Featured Post

An Index of Laramie Hirsch's Race Blog Posts

Here is an index for the race posts I have written.  This should help people to discern what my views are on race. I will be updating this...

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

God, Bless And Welcome John Vennari Into Your Presence

John Vennari is dying this week.

"The doctors say I don't have much time left.  Please pray for me and for my Purgatory.  Was blessed to receive last rites yesterday and the apostolic blessing."

Thank you John, for everything you've done for us. God, please do not let our friend linger in Purgatory. Have mercy. Bless him, Lord, and welcome him to Heaven.

* * *

I bring up the following, only because I wish and hope that someone will do the same on my behalf when my day comes, for the benefit of everyone.  

THAT day of wrath, that dreadful day,
shall heaven and earth in ashes lay,
as David and the Sybil say.

What horror must invade the mind
when the approaching Judge shall find
and sift the deeds of all mankind!

The mighty trumpet's wondrous tone
shall rend each tomb's sepulchral stone
and summon all before the Throne.

Now death and nature with surprise
behold the trembling sinners rise
to meet the Judge's searching eyes.

Then shall with universal dread
the Book of Consciences be read
to judge the lives of all the dead.

For now before the Judge severe
all hidden things must plain appear;
no crime can pass unpunished here.

O what shall I, so guilty plead?
and who for me will intercede?
when even Saints shall comfort need?

O King of dreadful majesty!
grace and mercy You grant free;
as Fount of Kindness, save me!

Recall, dear Jesus, for my sake
you did our suffering nature take
then do not now my soul forsake!

In weariness You sought for me,
and suffering upon the tree!
let not in vain such labor be.

O Judge of justice, hear, I pray,
for pity take my sins away
before the dreadful reckoning day.

You gracious face, O Lord, I seek;
deep shame and grief are on my cheek;
in sighs and tears my sorrows speak.

You Who did Mary's guilt unbind,
and mercy for the robber find,
have filled with hope my anxious mind.

How worthless are my prayers I know,
yet, Lord forbid that I should go
into the fires of endless woe.

Divorced from the accursed band,
o make me with Your sheep to stand,
as child of grace, at Your right Hand.

When the doomed can no more flee
from the fires of misery
with the chosen call me.

Before You, humbled, Lord, I lie,
my heart like ashes, crushed and dry,
assist me when I die.

Full of tears and full of dread
is that day that wakes the dead,
calling all, with solemn blast
to be judged for all their past.

Lord, have mercy, Jesus blest,
grant them all Your Light and Rest. Amen.

-The Dies Irae

The Kingdom of Católica America Part 7b: Race - How An American King Would Ideally Unify Us

America has a race problem.  Many times, "black leaders" will state that it's time to have a conversation about race.  However, aside from the usual race-baiting and mob inciting of the Left, there's really not that much tolerance for "a conversation about race."

In fact, while the Hispanics of the United States seem loyal to Mexico and all points south, American blacks are in a state of being permanently aggrieved.  Even though this nation was one of the very first to rid itself of slavery, white people have carried the guilt of African slavery on their shoulders for generations, and now it's to the point where the whites are prepared to throw themselves onto their own swords to appease a seemingly unappeasable portion of this country.

And so, we are left with a question: How in the world could a Catholic Monarch possibly solve the race issues of America?

In An Ideal Situation, A Catholic Monarch Would Do This...

There are two ways to bring a people together under one common banner.  The first method is to unite people based upon race.  Since there are many races in the United States, that idea is out of the question, unless the king wants to have a balkanized and problematic situation on his hands.

The second way to unite a people is through religion.  Even those on the hard Right will admit this.  For this reason, I have always argued that the United States would do very well with a Catholic monarch.  By uniting the country under the banner of Christianity, with Catholicism as its state religion, the people would be united in a way that this nation has never seen in its entire history, dating back to the colonies.

Should the people turn towards religion as their one shared and common uniting culture, then America can achieve the unity that the Marxist Left so desperately wants to prevent.

In such an ideal scenario, instead of focusing on the different weaknesses of the different ethnicities, people would instead focus on the different strengths that the different demographics would have to offer.  As I stated in a previous post, the Catechism states that "benefits are derived from social commerce," that talents "are not distributed equally," and that differences between men oblige them to practice generosity and kindness, with a mutual enrichment of one another.

In a truly Catholic and unified America, the people would strengthen each other and the culture as a whole by offering one another their best traits and abilities.


Not only would Americans in this ideal monarchical situation flourish, but they would even lose interest in remaining a separated people.  In fact, the king could even encourage the different groups of people to breed with one another, and under this ideal condition, the people would have no issue with this.

Fears of miscegenation would diminish.  Unlike the current globalists and leaders of MultiKult--a group who makes an idol out of such a thing--such unity would not be artificially be pushed upon the populace in such a horrifically patronizing style.  Rather, the citizens of the American Kingdom would naturally make such decisions, here and there, with the approval of the king--though not by an overt and demanding push, as we see in the major media today.

Just as the French intermarried with the different Indians and blacks of North America, so too did the Spanish kings encourage such intermixing.  In fact, consider how the Spanish strove to spread Christendom among the wild unexplored continents and islands of the New World and the Far East. This is an excerpt from C.H. Haring's The Spanish Empire in America.  The emphasis is mine:

The Papal Bull of 1493, which gave to the kings of Castile dominion over the Indies, imposed one supreme obligation: to spread the gospel and draw the pagans into the Church of Christ; and Isabella to the day of her death regarded the welfare of the American natives as a major responsibility. When, therefore, the new governor, Nicolas de Ovando, came out to America in 1502, he was instructed by Isabella to assure the native chiefs that they and their people were under the crown's special protection. They might go in entire freedom about the island, and no one was to rob them or harm them in any way, under severe penalties. They were to pay tribute only as the rest of the king's subjects. Only in the royal service in mines or on public works might they be compelled to labor. These orders were followed to the letter. But left to themselves, the Indians refused to work...They withdrew from all association with the colonists, with results that from the European point of view were disastrous. Within a few months Governor Ovando wrote to Spain protesting that the only effect was the falling off of tribute, lack of labor, and inability to carry forward the work of conversion to Christianity.

The soverigns replied with the famous orders of March and December 1503, which legalized the forced labor of free Indians but attempted at the same time to protect them from uncontrolled exploitation. The natives must be made to work, if necessary, on buildings and farms and in the mines, but in moderation and for reasonable wages. At the same time, to ensure their being civilized, they must be gathered into villages, under the administration of a patron or protector, and provided with a school and a missionary priest. Each adult Indian was to have a house and land which he might not alienate. Intermarriage of Spaniards and Indians was also to be encouraged. And in everything they were to be treated "as free persons, for such they are." Only cannibal Indians from neighboring islands if taken in war might be sold into slavery.

Up until the dysfunctional Puritains either killed off or drove off the Spanish and French, it is highly arguable that significant inroads were being made with the American Natives.  Would only the Puritains have left them alone!  We would have had less of a genocide lingering on our national conscience.

A Humble, Likeable, Successful Nation

Nevertheless, should such a Catholic Monarch arise in such ideal conditions, this nation could achieve a respectable stability among all of the tribes of this continent.  America would be living out the reverse Babel--a scenario in which I previously went into detail.

Indeed, as I laid out in that previous post I linked to, should America undergo a period of repenting and praying for forgiveness (for the godlessness of the 20th Century, and perhaps for our Puritain rejection of Catholicism), we would overcome our differences, and our undertakings would succeed.  Americans, en masse, could plead for God's mercy.  In gratefulness and thanksgiving, Americans would sing praises to the God of the Universe for His benevolence and mercy, and we would be thankful that He didn't wipe us off of the map.

As the nation ages, and the citizens become more of a unified and singular people, sharing a common language becomes a reality. There are no tribal divisions within their society, nor does anyone seek to remember how they were once divided from each other. In time, the distinctions between Japethites, Shemites, and Hammites is erased.  The Babylonian "Curse of Tongues" would no longer be such a reality in the United States.

There would be no more minorities. No more demographic differences. We would be united as a universal nation, all common to one another, worshiping the same Universal God of Creation.

And we would live happily ever after.

 In other words, if everyone agreed to get along with one another, we'd be fine.
If Only...

This, my friends, is what would happen to America if it heartily welcomed a Catholic Monarch to rule over it, and the people were unstubborn, compliant, and willing to work with such a king.  If the people could put aside their differences and unify as one common people under God, this nation would know a peace of which it cannot conceive.  We would be many times stronger than America ever was at its peak.  Our achievments would be astounding, and we'd probably be colonizing outer space.

However, not everything works out in such an ideal fashion.  More often than not, there are great troubles in bringing a people together.  Which is why, in the next post, I will discuss the final scenario:

How a Catholic Monarch Would Deal With A Racist America

Sunday, February 19, 2017

The U.S. Left and George Soros Might Have Overthrown Pope Benedict XVI

The Rad Trads are starting to put two and two together lately.  Seeing how law and order is not on our side in this cultural war for the West, investigations are slow-going and independent.  And it seems that a lot of correlations are popping up recently, thanks to new evidence that continues to pour in--that Obama, the U.S. Democrats, and George Soros may have conspired to some degree to oust Pope Benedict XVI in 2013.  

Should this be true, it only leads more credence towards the idea that Pope Benedict was blackmailed out of the Seat of Peter, and that his resignation was invalid, rendering Pope Francis as an anti-pope.  However, I want to repeat again that this is only a notion that I entertain.  I'm still calling Pope Francis the pope.  For now.

Bye, folks.  I'm not the pope anymore, although I'll still keep dressing like one.
Enjoy your new Leftist leader!
Early E-Mails and Strange Meetings - A "Catholic Spring"

Consider the released Wikileaks e-mails from Hillary Clinton's hacked e-mail records.  Bear in mind that this all takes place before Benedict XVI's resignation.  This first message is from Sandy Newman to John Podesta of Pizzagate fame.

February 10, 2011
Hi, John,

This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together with "the 98%" create an opportunity?

Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them. Just wondering . . .

Hoping you're well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want.

Next, we have the reply from John Podesta:
We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I'll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United are George Soros-funded groups.

Consider the recollection of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who recalled how in 2008 he was visited by two men from Catholics United.
Back in 2008, in the weeks leading up to the Obama-McCain presidential election, two young men visited me in Denver. They were from Catholics United, a group describing itself as committed to social justice issues. They voiced great concern at the manipulative skill of Catholic agents for the Republican Party. And they hoped my brother bishops and I would resist identifying the Church with single-issue and partisan (read: abortion) politics.
It was an interesting experience. Both men were obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party—creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church; less concerned with Catholic teaching than with its influence. And presumably (for them) bishops were dumb enough to be used as tools, or at least prevented from helping the other side. Yet these two young men not only equaled but surpassed their Republican cousins in the talents of servile partisan hustling. Thanks to their work, and activists like them, American Catholics helped to elect an administration that has been the most stubbornly unfriendly to religious believers, institutions, concerns and liberty in generations.
An Appeal For Trump to Investigate

Now, a letter has been sent out to President Donald Trump to investigate the possibility of a conspiracy to upturn the Catholic Church for Leftist ends.  

This letter has been signed by David L. Sonnier, LTC US ARMY (Retired), Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant, Christopher A. Ferrara (President of The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.), Chris Jackson of Catholics4Trump.com, and Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder of YoreChildren.

This letter asks the following questions:
- To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

- What other covert operations were carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?
- Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”?

- International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict. Were any U.S. Government agencies involved in this?

- Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence?

- What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the fomenting of a “Catholic Spring”?
- What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?

- What roles were played by George Soros and other international financiers who may be currently residing in United States territory?
There are definitely a lot of correlations between the scheming of the Left during that period and the immediate subsequent resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.  While Pope Benedict has stated in the past that he was not under any pressure to resign when he did, if it were the case that he was being blackmailed, chances are that he would never admit to it publicly.

Anyway, food for thought.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Bergoglio Is Not The Pope.........?

It is at this point in my life as a converted Catholic that I get to entertain a notion.  The same notion that Ann Barnhardt entertained.  That is--the possibility that Pope Benedict XVI was pushed out of the Chair of Peter, and Bergoglio was pre-arranged to take his place by the St. Gallen Mafia.

What's so funny?
After all, not only is there heavy infighting among cardinals about the legitimacy of the highly-questionable and Church-destroying Amoris Laetitia, but there's even future discussions about a new Catechism being constructed around the latter.  Some speculate that another Synod will be called that legitimizes sodomy and gay marriages, and still, other rumors are in the air that before he goes, Pope Francis will call a Third Vatican Council.

Pope Francis has shed his I'm-A-Humble-Guy persona.  He has clearly come off as a tyrant and a dictator within his organization.  The manner in which he has destroyed and suppressed those who exhibit true Catholic culture is well known.  Such radical changes in such a short time bespeaks the possibility of a devious act of subversion.  The man is even staring to be publicly considered a formal heretic.

It is almost impossible to convince anyone to convert to the Catholic Church due to the Freemasonic, Marxist-styled subversion.  Typically when I approach anyone with the idea that the Church is the One True Universal Church that was started by Jesus Christ, the usual reply I get is that "I wouldn't touch that foot with a ten-foot pole with a man like Francis at the helm."  I've heard this often over the past few years of this pope's reign.  

So, let's entertain the question.  Is it possible he is not pope?

With permission from Ann Barnhardt, herself, I am re-posting her post: Cutting the Crap: 32 Questions and Blunt Answers About The Catholic Church and Antipope Bergoglio

* * * * *

Question 1: What is the deal with Pope Benedict XVI “retiring”?

It has now become clear the Joseph Ratzinger was told by a group of homosexual Cardinals calling themselves the “St. Gallen Mafia”, led by Cardinal Carlo Martini, that he would be permitted to elected pope, but that if he was still alive after eight years, that he would then resign, and if he didn’t resign that he would be forced out, likely with threats of blackmail.

St. Gallen Mafia admission citation HERE.

Citation that the Ratzinger election and papacy was “pre-programmed” by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, and that Martini ordered Ratzinger to “resign” in ARSH 2012, HERE.

Question 2: So was Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation valid?

No.  Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid, and obviously so. To argue otherwise requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Canon 188 states:
A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
Question 3:  Which criterion of Canon 188 invalidates Ratzinger’s attempted resignation?

All of them, except simony, which is bribing or paying off. However, the clearest criterion, which has been explained at length by Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, and by the clear, objective evidence of Pope Benedict’s actions, is the criterion of Substantial Error.  Pope Benedict believed that he could fundamentally transform the office of the papacy into a collegial or synodal office by “partially resigning”.  He believes that he has abdicated the “active” aspect of the Petrine Office, but retains the “contemplative” aspect.  More on that later.

Secondarily, we now know that the homosexualist St. Gallen Mafia instilled grave fear in Ratzinger, which was certainly unjust and obviously malicious.  Upon his election in ARSH 2005, one of the first things Pope Benedict said was “Pray for me that I do not flee for FEAR of the wolves.”

Question 4:  What is Pope Benedict afraid of? Is he blackmailable?

Because The Church has been so thoroughly infiltrated by homosexuals, EVERY PRELATE without exception could be linked to homosexual priests under his jurisdiction.  I think it is safe to say that every churchman is now one degree of separation from a sodomite, and thus every churchman COULD be accused of sins of omission, namely, “Why didn’t you say or do anything about…”. Sodomites are, by definition, ruthless Diabolical narcissists, and have no problem throwing their own under the bus in order to increase their own power.

Question 5: But other popes have resigned previously, right?

Yes, other popes have resigned.  In fact, Pope Benedict XVI visited the tomb of Celestine V in ARSH 2007 and very, very conspicuously left his papal stole on the tomb, which we now understand was a signal to the St. Gallen Mafia that he was fully planning to “resign”.  Pope Benedict XVI is an intelligent, studious man.  He clearly researched and was well-informed of the history of papal resignations, and yet has done everything in his actions to communicate the incomplete nature of his attempted resignation.

Reportage of Pope Benedict XVI visiting Pope Celestine V relics twice.

Question 6: What about Pope Benedict’s actions after his attempted resignation were different?

First, Pope Benedict chose to retain the title of “Pope”.  Because the Petrine Office was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, it cannot be changed, altered, modified, transformed or evolved in any way – not even by The Pope himself. There is no such thing as a “Pope Emeritus”, and just because a retired bishop can be called “Bishop Emeritus” this has NO BEARING on whether there can be a “pope emeritus” because of the singularity and supernatural character of the Papacy.  A bishop is not the Vicar of Christ.  The papacy is unique and singular and has never, does never and will never provide for an “emeritus”. There can only be one living pope at a time, and since Pope Benedict’s resignation was made in substantial error, and in fear unjustly and maliciously inflicted upon him, his resignation was invalid, he never ceased to be The Pope, and he retains the fullness of the Petrine Office until he either dies, or resigns in accord with the law, which at this point is simply impossible.

Cardinal Brandmuller and Bishop Sciacca both demolish the notion of a “pope emeritus” HERE.

John Paul II declared the notion of a “pope emeritus” impossible after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease.

Second, Pope Benedict retained the Papal style, Your Holiness. Only the Pope is addressed as “Your Holiness” / “His Holiness”. He likewise chose to retain his Papal Name and, in clear contradiction to the previous popes who had resigned, did NOT revert to his baptismal name, Joseph Ratzinger.  By retaining his Papal name and style, he is clearly communicating his belief that he is still a participant in the Petrine Office, which he is – he is the EXCLUSIVE holder of the Petrine Office.  To argue that this studious, conscientious man has done all of this as a mere flippant oversight once again requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Third, Pope Benedict freely chose to continue to wear the Papal white cassock.  Upon his departure from the Vatican in February of ARSH 2013, Pope Benedict sent the clear signal that he believed himself to still be a holder of the Petrine Office.  He was asked immediately why he did not follow the clear precedent of all previous popes who had resigned by reverting to the black cassock.  His answer was stunning in its dishonesty.  He said that he was wearing the Papal White because there were no black cassocks for him to wear.  He publicly announced his “resignation” nineteen days before he “left office”.  The notion that there was not a single black cassock anywhere in the city of Rome, or that no one in Rome could have made him – the Vicar of Christ – a black cassock in NINETEEN DAYS had he requested it, is, very simply, a boldfaced lie.

Fourth, Pope Benedict defied all previous precedence with regards to Papal resignations, by choosing to continue to live INSIDE THE VATICAN.  All previous popes that resigned LEFT ROME so as to avoid ANY appearance of retaining the papacy or possible confusion to the faithful on the question.

So, we have a man, with the title “Pope”, addressed by the Papal style, “His Holiness”, wearing the Papal white, living inside the Vatican. Once again, to argue that Pope Benedict XVI is completely oblivious to the optics of this requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, confirming the above:
From the election of his successor, Pope Francis—on 13 March 2013—there are not then two Popes, but de facto an enlarged ministry with an active and a contemplative member. For this reason, Benedict has not renounced either his name or his white cassock. For this reason, the correct title with which we must refer to him is still “Holiness.” Furthermore, he has not retired to an isolated monastery, but [has retired] within the Vatican, as if he had simply stepped aside to make space for his Successor, and for a new stage in the history of the Papacy, which he, with that step, has enriched with the centrality of [prayer] and of compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.

Question 7: Is it possible that Pope Benedict XVI is just stupid?

No.  To argue that requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Question 8: Why is Pope Francis saying and doing things that are in direct opposition to Jesus Christ and His Holy Church? I thought that was impossible?

“Pope Francis” IS NOT THE POPE.  Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope, falsely elected in an invalid conclave because Pope Benedict never validly resigned the papacy.  Therefore BERGOGLIO HAS ABSOLUTELY NO PARTICIPATION IN THE PETRINE OFFICE, INCLUDING THE CHARISM OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.  As an antipope, Bergoglio is completely free to say and do things which are heretical, apostate and even satanic, because none of the supernatural protections of the papacy apply to Bergoglio, because Bergoglio is not now and never was the pope. Antipope Bergoglio hates God and His Holy Church and is hellbent on destroying it. All of his intentions toward the Church are malevolent. He is a servant of satan, carrying out a satanic agenda.

Question 9: Isn’t Pope Benedict XVI a heretic for doing what he has done, and thus no longer the Pope either?

Pope Benedict XVI is indeed a heretic and is now the worst pope in the history of The Church, BUT this makes his papacy ILLICIT, but still VALID.  It is absolutely essential to understand the difference between LICAITY and VALIDITY.  At this point I would refer you to an excellent essay by Fr. Brian Harrison, penned in ARSH 2000, and thus completely unprejudiced with regards to current events.

“A Heretical Pope Would Govern The Church Illicitly But Validly”

Question 10: But wouldn’t this same concept of “illicit yet valid” apply to Bergoglio as well?

Absolutely not, because Bergoglio’s election was itself invalid.  The question of Bergoglio’s heresy and apostasy is moot with regards to the papacy because Jorge Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope.

Question 11: So if a pope who is a heretic is illicit yet valid, that means that the sedevacantists have been wrong all along?

Yes.  Pope John XXIII was almost certainly a Freemason.  Paul VI was a raging sodomite and pro-Communist. John Paul II was a phenomenologist and kissed the satanic tome of the musloids, the koran, and his so-called “Theology of the Body” is deeply heretical.  Pope Benedict’s metaphysics are so warped as to be not even properly called “metaphysics”, revolving around “meaning” and not “being”.   And yet, all were/are popes, valid yet illicit.

Question 12: Has Pope Benedict’s warped notion of metaphysics informed his actions with regards to the papacy?

Yes.  Pope Benedict thinks that the defining criterion of something’s existence is what it MEANS, not what it IS.  And so, he thinks that it is not important what the papacy IS, but what it MEANS, and thus it is free to be redefined, even if that redefinition defies the principle of non-contradiction. Thus, Pope Benedict thinks that he can both be and not be the Pope – he can be the “contemplative pope”, but simultaneously not be the pope, because the papacy is a matter not of being, but of meaning.

Question 13: Is it possible that this warped notion of metaphysics is a function of Pope Benedict being stupid?

No.  Just because someone is wrong, does not mean they are stupid.  In fact, it is intelligent people that make the most enormous mistakes. You will never meet a person with Down’s Syndrome that denies the realness of reality, but there are trainloads of geniuses that do. And remember that Lucifer, the largest intellect created by God, rebelled against Him.

Question 14: Why do people like Cardinal Burke keep saying that Pope Francis isn’t a heretic, and they are not accusing him of heresy?

Because Cardinal Burke and pretty much everyone else are operating on the false base premise that Bergoglio is the pope, and they think that they cannot say anything “against the Pope”.  BERGOGLIO IS NOT THE POPE. While Cardinal Burke claims that he is intensely concerned about saying anything “against the Pope” or damaging the authority of the Petrine Office, the truth is that CALLING A MAN WHO IS NOT THE POPE, “THE POPE”, IS THE MOST DAMAGING THING ONE CAN DO TO THE CREDIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE PETRINE OFFICE.  Further, when Cardinal Burke says that he is not accusing Bergoglio of being a heretic, he is obviously dissimulating.  In the five Dubia questions submitted to Bergoglio, the first question addresses heresy, and the other four questions address apostasy, namely the denial of objective morality and the denial of objective truth.

Question 15: Could it be that Cardinal Burke and everyone else are afraid?

Yes.  Absolutely. To his credit, Cardinal Burke recently said in an interview that he feared standing before Christ at his judgment and being asked why he didn’t defend Our Lord and The Truth.  Sadly, Cardinal Burke is not nearly afraid enough, because he continues to try to live with one foot in The Truth of Christ, and the other in the lie of the Bergoglian antipapacy, Novus Ord-ism and Vatican Two-ism.

Question 16: What are they afraid of? Why won’t anyone talk openly about this?

They are afraid of

a. Jeopardizing their career tracks or status
b. Jeopardizing their cash flows (this applies to bloggers, news outlets, anyone who lives off of The Church in any way)
c. Incurring social stigma and being socially ridiculed or rejected (do not underestimate this dynamic)
d. Being exposed/blackmailed for either sexual sins or financial crimes

Question 17: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that the papacy really isn’t that important.  This contradicts not only what I was taught, but common sense.

The papacy is extremely important.  In fact, it is so important that Our Lord instituted it BEFORE He founded the Church at Pentecost. To argue that the Papacy isn’t important is irrational, effeminate, and explicitly contrary to the words and actions of Jesus Christ in the Holy Gospels, and thus completely uncatholic.

Question 18: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that we can’t know who the pope is.  Can that be right?

No, that is clearly wrong.  The truth is objective, external to ourselves, and above all, KNOWABLE. If the identity of the pope is unknowable, then the papacy itself is irrelevant.  If the papacy itself is irrelevant, then the Church is irrelevant.  If the Church is irrelevant, then Christ is irrelevant. If Christ is irrelevant, then Christ is not God. If Christ is not God, then nothing, and i mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, matters. People who argue that the identity of the pope is unknowable are effeminate and are under one or more of the four categories of fear in Question 16.

Question 19: Several trad bloggers I read argue that who the pope is isn’t our problem, and we should just leave it to future generations to deal with. Can that be right?

No, that is not right. It is a lie from the pit of hell, promulgated by wildly effeminate people who reject the notion that they should be asked or even expected to take up their cross and deal with objective reality. It is the narcissistic, adolescent mindset of pathologically weaseling out of all responsibility.  Imagine if the Apsotles had argued that none of them could ever know whether or not Christ was Divine, and that the question should be left to future generations to decide, and thus it was impossible for them to fulfill the Great Commission, much less die as martyrs.

Question 20: Several trad bloggers I read argue that what is going on in the Church right now, and with Bergoglio, is actually no big deal. Can that be right?

No, that is very, very, very wrong.  Countless souls are being lost to hell every day, and will continue to be lost to hell until Our Lord returns in Glory, because of this.  This is perhaps the single most important thing that has happened since the Pentecost. To minimize the importance of The Church being infiltrated and an antipope installed who is systematically and rapidly destroying The Church down to its foundations, scandalizing countless souls into eternal, unending damnation, never to see God, is of unquantifiable importance.  Anyone who argues otherwise is wildly, wildly effeminate.

Question 21: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that this has all happened before.  Is that right?

No, that is absolutely wrong.  Never before in the history of The Church has there been an antipope who has denied the existence of objective moral norms, denied the existence of truth, and effectively attempted to abrogate the Ten Commandments and the Seven Sacraments, denied the existence of hell, called The Great Commission “sinful”, or actively fomented and encouraged adultery and Eucharistic sacrilege. Never.  Not even close.  Not even the Arian Schism approaches this.  Anyone who argues otherwise is dissimulating.

Question 22:  Why doesn’t Pope Benedict say or do anything?

It is a combination of pride, weakness, and possible blackmail/coercion. Furthermore, if Pope Benedict asserts his authority in any way, he will be acknowledging the illegitimacy of his resignation, and thus has painted himself into a corner.

Question 23: Is Bergoglio going to come after the Traditional Mass? Some trad bloggers I read say Bergoglio doesn’t care about liturgy one way of the other.

Yes, Bergoglio will eventually come after the Trad Mass.  The driver behind Bergoglio is satan, and satan cares very, very, very much about liturgy, and desperately wants to eliminate the Venerable Gregorian Rite from the face of the earth, and eventually the Rite of John Chrysostom and all of the other venerable Catholic Rites of the Holy Sacrifice. The notion that Antipope Bergoglio “doesn’t care”, especially in light of his ruthless attacks on traditional orders, and his incessant insults directed obviously at Traditional Catholics, is a position that requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Question 24: If Bergoglio rescinds Summorum Pontificum and abrogates the Mass of the Ages, what should priests do?

WHY would a priest obey an antipope? Bergoglio has as much authority to overturn Summorum Pontificum as I do – NONE.  Again, the question is asked from the foundation of a false premise, namely that Bergoglio is the pope.  BERGOGLIO IS NOT THE POPE.

Question 25: What is the path forward barring supernatural intervention?

The only path forward is to declare Bergoglio antipope, forcibly remove him, and then WAIT FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI TO DIE. If a conclave were to be called after the removal of Bergoglio, but before the death of Pope Benedict, the man “elected” at that conclave would be every bit as much an antipope as Bergoglio, no matter how orthodox he might be.  The only way to be certain that this mess is cleared up is to wait for Pope Benedict XVI to die.  This was what The Church did after the resignation of Pope Gregory XII, and this was how the Great Western Schism was ended.

Question 26: What are the odds of this happening without supernatural intervention?

Epsilon above zero.

Question 27:  Why is this happening? Why is God permitting this? Doesn’t He love us?

This is happening because God is very angry, and we deserve it. Of course He loves us, and what this situation affords us is the chance to stand up for Jesus Christ, His Holy Church, and His Vicar on Earth, and declare the truth in circumstances never before seen in the history of The Church.  This is the chance for the Remnant Faithful to stand up and scream that the Church has been infiltrated, that the Novus Ordo must be abrogated and that the Second Vatican Council was a failed council that should be burned to ash and thrown onto the garbage heap of history.

God has also permitted this because it shows us exactly what the logical conclusion of Modernism, Vatican Two-ism and Novus Ordo-ism looks like, without having the papacy fall into the hands of an open apostate.

Question 28: Is it possible that Antipope Bergoglio is the Antichrist or False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist?

Antichrist, no.  False Prophet Forerunner, yes, that seems not only possible, but probable.

Question 29: Is it possible that Bergoglio is a satanist?

Yes, it is possible.

Question 30: Is it possible that Bergoglio is demonically possessed?

It is a foregone conclusion that Bergoglio is demonically OPPRESSED. Possession is possible, but unlikely, as satan has no need to possess a person who is fully on board with the satanic agenda of his own free will, as Bergoglio clearly is.

Question 31:  Shouldn’t we keep this quiet?  Won’t talking about this drive people away from The Church? Who would want to join a Church that is under attack by satan?

No.  The truth, even when horrifically ugly, is always authentically attractive.  What drives people away is the effeminacy and obvious dissimulation of failing to acknowledge that Bergoglio is an antipope.  Further, the false premise of Bergoglio being the pope immediately leads to the logical corollary that The Church is false and irrelevant, and thus that Jesus Christ is irrelevant, and thus that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is thus irrelevant.

It is precisely because The Church, the Mass, the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the Papacy and the Law are under attack by satan that so compellingly demonstrates that they are all true, good and beautiful.  Not only does the truth of the situation not drive people away, it inspires them to join up.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:  But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1: 23-25

Question 32:  Should I stop going to Mass?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. What you should do is move heaven and earth to attend a Traditional Mass or Divine Liturgy, and then go every single day humanly possible, and spend as much time as possible before the Blessed Sacrament, and go to confession frequently.  Do whatever it takes, right now, to find a good parish or chapel. If you wait until The Remnant Church is forced completely underground, you will have a much harder time.  This is precisely what the parable of the wise and foolish virgins is about, folks.  At some point, the door will close, and if you are one of the foolish virgins who got caught without any oil in your lamp, and had to scramble to find any, it will, at some point, be too late, and the Bridegroom will close the door.  You have been warned.  It is obvious what is happening.  No one will have any excuse.

Go to Our Lord, kneel before Him and BEG HIM to provide for you and your family to always be able to go to Mass. Beg Him to show you the way and illumine the path for you, as He illumined the path of the Magi. Beg Him to fill your lamp with oil Himself, and to keep it always full.  Beg Mary, Mother of The Church, to intercede for you.  Beg St. Joseph, Patron of The Universal Church, to lead you to safety as he led Our Lord and Our Lady on the flight to Egypt.

* * * *

This poster says: "Francis, you police congregations, have priests removed, have decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans dell’Immcolata, ignored Cardinals … but is this your mercy?"

So, if you've read this far down, what can we expect in the future if our worst fears are true?  Ann has a touch more to say on this point, and I have permission to re-post the following as well.  Her forecast is in response to a question - ANSWERS: Why Won't Any Cardinals Speak Up Against Antipope Bergoglio?

* * * * *
The reason why none of the Cardinals, of which it is reliably reported and confirmed that no less than 30, THIRTY, have privately “dialogued” with Bergoglio about his heresy, will call this jerk out has been communicated to me.

The threat Antipope Bergoglio is holding over all of them is that if they resist him…



I have news for you, Emeninces. Antipope Bergoglio is going to call “Vatican 3” and attempt to “lock everything in” no matter what. Once again, you are being played. The only proper strategy against Antipope Bergoglio is FULL ON CHARGE. There is no “appeasing” Satan or his minions. You either fight, or you die, and die as filthy, miserable cowards.

St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.
St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

* * * * *

Pray for us, indeed, should this all be true.