& Roman
Christian Order
Read Christian Order
Main Page


January 2017

Year of the Omens!



So, finally, here we are: AD 2017. Welcome to Portents Central!

  • 500 years since Luther's Luciferian revolt.
  • 200 years since Satan spewed forth Freemasonry.
  • 100 years since Hell unleashed Communism.
  • 100 years since Heaven put the world on notice at Fatima.

Recall, too, the centennial significance revealed in Our Lord's famous discourse with Sister Lucia, about the fate of France due to its disobedient kings. As summarised by Patrick Archbold:

In August 1931, Sister Lucy was staying with a friend at Rianjo, Spain. There, Our Lord appeared to Sr. Lucy and He complained the requests of His mother [to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart] had not been heeded saying, “Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.”

And again in another text, Sr. Lucy quoted Our Lord as saying, “They did not wish to heed My request! ... Like the King of France, they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church...”.

Those references to the King of France... [refer] to the requests of the Sacred Heart given through Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque on June 17, 1689 to the King of France. King Louis XIV and his successors failed to heed Our Lord’s request to publicly consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. As a result, on June 17, 1789, one hundred years to the day after the request, the National Assembly of the French Revolution rose up and declared itself the government of France and stripped the king of his power. Later, the king lost his head to the revolution.

Another portent doing the rounds is the uncanny alignment of the planets and stars. Astronomers tell us that just three weeks before the centenary of the public miracle of 13 October 1917 — when God made the brightest star of all 'dance' for the crowd at Fatima — we can expect the culmination of a unique series of celestial events that closely approximate the vision of Revelation 12 ("a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars"). On 23 September, we will not only see the sun rise directly behind the constellation of Virgo, but find the moon at the feet of Virgo, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars, formed by the usual nine stars of the constellation Leo with the addition of the planets Mercury, Venus, and Mars.

We might add to these, numerous other face-slapping omens of Jorge Bergoglio's scandalous reign. To include, if I may, the very date of his election — 13/3/13. That creepy configuration — a Trinitarian "3" flanked by occultic "13s"; as if the Triune Truth were held hostage by the Devil — presaged all that has followed.

Exits all over

All these providential pointers are striking and curious. Yet we hardly need them. The mad rush of momentous events itself is pointed enough! For amid the current tumult in Church and State, God's guiding hand may be discerned in the flow of surprising events and unlikely characters, confounding us all.

In the secular realm, for all kinds of reasons, ever increasing numbers are opting for Life, Liberty, Truth and Order over the Death, Oppression, Lies and Disorder of democracies ruled by oligarchic self-interest. Even the unchurched — raised on cultural Marxism, largely ignorant of Christ, and oblivious to the escalating social demonisation and legislative persecution of His followers — are sick and tired.

They might be unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, and how these fashioned and cemented the humane Western laws, institutions and values they take for granted. They might not perceive, therefore, the war we are in: the battle to retain that Christian foundation (anchored in the objectivity of the real, and the avoidance of evil) against efforts to replace it with a subjective base tailored for shifting vested interests and the justification of ends by any means. Nonetheless, despite their limited knowledge of all the whys and wherefores, the disturbing consequences have worn them down. They are fed up to the gills.

Hence the victorious 2016 Brexit and Trump campaigns, and the subsequent Italian referendum vote rejecting EU designs. These followed hard on the heels of the 2015 presidential and parliamentary elections which saw Poland's neo-Marxist (read globalist) rulers also ousted in a landslide. And all this despite the remarkable fact that, in each country, the Establishment Parrots of the Transnational Elite got their marching orders in the face of unprecedented media bias, mendacity and collusion.

For many, the reaction is instinctive and patriotic. For others it is pure economic self-interest and self-preservation. But whatever the reasons, wherever it leads, and however violent and unhinged the response of the arrogant governing class, this counter-revolt will only grow. As Nigel Farage put it recently apropos Brexit: "If you take away people's identity and their ability through the ballot box to determine their future, don't be surprised if they turn to extremes or violence or anything else."

In other words, if you start branding as "racist" and "extreme" every hitherto sane and sensible suggestion, such as strictly controlling who does and does not enter your country (your home!) and in what numbers, you are asking for trouble. This is compounded when criminal sociopaths like Hillary Clinton dare to label ordinary working people who hold such views a "basket of deplorables... Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it". Or neo-Marxists like Barack Obama depict them as narrow-minded bigots "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles". Or europhile has-beens and Bilderberg wannabes like John Major describe the long-suffering majority who voted for Brexit as a "tyranny"!

Suddenly, though still in control of the mainstream switching points of power at every level of society, our supremely arrogant,  and all too often corrupt leaders and ex-leaders no longer seem untouchable. Their corporate media hit squads continue to give them free reign to emote and yell and distort and lie and do whatever it takes to save their globalist racket — to protect the lucrative Ponzi scheme they have built on amoral foundations — yet they are being escorted to exits everywhere; showing utter contempt for the democratic process on their way out.

Locally, among the large majority of MPs shown to be completely out of touch with the 17.4 million Leave voters, many still refuse to accept the June referendum result. In December, 89 MPs (plus two tellers) voted against the Commons motion calling on the Government to trigger ­Article 50 by the end of March. And many more surely welcomed the High Court's decision to stop the Prime Minister launching the Brexit process without a vote in Parliament. The wealthy europhile who fronted this successful challenge personifies the alien Establishment: well-heeled and self-righteous to a fault; infuriated by the recouping of Britain's priceless sovereignty and self-determination. Rather than talk up the great prospects unleashed by Brexit, both short and long term, they run down their own country like fifth columnists.

The sickening mixture of globalist ideology and self-interest is personified by failed and feeble ex-leaders like Tony Blair and John Major. Regularly trotted out by the media to stoke the dying embers of Project Fear, these deluded harbingers of New World Order peace and prosperity are heedless of the ramifications of subverting Brexit. Firstly, the irreparable damage it would do to Britain's credibility and the democratic processs (why would anyone bother casting a vote ever again?). Secondly, the chronic social and political tensions, spilling over into violence, it would surely ignite. As it stands, having appealed the High Court decision, the Government must now depend on globalist Supreme Court justices like Deputy President Lady Hale, to overturn a globalist judgment that requires Westminster globalists to ratify the decisive anti-globalist vote. Meantime, Project Fearmonger Barack Obama is back in Europe decrying a post-Brexit "rise of crude nationalism" and predicting a "bloodbath"; David Cameron is in America making big bucks demonising the "populism" that undid him; and geriatric Tory Bilderberger Ken Clarke is warning Mrs May she'll be ousted unless she opts for a "soft" Brexit.

And they wonder why patriots want rid of these insufferable creatures! Devoid of love of God and country, their sole allegiance is to whatever means secure their control, power and money.

Fomenting revolution without

Meanwhile, as the worldwide corporate-welfare fiefdom crumbles, protesters financed by globalist wrecker-in-chief George Soros are setting hundreds of American cities ablaze: literally with violence and criminality; figuratively by way of contrived indignation over Trump's victory. Yet still the multi-national branded products we call the mainstream media (MSM) will not tell the unvarnished truth about what is going on.

Just as Nigel Farage has had to live with death threats and security guards following the Brexit vote, for instance, so the emotional incontinence set off by the Clinton defeat has seen many public threats to kill Trump and his supporters, who have also been beaten, their cars stolen, and on and on. Typically,

A Navy veteran with two young children had his home [in Plant City, Florida], vandalized with anti-Trump graffiti and racial slurs both inside and out before it was set on fire, in yet another shocking example of the anti-Trump hate-crime wave sweeping America. The couple didn't even have a Trump yard sign and weren't public in their support of Trump, suggesting the criminals who attacked their home knew of their support for Trump via Facebook activity. [Infowars 30/11/16].

As one commentator truly said: "If this had happened to a Hillary backer, you would never hear the end of it."

Trump supporters and American patriots, however, are fair game; crimes against them  being met with media indifference or silence, and precious little police interest, even when the evidence points to probable culprits (in this particular case, due to the racial graffiti, very likely Black Lives Matters, a violent organisation heavily funded by George Soros).

As the globalist libertine-left combine to ramp up societal tensions, American police are also being shot dead on a regular basis with impunity. The anarchic spirit of Soros, the Ford Foundation and the usual suspects is palpable. Indeed, Politico reported that Soros and other big-money members of the powerful Democracy Alliance who helped fund Mrs Clinton's failed presidential bid, gathered in Washington on 13 November for a three-day conference "to decide how to use their cash to fight President-elect Donald Trump." The website noted that "If the agenda is any indication, liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One."

Apart from the financing Black Lives Matters and other major Soros-funded activist groups like, it seems they decided to signal yet another of Soros' infamous colour revolutions: suddenly adorning Hillary and Bill in purple attire. ("Anytime globalist politicians embrace a color, be on guard for a revolution bearing that particular hue," warned Washington journalist Wayne Madsen. "When it comes to themed revolutions, the Sorosites have refined the art to a science.") Their initial 'big idea', though, was to try and reverse the electoral outcome via the Electoral College.

To this end they either raised up themselves, or exploited, the American equivalent of the wealthy English europhile who fronted the successful Brexit challenge: inconsequential Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein. Since Hillary had denounced the very idea of contesting the election result as "horrifying" and "a threat to democracy," she could only do so by hiding behind surrogate Stein,  who, wouldn't you know, sought a recount of votes only in states won by Trump: Michigan (10,000+), Pennsylvania (50,000+) and Wisconsin (22,000+). It was pure provocation. All experts say a recount would only sway a result by about 500 votes. And so it came to pass.

As of 10 December, with 95% of precincts recounted, Stein’s $3.5 million Wisconsin recount had thus far gained Trump 628 new votes and Clinton 653 votes. A paltry net addition of 25 votes for Clinton, who needed to gain an additional 22,178 votes in order to reverse the Wisconsin result, and claim the state’s 10 electoral votes. Even a recount in Democrat-leaning Philadelphia, launched by over 250 Philadelphia residents to help Stein get a statewide recount, saw Hillary gain a mere 5 votes.

This farcical situation, involving huge cost and effort for insignificant return, was repeated elsewhere. Yet it did not deter a U.S. District Court Judge from ordering an immediate start to the recount requested by Stein in Michigan (which Trump won by a 10,704-margin) despite a formal protest by the Trump campaign. The Judge stated: "Without elections that are conducted fairly — and perceived to be fairly conducted — public confidence in our political institutions will swiftly erode." The reality, of course, is that it has already eroded to dangerous levels, due to the rampant self-interest of the broad ruling class, and the complicity and collusion of their gatekeeper: the mainstream media.

Though failing to report the real possibility of Clinton election fraud (leading electoral fraud expert Bev Harris, herself a Democrat, insists Hillary stole at least 5 states), the mainstream media had supported the recounts in states won by Trump. Having ignored Stein throughout the electoral campaign, they first turned her into a recount celebrity, then disparaged her crusade when it went nowhere. Yet it was their partisan election reportage that encouraged her partisan and inflammatory recount in the first place. Stein claimed the states were chosen because "They went the opposite way to what was expected." Well, yes, they did. But the false expectations were raised by the constant fabrications and falsifications of journalists and pollsters, distorting the reality of what was happening in their vain attempt to carry Crooked Hillary across the line.

Apart from the disruptive recount ploy, the U.S. system also allows the 538 Electors, who represent the voters in the various states, to allocate their Electoral College vote to a candidate other than the winner. This very rarely happens. Even so, if Electors in only several states refused to apportion their clutch of votes to President-elect Trump on 19 December, it would deprive him of the 270 Electoral College votes he needs, handing the presidency to Hillary. As we've found with Brexit, the Trump victory is not over till it's over; until he is actually sworn in. Until then, in such a febrile atmosphere, a small incident could see the post-election war ignited on American streets by Soros & Co. escalate exponentially. Chaos thus unleashed would provide an excuse for emergency powers to restore order and replace Trump. That, in turn, would let "shadow government" luminaries Hillary and Bill off the hook. Trump has already signalled he will pressure foreign states to probe the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation, while properly standing aside to allow his administration the freedom to put the Foundation, the Clintons and their myriad partners in crime, in the dock.

The Clintons personify the desperation of the global elite which will only increase owing to the magnitude of the stakes at play. Donald Trump plainly stated in his final campaign video that "the establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind." George Soros, for one.

In this worldwide standoff between the oligarchs and the people, most recently in Italy — over "oligarchic control of our economic and political systems," as Michael Jones puts it — anything is possible. This includes every kind of subversion: to include assassination, and incitement to revolution and war.

Civil war within

Concurrently, the total chaos that has engulfed the Church these past 50 years also seems to be reaching a crescendo.

Given the jaw-dropping Bergoglian penchant for making common cause with the worst enemies of the Church (CO passim), to include Soros surrogates, we should not be the least surprised by the shocking attitudes and methods which he and his comrades share with their secular counterparts. Not least the papal arrogance and ad hominem attacks directed at those of his flock faithful to Tradition and its interwoven, time-honoured traditions.

After several years of abuse, there is no sign of relief. Especially for hapless seminarians who do not share his spurious understanding of priestly "discernment" (— a Bergoglian fudge whereby objective evil is first subjectivised and rationalised, then sanctioned, promoted and acted out as more-or-less good). In November 2015, for example, having already warned about admitting these faithful young men to the seminary, he depicted them once again as "too confident, rigid and fundamentalist", and compared them to "mentally ill boys who seek strong structures that can protect them".

As we have often pointed out, the real problem is his own psyche; his manifest mental pathologies. Which is doubtless why, in Clintonesque fashion, he continually projects his sickness onto his healthy critics. It does not require a PhD in psychology and psychiatry to observe that every accusation and epithet hurled at those who respectfully dare to depart from his party line — decried as "rigid", "insecure", "defensive", "Pelagian"  "nasty", etc., etc. — applies precisely to himself. As for accusing his critics of "spiritual Alzheimer's," are not the constant "mistakes, gaffes, memory lapses, urban legends [and] errors in the discourses of Francis" (many listed by Sandro Magister on the Chiesa website), symptoms of dementia?

Yet Alzheimer's does not account for Bergoglian calculation: the lies told to shore up his agenda, and the subsequent refusal to publicly correct them. Such as distorting scriptural passages, or falsely attributing words and actions to his papal predecessors, the saints, and even composer Gustav Mahler. Nor is the personal cost to others of making stuff up on a whim for personal aggrandisement, a consideration. Who could forget his lackadaisical trashing of the hapless President of Paraguay, whom he accused of having kidnapped a government official, actually taken the year before by a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group. As Sandro Magister wrote on 13 June: 

[I]n spite of his stating and emphasising his ignorance of the case, Francis had no qualms about using the few and confused facts he had grasped poorly a short time before to accuse that blameless president of Paraguay of nothing less than a crime compared with the worst misdeeds of the Nazis and Stalinists.

Little wonder his former Jesuit superior, the late Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach, detected a more sinister pathology at play. According to Jack Tollers (CO, Dec. 2015), he viewed Jorge Bergoglio as a sociopath. Kolvenbach allegedly wrote to the Vatican recommending that he not be made archbishop of Buenos Aires because he was emotionally unstable and temperamentally unreliable. However we diagnose all this dysfunction, the symptoms persists in plain sight; never more so than when he perversely insists that orthodox seminarians are a danger to the Church. On 24 October 2016, while visiting the delegates at the 36th general congregation of the Society of Jesus, he reiterated this charge:

On the subject of morality, “I note the absence of discernment in the formation of priests;” the Pope stated. “We run the risk of getting used to seeing things in “black or white” when it comes to what is legal. “We are rather closed, in general, to discernment. One thing is clear: today, in a certain number of seminaries, a rigidity that is far from a discernment of situations has been introduced. And that is dangerous, because it can lead us to a conception of morality that has a casuistic sense.”

To gauge the war we are in for the priestly life and soul of the Church, we need only ponder the alien outlook expressed here. Consider, too, that it was articulated during the same talk in which Francis lauded Humanae Vitae-dissenter Bernard Häring for having "helped moral theology to flourish again"! (In fact, as Professor de Mattei rightly recalled, Fr. Häring's contribution to moral theology was to "deny the existence of an absolute and immutable natural law.")

In this dismal light, and with a new document on priestly formation said to be in preparation, we should brace ourselves for the worst. As the document will be overseen by Cardinal Stella and Archbishop Wong, two Bergoglianistas now running the Congregation of the Clergy, we should expect its contents, together with more of the same from the Synod scheduled for 2018 on "Youth, Faith and Vocational Discernment," to further torpedo vocations, already in steep decline since 13/3/13.
Rorate Caeli reports that

The current pontificate has coincided with a worldwide decline in major seminary enrollments. After many years of small but steady annual increases in the number of major seminarians during the reigns of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the numbers slightly dipped in 2012 then went down more steeply in 2013 and 2014. To be more precise: at the end of 2011 there were 120,616 major seminarians. This went down to 120,051 by end of 2012, 118,251 by end of 2013, and 116,319 by end of 2014 (the latest for which statistics are available). If the experience of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires is any indication, and if Francis manages to impose something of his vision on the actual process of priestly formation all over the world, we are convinced that we will see a collapse in vocations far greater than that which has already transpired in the first years of his pontificate.

Alinskyite spirit and method

Just as the Pope's projection of his own manifest mental instability onto orthodox seminarians is a classic Clinton ploy, so his constant haranguing and defaming of them is the papal echo of Commissar Clinton's derision of patriotic voters who rejected her wicked designs. For Francis, too, the Catholic remnant that dares to oppose his new religion is simply 'deplorable'. In a fit of pique he could yet mimic Hillary and denounce them outright as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." After all, he has called them just about everything else! (See "Ecce, Anni Horribiles!", April 2015).

Until recently, we have associated ad hominem assaults of this kind and magnitude with graduates of the Saul Alinsky school of neo-Marxist agit-prop (like Alinsky-trained Barack Obama, and Alinsky disciple Hillary Clinton). They use this technique, set out in Alinsky's Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals, to rub grievances raw, instill a sense of victimhood, and incite the mob. Commenting recently on Alinsky tactics in general, Dr. Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto effectively described the Bergoglian smear merchants who pose as repositories of charity and mercy. "If you replace compassion with resentment," he said, "then you understand the authoritarian left. They don’t have compassion, there is no compassion there. There’s no compassion at all. There is resentment, fundamentally."

It is a further striking measure of the advanced stage of convergence of leftist hearts and minds in Church and State, therefore, that we now have a pope whose resentments continually boil over in false depictions of the Church, of those who uphold Her Tradition and traditions, and in harsh generalisations of Her priests. Typically, evoking repulsive descriptions that jar with our lifelong experience of faithful bishops, clergy and laity alike, he has railed against those who "apply moral laws... as if they were stones to throw at people's lives"; who "hid[e] behind the Church’s teachings, sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality."

Last November, he took up this resentful straw man-diatribe once again, during an interview with the Italian bishops' daily Avvenire. For Francis, the real "cancer" in the Church is the "glorifying of one another": "This temptation, to build a self-referential Church, which leads to opposition and hence to division, always returns," he complained — his "divisive", "self-referential" opponents doubtless in mind. It is "the Church’s sinful habit to look too much at herself, as if she believes she has her own light," he insisted. "It’s what happened after the first millennium. To look at Christ frees us from this habit, and also from the temptation of triumphalism [read: extra Ecclesiam nulla salus] and rigorism [read: moral and doctrinal orthodoxy]. And it makes us walk together in the path of docility to the Holy Spirit, who leads us to unity." By which he means the kind of "unity" he sought on 31 October in Lund, Sweden, when he joined heretical Lutherans to 'celebrate' the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

(Thrusting a fistful of salt into that particular wound during the Avvenire interview, Francis dared to state that thanks to Lund, there was a "purification" of Luther’s "memory"; a man who only "wanted to make a reformation that should be like a medicine"! Add that to the laundry list of certifiable statements to be read out during the posthumous denunciation of Jorge Bergoglio by a future pontiff and/or Council — any public corrections by his own cardinals during his reign, notwithstanding).

Alluding unconsciously to his own chronic flaws and destructive tendencies, Francis then assures his interviewer that it’s not necessary to be "impatient, distrustful, anxious": it’s a journey "that requires patience in protecting and improving what already exists, which is much more than what divides."

Destroying the dubia

 The Alinskyite ruse, of defending the indefensible by shouting down and defaming objectors — personalising the argument instead of addressing it — reached new secular levels after Francis first insinuated heresy into his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitiae [AL], then presented it as Magisterial teaching in order to encourage the universal introduction of Communion for unrepentant adulterers. The Pope's inner circle immediately sought to deflect criticism of the Exhortation by deriding anyone who raised objections. Finally, after Francis had failed to respond to a letter they sent him on 19 September, four cardinals, including Cardinal Carlo Caffara (to whom Sister Lucia famously confided that the final battle would revolve around marriage and the family), went public with their request for papal clar­ification of AL. They did this by way of five dubia: questions requiring a simple "Yes" or "No" answer, by which the Pope could publicly reject all heterodox and/or heretical interpretations (see pp.21-22).

In the circumstances, making the dubia public seems perfectly right and just. Yet respected Vaticanista Edward Pentin told EWTN that "sources within the papal residence at Santa Marta" insisted the Pope was "boiling with rage" over the letter from the four cardinals. This is consistent both with previous papal meltdowns (again betraying his mental state), and to the conspiratorial bubble in which he dwells at Casa Santa Marta. Last October, psychiatrist Richard Fitzgibbons wrote that Pope Francis and his new Vatican apparatus have not only set about "undermining" Church doctrine, but have done so with levels "of excessive anger" which are "almost inexplicable."

This manic trait also speaks to the emptiness of his constant appeals to openness and dialogue. "It is important to listen to all [criticisms] and reflect on them," he told his Jesuit brethren last October. "We must never close the door to criticism because we run the risk of becoming accustomed to closing doors." Tell that to the  four cardinals! Branded divisive troublemakers by a Pope who muttered darkly that "criticisms taken here and there to justify pre-existing positions aren’t honest, they’re formed with a nasty spirit in order to sow division." These rigorisms, he argued, "are born from something missing, from trying to hide one’s own sad dissatisfaction behind a kind of armour." (Again, the psycho pot calling the kettle black.)

The reported "boiling rage" is also the heated response of a papal dictator suddenly cornered and snookered. For, to reply according to his honest intentions would explicitly sanction heresy — his denial of the words of Christ and the Tradition of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage. To disown his plain heretical intent and uphold the words of Christ and the teachings of the Church, on the other hand, would thwart his revolutionary designs. In this no-win situation, he has chosen silence. Since "silence implies consent," however, he has now implicitly admitted the heresy he has shamelessly sanctioned by his many scandalous actions and statements. Not least in his private September 2016 letter to a small group of regional Argentine bishops, affirming guidelines they had developed in a joint document that, in "exceptional cases," the divorced-remarried may receive Holy Communion. "The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia," wrote Francis. "There are no other interpretations."

Since the spirit and tactics of Alinsky also inform and animate those around the Pope, who hurl insults at anyone who objects to heresy, heterodoxy and scandal, the four cardinals were attacked in the most aggressive and puerile manner by papal placemen.

Throughout the two Synods, Father Antonio Spadaro, the Pope's "mouthpiece" and editor of the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica, had "poured out barbs" on his Twitter feed, "mocking those who question the apparent direction of the Synod." Now, he used Twitter to equate Cardinal Burke with a "witless worm" because, he shouted, "The Pope has clarified [Amoris Laetitia]. Those who don't like what they hear pretend not to hear it! Just read...."

Bergoglianistas everywhere rushed to join the lynching. "These are only four cardinals. In the Church, we are more than 200 [cardinals]," sniffed the homo-sympatico Cardinal Hummes of Brazil. Clearly alluding to the papal agenda to normalise adultery, sodomy, sacrilegious Communions, married clergy, etc., he complained that the four dutiful cardinals were the real threat to the Church: "This diversity is being delegitimised when the unity is threatened by divisions. The division is really an evil, not the diversity."

(As with "discernment", the "diversity" mantra is wholly spurious. What they actually mean is plainly set forth by Bishop Bonny of Antwerp in his recently published book: "There is no way we can continue to claim that there can be no other forms of love than heterosexual marriage," he enthuses. "We find the same kind of love between a man and woman who live together, in homo-pairs and lesbian couples. The question is: Should we try to squeeze everything into one and the same model? Should we not evolve towards a diversity of rituals in which we can recognise the [sodomitic] loving [involved].")

Also pushing this old Modernist chestnut that 'unity is more important than truth' is the exceedingly cranky Mgr Pio Vito Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota. "Officially, this action [of the four cardinals] has no value," he snapped in an interview with a German Catholic website. "The Church needs unity, not walls, says the pope." Against all demonstrable truth, he insisted that "Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also with all of his predecessors in the 20th century...."

Mgr Pinto painted an equally risible portrait of Francis as "a lighthouse of mercy" with "infinite patience. For him, it is about agreeing, not about forcing." A Hillary Clinton sycophant could not have sounded more preposterous! Nothing could be further from the truth of the matter.

The decidedly impatient, unmerciful, ruthless, dictatorial tenor of this pontificate has been on public display since Francis first suppressed the thriving traditional Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, sending a true Capuchin Commissar (Father Fidenzio Volpi) to crush them. More recently, in a purge of the Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Worship, he replaced a raft of 'conservative' members with radical Modernists, including Archbishop Piero Marini. (As John Paul II's Master of Ceremonies, the notorious Marini orchestrated numerous liturgical abominations, such as: a bare-breasted lectoress at a papal Mass in Papua New Guinea; and a 1995 beatification Mass in Sydney during which, among much else, he replaced the penitential rite with a pagan dance by a near-naked, paint-daubed Aboriginal man in which he drove away evil spirits with the help of a smoking tin can.) Father Brian Harrison commented that "This almost total clean-out of an entire Congregation's voting members in a single hit" appears to be "unprecedented in Vatican history."


Unprecedented, yet wholly in keeping with a papacy chanelling the secular spirit of bastion-razing Modernist revolt. Among other recent moves against any and all deviations from that revolutionary attempt to "irreversibly change" the Church (as is said to be his want), is the threat received by the faculty of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family (attached to the Lateran University): to stay 'on message', or else. The letter, from the Orwellian-sounding Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis (OARCPF), a self-proclaimed "initiative of a group of Catholic lay people in support of the pontificate of Pope Francis," is reproduced herein
by Steve Skojec. Briefly, as reported by LifeSiteNews on 17 November 2016,

the OARCPF announced the initialisation of “monitoring of the contents of publications of faculty and the teachings imparted in class” of the Institute. The monitoring is aimed at implementing the “adaptations made by Pope Francis” in his address on the occasion of the opening of the new academic year of the Institute (October 28) ....

[...] With the KGB method of surveying the content taught in the Institute, which is known for its strong fidelity to the traditional Church teaching on family and marriage, the OARCPF claims that it “will make use of the analytical and critical reading of the studies published by the faculty, of the theses of graduation and doctorates approved by the Institute, of the syllabus of classes and of their bibliographies, as well as interviews of students made after classes, in the square in front of the Lateran University.”

In similar totalitarian vein, Italian Vaticanista Andrea Tornielli, who carries water for Francis, drew up a black list of papal critics under the heading: "Those Catholics against Francis that adore Putin"! In other words, even as faithful Catholic bishops, priests and laity are being subjected to the kind of intimidation and oppression we associate with Russia, papal collaborators are depicting them, not their Francis-friendly oppressors, as standing Soviet-like against the civilised world personified by Francis.

Equally bizarre and oppressive attitudes and practices are too numerous to relate. Inspired by our perverse pontiff, they all add up to the alien and autocratic construct we call FrancisChurch: the rapidly evolving faux-Catholic centrepiece of the One World Church of masonic-oligarchic dreams. Should he live that long, we may be sure that honorary Rotarian (White Mason) Jorge Bergoglio would accept honorary leadership of that blasphemous construct (—  in all narcissistic humility, of course). This is self-evident from his ongoing diabolic denunciation of converting souls to the one true Faith: the raison d'être of the Church [Matt. 28:19-20; Mk 16:15-16]. To pursue this holy and bedrock Catholic activity in any way, he rails, is a sin.

Once again, Francis hammered home this mantra in his November Avvenire interview. "Any proselytism [read: seeking converts] among Christians is sinful," he repeated. "Proselytism among Christians is in itself a grave sin and is contrary to the very dynamics of becoming and being a Christian." At a Bergoglian stroke, he thereby condemns two thousand years of evangelical effort. Together with the mighty preaching saints and martyrs, workaday Catholic teachers who have sought over many centuries to convert the Protestants have not only sinned, but committed "grave sin." Their striving to bring non-Catholics into the fullness of Truth turns out to be reprehensible "proselytism." A pointless and damning exercise.

Just as he could not give a straight answer to simple questions posed by his cardinals without giving himself away, he was forced to duck and dive when Avvenire brought up the charge that this teaching brings against him — of "Protestantising the Church" and perpetrating a "sell off of Catholic doctrine." "I continue on the way of those that preceded me, I follow the Council," he protested feebly, spreading the blame. "As for opinions," he added slyly, "it is always necessary to distinguish the spirit with which they are said." Never mind that, to Francis, any 'spirit' of opposition is ipso facto 'sinful', 'rigid', and a sign of 'mental illness'!

Marxist mania

Almost as big a giveaway is his neo-Marxist cheersquad. In complete autocratic accord with the sulphurous tenets and practices of FrancisChurch, the worldwide celebrities of anti-capitalist opposition have repeatedly designated Jorge leader of the revolutionary struggle. Most recently last March, in downtown Buenos Aires. Sandro Magister reports that during a packed gathering of these leftist luminaries, in the presence of arch-Modernist Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, a key advisor to the Pope and Chancellor of the treacherous Pontifical Academies of Sciences and of Social Sciences (see "A Vatican Workshop," April 2016), Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo took the microphone:

To great applause and with a satisfied Sánchez Sorondo beside him, Vattimo made the case for a new communist and “papist” International, with Francis as its undisputed leader, the only one capable of leading a political, cultural, and religious revolution against the excessive power of money, in the “civil war” underway in the world that – he said - is disguised as a fight against terrorism but is in reality the class conflict of the 21st century against the multitude of all the opponents of capitalism.

Sorondo's satisfaction before this thunderous stamp of approval is unsurprising. Like Francis, he and his like-minded colleagues love to court and surround themselves with Marxists, who now infest FrancisChurch (cf. "Reds in Rome", Nov. 2015; "Recycling the Revolution", Aug-Sept, Oct. & Nov. 2015; "Quo Vadis, Domine?", Aug-Sept & Oct. 2015; "Pontifical Marxists," Feb. 2016). Only last November, in an interview published by Italian daily La Repubblica, Francis again equated Christianity with Communism:

Q: You told me some time ago that the precept, “Love your neighbour as thyself” had to change, given the dark times that we are going through, and become “more than thyself.” So you yearn for a society where equality dominates. This, as you know, is the programme of Marxist socialism and then of communism. Are you therefore thinking of a Marxist type of society?

Francis: It has been said many times and my response has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians. Christ spoke of a society where the poor, the weak and the marginalised have the right to decide. Not demagogues, not Barabbas, but the people, the poor, whether they have faith in a transcendent God or not. It is they who must help to achieve equality and freedom.

What separates this Naturalistic Gospel of FrancisChurch and the Supernatural Gospel of Grace that animates the Holy Catholic Church, is the abyss between Heaven and Hell. Full stop.

In response to the papal nod to genocidal Communism, Spanish journalist and writer Hermann Tertsch tweeted, "The apology for a criminal ideology surprises at the Vatican. Although almost nothing there can surprise now." Indeed. But the supplanting of the Gospel of Christ by a Socialist pontiff one hundred years after Our Lady foretold that Russia "will spread her errors throughout the world", does pose the question: in this year of portents, is Francis the greatest portent of all?

Regardless, the unleashing of these materialistic errors within the Church by Francis has immediately had its oppressive effect. Confirming our earlier examples, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, whose boyhood experience under the Soviet regime qualifies him to adjudge the situation, said: "The reaction to the dubia is a proof of the climate in which we actually live in the Church right now.  We live in a climate of threats and of denial of dialogue towards a specific group," such that "dialogue seems to be accepted only if you think like everyone else — that is practically like a regime." In Soviet times, he continued,

If you didn’t follow the line of the party, or you questioned it, you couldn’t even ask. That is for me a very clear parallel to what is happening now in the reactions to the dubia — questions — of the Cardinals. This is a very sad experience especially since everybody is speaking about a ‘dialogue of culture’ after the Second Vatican Council. While bishops openly teach heresies and nothing happens to them, that is truly a grave injustice and very sad.

Monsignor Michel Schooyans of Belgium is another who has spoken out about this burgeoning instrumentalisation of the Church. Last July, drawing on his vast knowledge and experience of the pro-life/pro-family fight against the global elites and their institutions, he wrote about shadowy Bergoglian powers running amuck. He neatly summed up how and why FrancisChurch is leading the Church into ever deeper and quicker convergence with the secular powers:

Discussions during the Synod on the Family revealed the determination with which a group of pastors and theologians do not hesitate to undermine the Church's doctrinal cohesion. This group functions in the manner of a powerful, international, well-heeled, organised and disciplined party.

The active members of this party have ready access to the media; they frequently appear unmasked. They operate with backing from some of the highest authorities in the Church. The main target of these activists is Christian morality, criticised for having a severity incompatible with the "values" of our time. We must find ways which lead the Church to please, by reconciling its moral teaching with human passions.

[...] This voluntarist morality will have a free hand in placing itself at the service of political power, of the state, and also the market, high finance, the law, etc. In concrete terms, it will be necessary to please corrupt political heads, champions of tax fraud and usury, abortionist doctors, manufacturers who deal in pills, lawyers willing to defend the least defensible causes, agronomists enriched by transgenic products, etc. The new morality will hence insidiously penetrate the media, families, schools, universities, hospitals, courts.

This has led to the formation of a social body which refuses to accord first place to the search for the truth, yet is highly active where there are consciences to govern, assassins to reassure, malefactors to free, wealthy citizens with whom to curry favour. Through this network, the neo-casuists will be able to hold sway over the wheels of the Church, influence the choice of candidates for high office, forge alliances which imperil the Church’s very existence.

Righteous resistance

For now, only a handful of prelates are speaking out against the rampant papal errors, injustice, demagoguery and insanity: all at the service of a wholesale remaking of the Faith and the Church. And so the historical pattern repeats, as the laity take up the principal defense of the Faith. Describing the response to the Arian crisis, Blessed John Henry Newman wrote that

There was a temporary suspense of the function of the Ecclesia docens [Teaching Church]. The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years. [During this period] the Divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate..

As with Arianism and semi-Arianism, barring the miraculous consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart, it will surely take centuries to work the Modernist and neo-Modernist poisons out of the ecclesial bloodstream. But then we have always known that we are in this Good Fight for the Long Haul: And you shall be hated by all men for my name' s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. [Matt 10:22]; "Whoever holds out till the end will escape death." [Mt 10:22]

Above all, as Our Lord Himself told Sister Lucia, this perseverance in the Faith requires of each person "the fulfilment of his duties in life and the observance of My law." To fulfil our duties in life today, in this unprecedented pontifical crisis of false teaching, injustice, and scandal, requires greater awareness of papal and episcopal limitations, as well as our own baptismal rights and responsibilities. A good way to start the New Year, therefore — to increase our understanding and strengthen our resolve — is to reacquaint ourselves with some basics in this regard. The extracts provided herein from a lengthier commentary by Professor de Mattei, a prominent leader of the righteous counter-resistance to FrancisChurch, is a good starting point. 


* * * *

For the Record:

The five dubia (questions to be answered in the affirmative or negative) submitted to Pope Francis by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke,
Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner.

  1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?
  2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
  3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
  4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
  5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?



Back to Top | Editorials 2017