Pelosi and others that the election had been hijacked, but also by riots in Washington, D.C. that saw at least six policemen injured, numerous cars torched, and other property destroyed.

You will search in vain for media or other ruling class denunciations of thatviolence, or for bulletins from corporate America advising their customers of their solidarity with the newly-installed Trump administration. As the commentator Howie Carr noted, some riots are more equal than others. Some get you the approval of people like Nancy Pelosi and at least the grudging acceptance of oligarchs of the other party. Others get the FBI sweeping the country for “domestic terrorists” and the lords of Big Tech canceling people who defend the protesters’ cause.

Someday—maybe someday soon—this witches’ sabbath, this festival of scapegoating, and what George Orwell called the “hideous ecstasy” of hate will be at an end. Perhaps someday people will be aghast, and some will be ashamed, of what they did to the President of the United States and people who supported him: the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, for instance, proposing to put Senator Ted Cruz on a “no fly” list, and Simon & Schuster canceling Senator Josh Hawley’s book contract.

Donald Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein (the designated principal enemy of the totalitarian state Oceania in Orwell’s 1984) of the movement. But minor public enemies are legion. Anyone harboring “Trumpist” inclinations is suspect, hence the widespread calls for “deprogramming” Trump’s supporters, who are routinely said to be “marching toward sedition.”

Michael Barone, one of our most perceptive political commentators, got it right when he wrote of the rapid movement “from impeaching incitement to canceling conservatism.” That is the path our oligarchs are inviting us to travel now, criminalizing political dissent and transforming policy differences into a species of heresy. You don’t debate heretics, after all. You seek to destroy them.

Donald Trump’s accomplishments as president were nothing less than stunning. Trump was, and is, a rude force of nature. He accomplished an immense amount. But he lacked one thing. Some say it was self-discipline or finesse. I agree with a friend of mine who suggested that Trump’s critical flaw was a deficit in guile. That sounds odd, no doubt, since Trump is supposed to be the tough guy who mastered “the art of the deal.” But I think my friend is probably right. Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club.

Maybe Trump understands this now. I have no insight into that question. I am pretty confident, though, that the 74 plus million people who voted for him understand it deeply. It’s another reason that The Club should be wary of celebrating its victory too expansively.

Friedrich Hayek took one of the two epigraphs for his book, The Road to Serfdom, from the philosopher David Hume. “It is seldom,” Hume wrote, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Much as I admire Hume, I wonder whether he got this quite right. Sometimes, I would argue, liberty is erased almost instantaneously.

I’d be willing to wager that Joseph Hackett, confronted with Hume’s observation, would express similar doubts. I would be happy to ask Mr. Hackett myself, but he is inaccessible. If the ironically titled “Department of Justice” has its way, he will be inaccessible for a long, long time—perhaps as long as 20 years.

Joseph Hackett, you see, is a 51-year-old Trump supporter and member of an organization called the Oath Keepers, a group whose members have pledged to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The FBI does not like the Oath Keepers—agents arrested its leader in January and have picked up many other members in the months since. Hackett traveled to Washington from his home in Florida to join the January 6 rally. According to court documents, he entered the Capitol at 2:45 that afternoon and left some nine minutes later, at 2:54. The next day, he went home. On May 28, he was apprehended by the FBI and indicted on a long list of charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, and illegally entering a restricted building.

As far as I have been able to determine, no evidence of Hackett destroying property has come to light. According to his wife, it is not even clear that he entered the Capitol. But he certainly was in the environs. He was a member of the Oath Keepers. He was a supporter of Donald Trump. Therefore, he must be neutralized.

Joseph Hackett is only one of hundreds of citizens who have been branded as “domestic terrorists” trying to “overthrow the government” and who are now languishing, in appalling conditions, jailed as political prisoners of an angry state apparat.

Hayek’s overriding concern in The Road to Serfdom was to combat the forces that were pushing people further along that road to servitude. His chief concern was unchecked state power. In a new preface to the book’s 1956 edition, Hayek noted that one of its “main points” was to document how “extensive government control produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

“This means,” Hayek wrote, “that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”

This dismal situation, Hayek continues, can be averted, but only if the spirit of liberty “reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.”

Note the power of that little word “if.” It was not so long ago that an American could contemplate totalitarian regimes and say, “Thank God we’ve escaped that.” It’s not at all clear that we can entertain that happy conviction any longer.

That’s one melancholy lesson of the January 6 insurrection hoax: that America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity is increasingly demanded and enforced.

Another lesson was perfectly expressed by Donald Trump when he reflected on the unremitting tsunami of hostility that he faced as President. “They’re after you,” he more than once told his supporters. “I’m just in the way.”

Bingo.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

In 2019, Professor Edmund Mazza, who is the author of The Scholastics and the Jews Coexistence, Conversion and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance, started suspecting Francis is an “anti-pope” because of his Vatican “enthronement of the South American demon goddess, Pachamama”:

Posted on October 6, 2021 by abyssum

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Author started Suspecting Francis is an “Anti-Pope” because of the his “Enthronement of the South American Demon Goddess, Pachamama”

October 05, 2021

False regard for paganism. Occultism – VIDEO Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate

In 2019, Professor Edmund Mazza, who is the author of The Scholastics and the Jews Coexistence, Conversion and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance, started suspecting Francis is an “anti-pope” because of his Vatican “enthronement of the South American demon goddess, Pachamama”:

In and out of the Vatican, for conferences and what not. But it was really the enthronement of the South American demon goddess, Pachamama, back in October of 2019, that really said, no, something is off here.

And you know you and I are not the only people to actually start thinking like this. Six months ago, his eminence, his excellency, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the speaker at your recent conference… He had something very interesting to say.

In an interview with radio Spada, he said “From many parts of the Catholic world, especially in the conservative milieu, we hear it said that Benedict XVI is the true Pope and that Bergolio is an anti-pope.” And he says something important. He says this opinion is based on the one hand, on the belief that his renunciation is invalid due to the way it was formulated, due to the pressure exerted by external forces, or the distinction between munus, office and papal ministerium or ministry. And on the other hand, the fact that a group of progressive cardinals is said to have tried to have their own candidate elected at the conclave of 2013, in violation of the norms of the apostolic constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, of John Paul II. And then he finishes by saying beyond the plausibility of these arguments, which is confirmed, could invalidate Bergolio’s election. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/10/exclusive-transcription-is-benedict-xvi.html and https://www.patrickcoffin.media/is-benedict-xvi-still-the-pope/]

^{Pray an Our Father now} for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. SHARE

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

As we watch events unfold in 2021, obvious questions about the fitness of our national leaders present themselves. Who are these new woke national icons, and how did they come to lord it over the rest of us? Here are some observations by way of preliminary explanation.

Posted on October 6, 2021 by abyssum

Our Woke National Icons

Milley, Fauci, and Biden are soulless men who

reveal the bankruptcy of our ruling class.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

October 3, 2021

As we watch events unfold in 2021, obvious questions about the fitness of our national leaders present themselves. Who are these new woke national icons, and how did they come to lord it over the rest of us? Here are some observations by way of preliminary explanation.

The Strategist

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley conceded to Congress last week that he has been an anonymous source to controversial “inside” progressive muckrakers detailing the supposed dysfunctions of the prior administration. He strangely characterizes such anonymous, self-serving, behind-the-scenes leaking as some sort of public-service transparency. Evidently, it is now a part of the chairman’s duties to serve the media.

Among the many “background” quotes that Milley provided to meet his journalistic obligations were his various comparisons of his commander-in-chief to Nazis—a violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He reportedly offered further allegations to journalists that news outlets like the Epoch Times and Newsmax were “terrorist” organizations. When pressed on such details the usually punctilious Milley shrugs, in the fashion of James Comey’s under-oath testimonies, that he does “not recall” such specifics. Such is the honor of the nation’s most visible military officer.

Although by statute Milley lacks operational command, he admittedly has intervened in the operational protocols concerning the use of nuclear weapons. At one point, after a conversation with, and on the apparent prompting of, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he redirected normal decision-making channels concerning the potential use of nuclear weapons through his own person. That is forbidden by law—despite what his beltway apologists have pleaded.

More interestingly, though, Milley took it upon himself to call up the major military leaders of Communist China, and to apprise them that (in his opinion) the United States was in crisis (“messy”). No worries, though: the freelancing Milley assured the People’s Liberation Army heads that they should not worry about any preemptive attack or aggression, since Milley himself apparently was in de facto charge of such strategic decision-making and would warn them in advance if his country seemed dangerously aggressive. Thus far in the imbroglio, the Pentagon and the retired military apparently seem comfortable with such a radically new role for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Milley ignored that Trump was the first president in memory who did not initiate a major new military engagement. And when pressed under oath, Milley himself later confessed that he did not think Trump was likely to start a war against anyone—which raises the question of why he even made such a peremptory call to our adversaries? Much of what Milley has testified to under oath before Congress is flatly contradicted by transcripts of his phone call with Pelosi, is in utter conflict with statements made by President Biden and the State Department and cannot be reconciled with his own frequent prior disclosures to journalists.

In sum, America’s highest-ranking honorific military officer has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, has violated the law concerning his own advisory role as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and has either serially not told the truth, or assumes that Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, several journalists (and various earlier incarnations of himself) are all not telling the truth.

Milley has set a new precedent for the leadership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: it is now permissible to be overtly political, to leak confidential conversations to progressive book-writing journalists, to freelance and warn likely enemies if and when the U.S. military might take action against them, and to pick and choose when to exercise (illegally) operational command, and when (legally) to refrain, or at least to remain “only” an advisor, when culpability for a disaster, like the one in Afghanistan, is determined.

Historians will later ponder why this officer has not resigned and what his continued tenure says about the status of the current U.S. military.

The Health Wizard

Our pandemic czar, Anthony Fauci, early on in the COVID-19 crisis praised the efforts of China to work with the world in containing the virus. Yet the Chinese did not disclose accurate information about the nature, origins, and spread of the virus. Indeed, Beijing had locked down the ground-zero Wuhan metropolis from all internal travel, while allowing its possibly infectious residents to fly freely to the United States and Europe.

China then criticized Western travel bans as xenophobic and warped the World Health Organization to the point that its director initially assured the United States that COVID-19 was not a global threat and would be contained.

Fauci himself insisted that the virus’s most likely origins were natural, to be found in animals sold in a Wuhan “wet” market. He also still cannot quite concede that the “science” favors the idea that naturally acquired COVID-19 immunity is comparable or superior to the protection provided by vaccinations. And thus, Fauci cannot adequately explain why someone with antibodies from a prior infection must be vaccinated—other than the assumption of his past use of the “noble lie,” or the idea that grandees must sometimes not tell the truth in a public-spirited effort to prevent ignorant American citizens from doing something not approved by our elites—such as some with natural antibodies not wishing to be vaccinated after recovering from COVID-19.

Fauci has dismissed increasing scientific objections that the virus bore evidence of being engineered, that there were dissident reports from Chinese sources that the virus most likely was released, if accidentally, from the Wuhan top-security virology research lab, and that the Chinese military and government went to great efforts to silence any Chinese scientist or medical professional who connected the Wuhan creation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to the nearby government lab.

Fauci adamantly denied under congressional oath that he had funded any “gain-of-function” viral research in Wuhan. Yet he admitted that his National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, along with the National Institute of Health, had given several hundred thousand dollars for Wuhan virology research, apparently much of it focused on alterations of viruses (in grantese: “further altering the mutant viruses”) to discover levels of infectiousness and transmissibility. And he had routed much of such aid to the Chinese Wuhan lab through the EcoHealth Alliance, an organization run by Dr. Peter Daszak.

Daszak himself headed a “global” medical investigation that strangely enough found no human role in the outbreak of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus. Yet he was later recused from his investigatory leadership, apparently due to failure to disclose his own conflicts of interest in Chinese-Western viral research. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards themselves?)

In the end, we are left with the fact that the controversial, media-obsessed, and highly visible Dr. Anthony Fauci praised Chinese cooperation in containing the virus. He has admitted that a federal agency under his direction had channeled viral research grants to the likely source of the outbreak in a Wuhan virology lab. And yet he has denied the lab itself was either engaged in gain-of-function research or received U.S. dollars to pursue such research, although much of the scientific community now disagrees with his flat-out definition that American subsidized research at Wuhan could not possibly be seen as artificially enhancing the lethality or transmissibility of natural viruses.

The Moral Leader

In the past week, Joe Biden did what he now seems to do every week: He told a series of untruths that the media simply ignored or reported as true. Within the space of a few days, he lied when he said his own border patrol agents whipped illegal aliens trying to enter the United States illegally. He lied when he said only 4 million had been vaccinated when he entered office—although that was not quite as bold a lie as when he earlier entered office claiming that no one had been vaccinated (it was 17 million actually). And he lied about “trillionaires” (none exist) not paying their fair share.

Collate Biden’s accounts of the advice he says he got from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the defense secretary with what the latter two swore to under oath, and either Biden or his military advisors or both are simply not telling the truth.

Biden says that as vice president and as a candidate for president, he never knew of, much less participated in, or profited from, his son Hunter’s various multimillion-dollar shakedowns of foreign governments.

Hunter’s schemes included Ukraine (the Burisma rip-off) and China (his “real estate” partnership bankrolled by $1.5 billion in Chinese investment money). Despite earlier promises, Hunter apparently still has not disposed of his 10-percent stake in an investment company related to the Chinese Communist government that has ties to companies sanctioned by the U.S. government.

Most recently the younger Biden dreamed up a fraudulent art con to hock his paintings to anonymous buyers, who are more interested in buying his father’s clout than investing in Hunter’s lack of artistic ability. Hunter, remember, has no business talent to speak of, other than his name and leveraging his father’s influence on behalf of foreign interests. But he does have a long history of serial drug use, reckless, anti-social behavior, and general unethical conduct.

Joe Biden, remember, flew on Air Force Two with Hunter, just two weeks before the huge deal with Hunter’s Chinese partners was announced. The statement by Joe Biden that he knew nothing of Hunter’s quid pro quo imbroglios is belied by his son’s trips with him on government flights, by photos of Joe Biden with Hunter’s foreign associates, by references in emails to Joe’s cut, and by testimony from Hunter’s own associate Tony Bobulinski that Biden was fully involved in and knowledgeable of his son’s grifting

Indeed, from his son’s own emails, we know that Joe Biden was referred to by Hunter’s grifting associates as “the Big Guy,” with a reference to a 10 percent cut (e.g., “10 held by H for the big guy?”). So, from Hunter’s own associate we hear that Joe received monies for the use of his name and position to leverage foreign connections. We also know from Joe’s own braggadocio that he leveraged Ukraine officials to stop investigating the very firm that his son was so assiduously milking for money. And we know that Joe has used Hunter’s profits for his own personal expenses. In sum, without Joe Biden’s complicity, the Bidens’ corrupt empire would never have existed.

None of this apparently matters. Few worry over Joe Biden’s inability to tell the truth, his reliance on the fusion media to disguise his serial mendacity, his overt refusal to be questioned regularly by the press, and his disastrous and unpopular policies concerning Afghanistan, the border, inflation and deficits, and reduced oil and gas development.

Why?

In a strange way, Biden’s cognitive dysfunction and age-related befuddlement serve as prophylactics. The understood contextualization of his serial fantasies and lies goes something like, “Well, you might lie too, or get confused, if you were 78, given a president’s schedule and past serious brain operations.”

Or perhaps a cruder form of apologetics is intended: “Damned right he lies constantly, and, of course, he seems addled. So, what exactly are you going to do about it—replace him with Kamala Harris?”

How do these people continue to exercise such power and influence? There are at least four likely reasons:

1) D.C. Deference Culture. As creatures of government and Washington, they, and legions like them, understand that there are zero consequences for not telling the truth. When trapped in “misstatements” and “I don’t recall” fibs, they tend to resort to an argument from authority, whether that be leveraged by the initials following their name, their titles, or their ribbons and medallions. They have enjoyed life-long impressive government remuneration and their obsequious fealty understandably seems to be first toward the permanent beltway corporate, media, and government class that protects and abets them.

2) Careerism. They understand America’s academic, cultural, and corporate institutions—the media, Wall Street, academia, Silicon Valley, the federal bureaucracy, Hollywood, and now professional sports—are monopolized by leftists. And so, they make the necessary adjustments to ingratiate themselves with such centers of power, often virtue signaling their anger against the supposedly Neanderthal and deplorable Right.

Thus, Hollywood’s heartthrob Fauci’s constant sermonizing about the unvaccinated (that carefully avoids any allusion to the least vaccinated of all demographics, African Americans, and illegal aliens). Thus, Milley mounts a crusade not against the Taliban, but against “white rage.” Thus, Joe Biden’s invective against “chumps,” “dregs,” the “fat,” and “lying dog-faced pony soldier(s).”

3) China. As good globalists, they have a surreal, if not dangerously familiar, relationship with their communist Chinese counterparts, whether in the highest echelons of the People’s Liberation Army, the military-affiliated researchers at the Wuhan lab, or the government-controlled companies that have invested in the Biden family’s various grifts.

4) The Shadow of Trump. All three of these careerists came to greater prominence as progressive anti-Trump mascots, as part of their acquiring woke insurance.

Once Milley apologized to the nation for appearing next to Trump, it was but a short devolution to assuring Michelle Obama that he too was delighted that Trump lost the election, or making sure that Washington insider journalists knew that he too considered Trump a Hitlerian figure. That was a wise career move for Milley, since legions of Washington grandees and reporters are now lining up in his defense. And likely greater rewards await Milley upon retirement: what the public sees as embarrassing behavior, corporate defense contractors likely will welcome as properly positioned assets.

Likewise, it did not take Fauci too long to see he would be damaged goods if he continued as an advisor to the hated Trump Administration. So, in back channels, he made his own odium known, and began appearing exclusively on left-wing television to erase the earlier stain of appearing next to Trump in his supposedly nonpartisan role as COVID-19 advisor.

Again, that hedge was smart. As a result, the now angelic St. Fauci became a veritable deity on the Left—in the manner it had once briefly canonized a Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Robert Mueller, before inevitably turning on both as disappointments.

Finally, Joe Biden had little to recommend him as president, as his past two failed campaigns, and his early dismal 2020 effort attested. But once Biden rebooted himself as having no ideas or policies other than hating Trump and being the only “centrist” leftist who could beat him, he too was consecrated.

All his racist slurs and looney statements were forgiven—at least as long as he seems to offer some utility before abdicating to Kamala Harris.

_________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

In 2019, Professor Edmund Mazza, who is the author of The Scholastics and the Jews Coexistence, Conversion and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance, started suspecting Francis is an “anti-pope” because of his Vatican “enthronement of the South American demon goddess, Pachamama”:

Posted on October 6, 2021 by abyssum

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Author started Suspecting Francis is an “Anti-Pope” because of the his “Enthronement of the South American Demon Goddess, Pachamama”

October 05, 2021

^{Pray an Our Father now} for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Francis Notes:

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

Election Notes:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

IS THE IDEA OF AMERICA SO INDESTRUCTIBLE THAT IT CAN WEATHER ANY ASSAULT?

Posted on October 5, 2021 by abyssum

___________________________________________________

Can America survive progressives’

attacks on its origins and values?

By: Victor Davis Hanson

New York Post

October 4, 2021

(Emphasis added)

Over the last two years, progressive critics have casually attacked the origins, nature and values of American society. Is the idea of America so indestructible that it can weather any assault?

The foundational dates of America — the signing in 1776 of the Declaration of Independence and in 1787 of the Constitution — have been attacked. Citizens are now asked to believe that they have no inspirational or historical value.

Statues of the American luminaries have been defaced or toppled. Names on schools and monuments are obliterated.

The Soviet-like erasures do not just involve Confederate generals. Often the Founders, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — along with Civil-War-era luminaries such as Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln — are damned from our memories. Their common crimes are believing in the American ideal.

“Critical Race Theory” argues America can presently discriminate to atone for past discrimination. And it can practice racism to fight prior racism — amid a multiracial democracy of competing tribal interests. In just a few months, our elites have completely jettisoned the centuries-long aspiration — energized by Martin Luther King, Jr. — of a racially blind America.

Critical Legal Theory believes that laws are merely the biased constructs of the rich and powerful. They purportedly lack any grounding in the natural law of keeping order and reflecting innately human morality. Spiraling violence in the streets of major American cities is now the offspring of such pop theorizing.

“New monetary theory” recklessly insists that printing money will not cause inflation and expenditures do not have to correlate with revenues. Do such charlatans remember 1930s Germany, 1970s America or contemporary Venezuela?

The US military helter-skelter fled Afghanistan, abandoning thousands of Afghan allies and hundreds of US citizens and green card holders. A military that holds its own soldiers accountable for losing a few bullets left over $80 billion of US weaponry and equipment in the hands of terrorists.

In 2020 during the aftermath of the death of George Floyd, the country suffered from 120 days of violent protests, rioting and arson, including firebomb attacks on Washington, DC’s historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, a Portland courthouse, and a Minneapolis police precinct. On Jan. 6, 2021, protestors stormed into the US Capitol.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown, and quarantine, unelected bureaucrats usurped the constitutional rights of citizens, often on dubious medical grounds.

Rents for millions were arbitrarily suspended on orders from the Center for Disease Control. Quarantines were routinely violated with exemptions if protestors were deemed woke. And bureaucrats for months lied that naturally acquired immunity from prior infection was inferior to the protection provided by vaccinations.

There are lots of assumptions of all these revisionists, revolutionaries, iconoclasts, name changers, bureaucrats, and establishmentarians. They seem to think citizens should forfeit their history, customs, and freedoms to a self-appointed elite.

Somehow Americans have been badgered that the US must be perfect to be good — as defined by political activists with agendas that would transform America into something unrecognizable.

We seem to forget that citizenship is not history’s norm.

Except for brief parentheses in ancient Greece and Rome, and the Western world after the Renaissance and Enlightenment, since the dawn of civilization some 7,000 years ago most people have been rendered mere tribal residents, or worse, slaves, serfs, and subjects.

The radical American idea that we make our own laws and govern ourselves is a fragile notion. And it depends on a variety of requisites that we are now in danger of destroying.

American citizenship requires a viable middle class, constant civic education, secure borders, a common identity, control over unelected bureaucrats, a featly to the Constitution and some awareness that global norms are often antithetical to an exceptional America.

America is history’s aberration. Those now trying to tear it down are the same familiar suspects over the last 2,500 years, who despise consensual government and the middle classes who preserve it.

___________________________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

DID YOU EVER THINK THAT THERE WOULD COME A DAY WHEN WE WOULD REFER TO PRIESTS WHO ARE UNFAIRLY REMOVED FROM ACTIVE MINISTRY BY THEIR BISHOP AS “CANCELED” PRIESTS

Posted on October 5, 2021 by abyssum

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

What is a Canceled Priest?

Fr. John P. Lovell

October 4, 2021

This is the question I get asked the most by Catholics unfamiliar with cancel culture. To be honest, I find it surprising amidst the rash of cancelation in various forms that there is still so much confusion – especially after so many bishops closed churches due to Covid and made it seem as if the source and summit of our faith was not essential. While traditional Catholics are typically familiar with being pushed to the wayside both in society and by the hierarchy of the Church, many of the faithful attending the Novus Ordo Missae are just realizing the gravity of the problem faced by orthodox Catholic priests. So how do we help our fellow faithful Catholics understand what’s happening and what they can do about it? This article offers some critical context and explains what the Coalition for Canceled Priests (CFCP) is doing in response.

Fitting the definition of a canceled priest into a thirty second soundbite or a short paragraph is not easy. In fact, there are many terms and phrases used, such as “sidelined,” “white martyrdom,” and “sent to the farm.” When a group of devout Catholics came together to form the Coalition this past Spring, it was decided that “canceled” is the best way to describe what is happening since the term is so pervasive and generally recognized. The Church is increasingly divided between those who seek to accommodate modern society by adapting to it, and those who stand true to the faith and seek to convert the world. Modernist bishops seeking “unity” with the ever-evolving trends have quietly been removing priests who do not seek to accommodate, but rather to continue the traditional mission of the Church of bringing about the reign of Christ our King.https://a63fee9934e5688cd65f72c976169fe0.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

First, let’s be clear what a canceled priest is not: he is not a priest who’s committed a serious crime or canonical delict. There have been priests guilty of serious crimes and rightly removed, but they do not fall into the category of “canceled” as their removal was due to offenses they actually committed, not due to countering sinful society. It must be noted that guilty or not guilty, priests like everyone else deserve due process of law (both civil and canonical). They have a right to a defense, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and support in the way of housing and sustenance, from the diocese or religious order in which they are incardinated.

Each canceled priest has a unique story, though there are certain patterns and similarities which seem to arise. Canceled priests are those who are being targeted by superiors and who are not afraid to stand up for the Faith no matter how “counter-cultural” it might be. He exudes reverence during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and may celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass or simply be favorable toward it even if he does not know Latin. He loves hearing confessions and pastoral work, in general. He wants to improve his own education and grow in his vocation, realizing that his seminary formation and education was deficient.

Above all, a canceled priest wants to help others get to Heaven, and the cura animarum sustains him and gives him strength to carry on. One of the biggest problems in the clergy today is careerism. Many good men fall victim to the “go along to get along” mentality. Being “pastoral” is no longer seen by many bishops as self-sacrifice for the well-being of souls, but rather, not rocking the boat. So often seminarians and young priests are told that the best priest is one with the fewest complaints, does the most social outreach, and focuses on culture concerns of today such as environmental work and social action. Meanwhile, the priest who focuses most on the Church’s spiritual mission, and thus on the Sacraments, is running counter to our materialist culture and the chanceries that have succumbed to it.

A canceled priest may or may not still have his faculties to celebrate the Sacraments publicly. Those with their faculties usually have no assignment and are designated to live in “approved housing” – many times with priests that are guilty of a serious crime. These priests try to help where they can in their diocese but often know that pastors have been advised not to use them. If they try to find pastoral work outside of their respective diocese, they are not given a “letter of good standing.” Sadly, a celebret, which is usually a credit card-sized document issued yearly that priests carry in their wallet stating they are good standing, is no longer given out. Many dioceses now require a letter of good standing that is less than thirty days old for all priests.

If a canceled priest does not have his faculties, it is usually done in one of two ways. The first is canonical suspension a divinis. Many bishops do not choose this route since it requires a canonical trial which the bishop might lose. For the last several years, many bishops, including my own, opt for “administrative leave in a non-penal, non-judicial way.” Sadly, that is not a spelling mistake. It is the actual language used in the decree against me, and I have encountered many priests across the country who have been canceled with the exact same wording. In plain language, this is the bishop side-stepping Canon Law. If the priest wants to appeal this type of decree, the priest may initiate a hierarchical recourse to the Congregation of Clergy in Rome.

Unlike a canonical trial, the priest is not granted discovery, so the bishop may send the Congregation information that the priest and his canon lawyer (if he can afford one) are not privy to. Many of us have discovered that Rome does not even require evidence from the bishop. The Congregation just assumes that whatever the bishop is stating is true. This is learned by the priest when the Congregation issues its ruling, which tends to highly favor bishops in its rulings. The priest’s one last recourse if he loses this ruling is with the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s supreme court. This is an expensive endeavor which takes years. The priest is obligated to find a canon lawyer approved by the Signatura to argue in front of it. This is a small group of mostly Italians. Rarely does the Signatura reverse a decree by the Congregation.

Many bishops know that they have free rein on removing priests they simply do not care for. In the decree for my case, the Congregation of Clergy basically stated that a bishop has the right to remove a priest for any or no reason at all with the caveat that it is only temporary, without defining what temporary means.

The Coalition for Canceled Priests (CFCP) has been formed to counter the injustice being perpetrated on priests across the country so that they may receive due process of law, spiritual and material support, and the benefit of knowing they are not alone. Our full mission statement, eligibility criteria, types of support and other insights may be found on our website. Practically, we want to make sure a recently canceled priest is able to make ends meet, know his rights, and connect him with a good canon lawyer and if need be, an attorney. While a bishop has the full use of diocesan stewardship to pay for lawyers, a priest who was just removed with his pay cut usually does not. We want to make sure he has a decent place to live and fraternal support. To date the CFCP is in the process of helping over a dozen priests across the country to address legal needs, medical expenses, and every-day items such as tires for a car.

The second question I am usually asked by Catholics is this: What can we do to help? While this is not surprising, it is always a pleasure to hear. First and foremost, please pray and fast for canceled priests, who number in the hundreds if not the thousands across the United States. Second, if you know a priest who is canceled, please let him know that your support is available. Finally, if you want to help the mission of the Coalition, please visit our website for more information. So far, we have held two major events with excellent Catholic speakers and conducted numerous interviews to raise awareness and support. If you have not seen the videos yet please check out our website at www.canceledpriests.org, and keep canceled priests in your fasting and prayer intentions.

Fr. John P. Lovell

Father John Lovell is originally from the South Suburbs of Chicago. He was ordained for the Diocese of Rockford in 2007 by Bishop Thomas G. Doran. Father studied at Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary where he obtained a Master’s in Dogmatic Theology. In 2012, while Father was studying at the Dominican House of Studies, he was removed/canceled by the new bishop of Rockford, David J. Malloy. For the last decade, Father Lovell has fought for his good name and has helped other priests in the same situation. In the spring of 2021, he co-founded the Coalition for Canceled Priests. More information can be found at canceledpriests.org.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

RESIST AND ACTIVELY WORK TOWARD THE REMOVAL THE PRESENT CORRUPTION IN THE VATICAN

Posted on October 5, 2021 by abyssum

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Alone Bishop Gracida openly proclaims “Resist!” & Actively Works towards the Removal of Francis

October 05, 2021

83: Pope Francis and the Crisis of Confusion—Bishop Rene Henry Gracida - Patrick Coffin Media

“You cannot give Holy Communion to the abortionists, to the abortion promoters and providers, to the divorce and remarried. You cannot do it. St. Paul said you do not feed the Eucharist to dogs…”“Right now they [the laity] are suffering in silence. They need to object. The laity, the sensus fidelium is that common sense among the laity who have accepted the magisterial teaching of the Church which is the foundation of their faith.”“Having accepted that when they hear something that is contradictory to the magisterial teaching of the Church, the sensus fidelium is a impulse that causes them to speak out and say no.”“That is not true. Don’t say that. Stop! That is the sensus fidelium in action!”“Not to sit and suffer in silence. That’s crazy. That’s weird. That’s wrong. Speak up! Resist!” – Bishop Rene Gracida [https://youtu.be/arF9TlUVfiU]

We are in the greatest crisis in the history of the Church because leftist Francis and his inner circle, who make the immoral Borgia popes and their inner circles look like choir boys, are creating Francis-like cardinals in an attempt to make a permanent homosexual leftist church.

As a priest recently said even if we can get the Church or state to remove all the bad men, Francis is only going to replace them with worse men.

Of course, we must continue to work for the removal of Francis’s immoral gay mafia bishops network, but the only way we are going to begin a real restoration of the Church is to remove Francis as well as all his controllers and collaborators.

There is only one bishop in the Church actively working towards the removal of Francis.

He is Bishop Rene Henry Gracida.

Whether he acknowledges it or not, Bishop Gracida is our St. Athanasius.

Athanasius virtually alone, except for the faithful laity, lead the resistance against the Arian heresy in the fourth century even when the Pope excommunicated him.

They said it was Athanasius against the world. Now, it is Gracida against the world.

The Bishop became like Athanasius when he explicitly said Amoris Laetitia is in error and to resist sacrilege Communions.

On December 2, 2017, Bishop Gracida became the only bishop to resist the Amoris Letitia sacrilege on his official website declaring Francis is teaching error:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

We have a humble yet heroic man to lead us in the resistance against heterodoxy and those who have created the greatest crisis in the history of the Church.

Bishop Gracida was a courageous WWII airman, monk, friend of Pope John Paul II and the “Savior of EWTN” as Raymond Arroyo called him in his book (see post below) who at 96 looks like his is in his 70’s, is mentally sharper than most men 40 years younger than him and looks by a large margin younger than Pope Benedict XVI or Francis.
[https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/01/11/airman-monk-priest-bishop-an-interview-with-bp-rene-henry-gracida/]

We have leading us in Gracida a real life hero who makes every other living bishop in the whole world look like a midget by comparison.

We have a 96 year old retired bishop with the heart of a lion leading us: Rene the Lionhearted.

I’ll say it again:

They said it was Athanasius against the world. Now, it is Gracida against the world.

I know he will not be happy that I said this. He told me by email that it would be prideful to think of himself as a Athanasius.

But for better or worst that appears to be the role God has given him in this crisis.

Since most of the clergy apparently have abandoned us, what can we the faithful laity do to assist Bishop Gracida against the world?

First pray for him.

Then please read, pray and share the following open letter with cardinals, bishops, clergy, canon lawyers and the laity so clarity and the action that is within God’s will can result from the letter.

The laity need to force people like Cardinal Raymond Burke and others to answer the theologically sound, clear and precise arguments put forward and either clearly and precisely counter them or put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was “never validly elected” the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.

If Burke and others do not act they are putting their immortal souls in danger because they are denying the Petrine office of Pope John Paul II who made binding law for the 2013 conclave in Universi Dominici Gregis.

The open letter of Bishop Gracida is a analysis of Pope John Paul Il’s Universi Dominici Gregis which appears to establish the “legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff” and calls the Cardinals to “Address… [the] probable invalidity”:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Posted on July 30, 2018 by abyssum

AN OPEN LETTERTO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHAND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFULIN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports.
Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.
So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility. If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election?
His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.
His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.
Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.
What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregis particularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . . scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.]
This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent. Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.
This is so because:
1. Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;
2. Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,
3. Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.
Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.
These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.”
Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]
No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them. Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding.
Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations.
Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.” His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.
The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.
While it is not necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis in order to construe or to interpret its plain meaning, the first source to which one would look is the immediately prior constitution which Universi Dominici Gregis abrogated or replaced. Pope John Paul II replaced entirely what Pope Paul VI had legislated in the immediately previous Constitution on conclaves, Romano Pontfici Eligendo, but in so doing, Pope John Paul II used Romano Pontfici Eligendo as the format or pattern for His new constitution on conclaves. Making obvious changes, nonetheless, Pope John Paul II utilized the content and structure of his predecessor’s constitution to organize and outline Universi Dominici Gregis. Therefore, while it is not legally necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis, the primary reference to an extraneous source of construction would entail an examination of Romano Pontfici Eligendo, and that exercise (bolsterd by the use of the key word “scienter” in the Promulgation Clause) would reinforce the broad principle of invalidity.

Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo. No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis. See the comparison both in English and Latin below:
Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]
Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity. Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error.

It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government. The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013.
Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ. After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ. It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation.
Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics would be no different than Orthodox Christians.
In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”. But, the fact that “The Church . . . will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum.This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake.
This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person . . . in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”.So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff. Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals.
They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave. They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation. Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely.
In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals. If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals. In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either. (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.)
In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal. So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors. Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here. May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual. If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election” “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter. May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de Plume

Un ami des Pape

^{Pray an Our Father now} for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Francis Notes:

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

Election Notes:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Joe Biden had little to recommend him as president, as his past two failed campaigns, and his early dismal 2020 effort attested. But once Biden rebooted himself as having no ideas or policies other than hating Trump and being the only “centrist” leftist who could beat him, he too was consecrated and with a lot of fraud at the polling places, he won!

Posted on October 4, 2021 by abyssum

Our Woke National Icons

Milley, Fauci, and Biden are soulless men who

reveal the bankruptcy of our ruling class.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

October 3, 2021

The Strategist

Historians will later ponder why this officer has not resigned and what his continued tenure says about the status of the current U.S. military.

The Health Wizard

The Moral Leader

Why?

How do these people continue to exercise such power and influence? There are at least four likely reasons:

4) The Shadow of Trump. All three of these careerists came to greater prominence as progressive anti-Trump mascots, as part of their acquiring woke insurance.

All his racist slurs and looney statements were forgiven—at least as long as he seems to offer some utility before abdicating to Kamala Harris.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Once again the world is groaning under the weight of oppression and rejection of God. It grows darker by the day throughout the world. I am offended and angered by these depredations, but the bigger part of me is filled with the sort of joyful anticipation I usually have before Christmas.

Posted on October 4, 2021 by abyssum

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

WHAT IS A CANCELED PRIEST? YOU WILL BE SHOCKED TO LEARN THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AND YOUR HEART WILL BURN WITH INDIGNATION AND YOU WILL ASK, “HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE IN CHRIST’S CHURCH?”

Posted on October 4, 2021 by abyssum

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

What is a Canceled Priest?

Fr. John P. Lovell

October 4, 2021

Fr. John P. Lovell

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP

The January 6 Insurrection Hoax

In 2019, Professor Edmund Mazza, who is the author of The Scholastics and the Jews Coexistence, Conversion and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance, started suspecting Francis is an “anti-pope” because of his Vatican “enthronement of the South American demon goddess, Pachamama”:

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Author started Suspecting Francis is an “Anti-Pope” because of the his “Enthronement of the South American Demon Goddess, Pachamama”

As we watch events unfold in 2021, obvious questions about the fitness of our national leaders present themselves. Who are these new woke national icons, and how did they come to lord it over the rest of us? Here are some observations by way of preliminary explanation.

In 2019, Professor Edmund Mazza, who is the author of The Scholastics and the Jews Coexistence, Conversion and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance, started suspecting Francis is an “anti-pope” because of his Vatican “enthronement of the South American demon goddess, Pachamama”:

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Author started Suspecting Francis is an “Anti-Pope” because of the his “Enthronement of the South American Demon Goddess, Pachamama”

IS THE IDEA OF AMERICA SO INDESTRUCTIBLE THAT IT CAN WEATHER ANY ASSAULT?

DID YOU EVER THINK THAT THERE WOULD COME A DAY WHEN WE WOULD REFER TO PRIESTS WHO ARE UNFAIRLY REMOVED FROM ACTIVE MINISTRY BY THEIR BISHOP AS “CANCELED” PRIESTS

What is a Canceled Priest?

RESIST AND ACTIVELY WORK TOWARD THE REMOVAL THE PRESENT CORRUPTION IN THE VATICAN

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Alone Bishop Gracida openly proclaims “Resist!” & Actively Works towards the Removal of Francis

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Once again the world is groaning under the weight of oppression and rejection of God. It grows darker by the day throughout the world. I am offended and angered by these depredations, but the bigger part of me is filled with the sort of joyful anticipation I usually have before Christmas.

WHAT IS A CANCELED PRIEST? YOU WILL BE SHOCKED TO LEARN THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AND YOUR HEART WILL BURN WITH INDIGNATION AND YOU WILL ASK, “HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE IN CHRIST’S CHURCH?”

What is a Canceled Priest?

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks