Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Monday, February 29, 2016

Cruz is a scumbag. Don't vote for him.

Wow. What a bastard.

Ted Cruz Busted On Secret Tape Admitting That His Core Positions Are Fake

In a secret recording, Ted Cruz admitted that he doesn’t really believe what he is trying to sell to Republican voters and that if elected president, a Cruz administration would not fight same-sex marriage. He also backed off of his positions on issues like abortion and common core.
Politico released more of the secret tape of Ted Cruz talking to donors at a New York fundraiser, and it confirmed what many have long suspected. Sen. Cruz is faking it to get elected.
Do not vote for Cruz for president. Also, put his ass out of Congress when the time comes. He does not deserve to serve in public office. He is a bought-and-paid-for dirtbag.


Sunday, February 28, 2016

Rubio is a scumbag. Don't vote for him.

Wow. What a bastard.

MUST LISTEN: Stephen Miller Makes Case Against Marco Rubio in Epic Rant


Do not vote for Rubio for president.  Also, put his ass out of Congress when the time comes.  He does not deserve to serve in public office.  He is a bought-and-paid-for dirtbag.


Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Constitution is Fundamentally Anti-Christian

Before his assassination, Justice Scalia was discussed over at Vox Popoli just as recently as last month.  Scalia was talking at a Catholic high school in Louisiana, where he said that, basically, the Constitution of the US does not mean the state has to be neutral when it comes to religion.  

The AP article (expired IP link) sums up Justice Scalia's statement:
He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.
Vox Day backs up Justice Scalia and adds:
"Moreover, the idea that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion" does not bar the several States, or the executive branch, from doing as it likes with regards to any religion."

"Apotheosis of Washington"  Located in Washington DC.
In the US, men--and no other--are supposed to be the gods.

I hold that both Justice Scalia and Vox Day are wrong in this regard.   This is one of the few times that I disagree with VD and a great man like the late Justice Scalia.  I argued as much on VD's blog thread, which I now provide below:

I'm not expert on this issue. However, after hearing Christopher Ferrara talk about his book, Liberty: The God That Failed, I honestly must disagree with both Justice Scalia and even you, Vox.

Yes, for one of only a few times in the 14-15 years I've been reading you, I think you're wrong on this.
Even the Civil War-era National Reform Association acknowledged that The Constitution was godless, and specifically, Christless. And in fact, in regards to the manner in which the Constitution is set up, it is destined to one day crush state governments and every move within the nation to hold onto Christianity.

Ferrara: "Again and again, these people in the NRA conventions warned that unless something like the Christian amendment were adopted, the Constitution would become a battering ram for the destruction of the remnants of the Christian social order.

"The appeal to the enemy is the Constitution." -T.P. Stevenson

Again, this country's foundations lie on satanic Freemasonry, which is the sworn enemy of Christ's Church on Earth. And it is therefore no surprise that we have satanists popping up their weaselly heads, right here in Oklahoma, holding black masses, desecrating religious images in front of churches during Christmas, attempting to erect statues to the devil, and generally being as nasty as possible, all for the sake of spite. Belligerence for belligerence's sake.

This nation is designed to have this kind of outcome--whether that was intended or not. And because of this Freemasonic republic, we are going to see much more Satanism--and even Islam, the bride of atheists--and much less acceptance of Christianity.


Myself, I think we should write a new Constitution, almost exactly like that of Hungary.

Later in the conversation, I was asked by Sheila4g if I have specific incidents where any public exercise of Christianity was challenged early on? My final response in that thread was the following:

I imagine suppression of exercising Christian practices is more common these days, now that atheism is emboldened by the weakness of whatever Christian remnants are left in this country. But I do have an example or two. The first example will match our current season of the Christmas octave. (Christmas ain't over until Wednesday, the Epiphany.) Going back, you could always point to the suppression of Christmas by the Puritans. Granted, it was by a Protestant denomination, and not the State. However, Puritans were the ones in charge of local government, and prosecutions were definitely a real thing. As late as the 1800's people were prosecuted for disturbing the peace with their festivities, and tension didn't ease up until after the Civil War ended, and Christmas was made a Federal holiday.

In the early times of our country, the situation for Catholics was so tenuous, that bishops would hardly ever be appointed here. For American Catholics, back then, Catholics couldn't blatantly come out in the open so much about their faith.

The Know Nothing Party of the 1800's is responsible for a lot of harassment and destruction of Catholic property. Its most prominent leaders were U.S. Representative Nathaniel P. Banks, and Representative Lewis C. Levin. They actually started using the name the American Republican Party in 1843.
There was the Blaine Amendment of the late 1800s, which forbid direct government aid to educational institutions that have any religious affiliation. This was largely a Nativist attack against the Irish Catholic influx of that era, and it is here that we see President Grant proclaiming that--in schools at least--Church and State should be forever separate, and that religion should be left to families, churches, and private schools devoid of public funds.

Though America consists of mostly Protestants, it is arguable that the fight against Catholicism and the Logos--Jesus Christ--are wrapped up in one package. The running "joke" among Catholics is that anti-Catholicism is "the last acceptable prejudice" in this country. Historian, Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr., once said: "I regard the prejudice against your Church as the deepest bias in the history of the American people."

Listen to that youtube link I provided. Christopher Ferrera gave quite a few examples of official challenges by the Founders against Christianity, proclaiming that this is NOT a Christian nation. Here it is again:

Liberty: the god That Failed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqRo6OHdEnw

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen--and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-Treaty of Tripoli, President John Adams.

Religious indifferentism implemented, once again, in order to appease the Muslims. Eat your heart out, Obama.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Liberal Atheism is Courting Islam

A good ol' buddy of mine brought this article to my attention: The Islamization of America? Contemplating the Unthinkable.  In it, William Kilpatrick contemplates the Islamization of the United States.

It's a fairly good article, but this particular section caught my particular attention:
Prayers for the Assassin
Despite the relatively small number of Muslims in the U.S., there is a large potential pool of converts among the ranks of college students and recent grads. Who else might prove susceptible to the charms of Islam? Three other groups come to mind: celebrities, fatherless boys, and prisoners.
Celebrities are, of course, a relatively small group, but they are highly influential. Robert Ferrigno’s novel Prayers for the Assassin pictures an America that, sometime in the not-too-distant future, has largely converted to Islam. The real breakthrough comes when a high-profile actress shares her newfound faith during her Oscar acceptance speech. She also announces “her betrothal to Assan Rachman, power forward and MVP of the world champion Los Angeles Lakers.” More celebrity conversions follow and lead, in turn, to a cascade of millions of conversions within a matter of weeks. The disconcerting thing about Ferrigno’s scenario is that it’s all too plausible. In a celebrity-conscious society, people want to live as the celebrities live. And while most people can’t afford to buy a Rolls or a mansion by the sea, they are quite capable of converting.

It is no secret that there is a continual marriage between liberal atheism and Islam.  (I've mentioned it at least once before.  Actually, I've mentioned it three times.)  I'm sure I'll mention it again.  Liberal atheism, which has the aim of creating a vacuum when it comes to religious influence, will gladly court and welcome in Islamic domination.

Leftism is pushed on our people day after day and minute after minute.  If you are unable to realize that you need to tune out the major media and its influence, chances are that you will become engulfed in liberal views, and you will ultimately begin to believe them.  Liberals (as we know them in the 21st Century) hate Christ.  Liberals hate the Logos.  They despise the Catholic Church, and they would much rather replace it with their own version of what a religion ought to be.  Because of these things, The Left is ripe to be overcome by Islam.

Weak-willed, effeminate, hedonistic people on the Left are aching--begging--to submit to something.  But they dare not submit to Christianity.  So, instead, they will submit to Islam.  And they will do so gladly.

And so, consider how we have an army of Hollywood liberals trying to force their fringe viewpoints upon the common people.  Now consider what it will be like when these fragile cowards eventually give in to Islam.  They will be talking about Islam and making that religion a popular phenomenon.  As people become more carefree with their reckless devotion to trends, coffee shop hipsters will latch on to Islam like Starbucks coffee.  You will never hear the end of it.  And soon, just as it is now almost a fireable offence to proclaim sodomy a sin--soon it will be a fireable offense to speak ill of Islam at all.  The SJWs who are out to get you because you're not fag-friendly will begin to target you for not joining the groupthink, and giving the benefit of doubt to Islam.

The liberals of Calais, France, do nothing as Islamic immigrants gobble up their city.

SWPL White Liberals are cowards.  It seems as if they are genetically predisposed to run from any conflict.  It is as though Western liberals dare not speak any kind of universal truth, ever--so much so, that they flee from confrontation.  Running from the good fight is what these people do.  It is as though it's some kind of a genetic trait.  (I touched on "SWPL flight culture" a bit this week, over at Cathinfo.)  To them, truth is like sunlight to a vampire.  It makes them hiss.  They cannot take it.

Liberals are fully prepared to give in to a true rape culture.  A real one.  Not the stupid false "rape culture" fiction that they write about on college campuses.  And then there's the cuckservatives.  Cucks will gladly give over their ideals to whatever trend comes along that threatens to label them with words like "racist" or "bigot."

At this point in time, as we approach the 2020s, I would say that The Left is just courting Islam.  The full marriage has not happened quite yet.  They are still dancing around each other.  Liberals are too stupid to realize that Islam pushes queers off of rooftops, so I don't see The Left having any second thoughts about this eventual union.  But when will the actual melding between the two occur?  I'd give it a decade, maybe even fifteen years?  Just a guess.

The pink lobster on the right is RIPE for Islamic conversion.

"Thanks to your democratic laws, we shall invade you; and thanks to our religious laws, we shall dominate you."  -Muslims*

*As reported by Archbishop Giuseppe Germano Bernardini, from a 1999 conference between Islam and Christianity.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Building Bridges for Monarchists in America!

The material below is basically a Facebook conversation I had with Charles Coulombe.  After tonight's discussion, I am hopeful that even greater optimism has been kindled in that dear chap's heart!  Our exchange began with the recommendation of a 2.5-year old article that basically discusses how younger minds are entertaining thoughts of monarchy after a 240-year failed test of Freemasonic republicanism.  It then touches a bit on Ann Barnhardt's thoughts on the matter, and finally, we finished up with a reference to Davis Aurini.  

God, bless us, everyone!

# # #

LH: Charles, this should be a fun read for you.

You know, I consider myself ahead of the curve on matters like this. I really think that in ten, twenty, or perhaps even thirty years, discussions about this will become quite mainstream.

However, I never would have latched onto the idea of monarchy as a superior form of government if it were not for you. For that, I say thanks. 

Geeks for Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries

Here's the video that started it all for me:

Coulombe: Now I am scared!

LH: Wha? I'd never thought about the issue until I saw this! It was a good collection of thoughts on your part!

Coulombe: Just being funny - remember that I was a Comedian. Interesting article about a universe completely unknown to me. But it makes perfect sense. Take a bunch of highly functional people - products of an education technical rather than liberal (we have been careful not to teach history, literature, or civics) - and constantly tell them what they are not allowed to think while attempting to make them feel guilty for being who they are! Personally, I feel that culture/religion plays a far bigger part in formation of higher or lesser character traits - but even that would be too radical in to-day's climate.

LH: I am hoping that the ball is rolling when it comes to the idea of monarchy in this country. It seems far-fetched now. But I imagine that if things don't work out--that is, to say, if America becomes a balkanized continent of different tribes, as Pat Buchanan so frequently warns about--such a form of government as a monarchy (hopefully Catholic) will not be out of the question. You'll be interested to know, even Ann Barnhardt has pushed the idea. The idea is out there. The article I shared with you came from a Facebook page called Anarcho-Monarchism.

Coulombe: Yes, indeedy. Again, our masters have only themselves to blame, to be honest.

LH: From Barnhardt: "Democracy is a terrible system that rapidly devolves into the tyranny of the mob who then, without fail, install a tyrant. The founders of the now-dead American republic were quite open about this. Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Yup. And the American republic didn’t even survive 240 years. The best system of government is a meritorious aristocracy that elects a monarch."

Coulombe: Interesting piece - of course, however Pope Francis feels about things, he isn't really able to change as much as he thinks - that was the lesson of the two Synods, which DID NOT go the way they were supposed to. I don't think her reading of the Pope is off the mark, though I do believe that the bottom of it all, HH does have the Faith of an Argentine immigrant - which is at constant war with his bad formation. And, of course, the writer's views on democracy are quite correct.

LH: Well, Barnhardt's views about Pope Francis aside (and they ARE fiery, I warn you), I was just wanting to point out the slowly growing acceptance of Monarchy. Online, at least, people toy with the idea. Even Davis M.J. Aurini toys with the idea. This guy is a Red Pill, MGTOW, Alt-Right vlogger! And yet, even a fellow like this considers monarchy.

Coulombe: This is REALLY good - he touches on a number of points I make in the book I am writing at the moment, and very cogently!

LH: Take heart! This phenomenon is growing!

Coulombe: I do! I shall! I think I'll post this, h/t you, and attempt to friend him on FB. The generational experience he describes is precisely what I saw among Xers and Millenials - and has made me ever more grateful for my father.

# # #

The rest of the conversation took place through private messages.  Let it be sufficed to say that we agreed that the truth of monarchy's supremacy will eventually assert itself, that the masculine role of being a father--fatherhood, priesthood, and kingship--is a quality that is sorely needed at this time, and that the best one can do during this civilizational crisis is to raise good, strong children amidst our society's modernist chaos.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

An Alta Vendita Pope? Part 2

Often times, I assume that fellow Catholics have read the books that I've read, heard the speakers I've heard, and so on.  That is my fault, of course.  It is entirely possible that Catholics who are ignorant about Freemasonry simply have not thought it through, that they have no idea what the Church has exactly said about the matter, nor do they know the implications of membership in the cult.

I have actually seen a few Catholics come out this week in defense of Freemasonry.  Are they young?  Are they ignorant?  Or are they just "Too Long; Didn't Read" types, possessing an IQ of 90, and who cannot stand to even read halfway through a paragraph.  Honestly, I'm inclined to think the latter.

In any event, just to name a few sources for the beginner, Pope Leo XIII spoke out against Freemasonry in Humanum Genus. On November 26, 1983, The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated the Church's penalty of excommunication for any Catholic who dares to join the side of Freemasonry. On his website, John Salza has a direct link to a discussion about the evils of Freemasonry. Even the Mother of Christ, herself, warned us quite specifically about Freemasonry when she came to us as Our Lady of Good Success.

Most Americans think of Freemasons as harmless old Shriners with their funny hats and their charity hospitals.  They have no clue about the atrocities unleashed by this sect in Portugal or Ecuador, to only begin to name a few.  There are even particular prayers of exorcism to lift multi-generational curses that are caused by Freemasonry.

Freemasonry's aim has always been the interior deterioration of the Catholic Church, as was touched upon in my previous blog post.  But that won't stop the Pope Francis Club.  He's humble, by the way.  Indeed, they will open their arms to just about everybody--Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, and now apparently Freemasons.  Indeed, the author of The Year of Mercy is merciful to just about everyone--especially journalists.  But he is definitely NOT merciful to Traditional Catholics.  Everyone gets to go to Heaven under the watch of Pope Francis except practicing Traditional Catholics.  Traditional Catholics get to go to Hell.

And with that, let us reflect on just how wonderfully merciful this papacy is to everyone--except Traditionalists--as we read about how Cardinal Ravasi is calling for open dialogue with his "Dear Brother Masons."

Irreverent Catholics, Gays, adulterous divorcees, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Freemasons = Heaven

Traditional Catholics still trying to hold onto the Mass of the Ages = Toxic Trads go to Hell

An Alta Vendita Pope?

A lot of folks think that Pope Francis is a man owned by the FreeMasons.  The following is from a Masonic 19th Century book, titled, Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita:

This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation.

What our pope?  Papa Francis, who is humble by the way?  Never!  We need to modernize!  The only way to get people to respect the Church is to give in to the "modern way" of thinking.  And, besides!  He's so nice!

I'll admit, today's thought originated from a popular circulated article from the Credo Sanctum blog.

In other news, Justice Scalia was not assassinated.  Nope.  Perfectly natural death.

Everything's fine.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Talking to Fr. Z about SSPX

Father Z posted about Cardinal Burke's statement about the SSPX.  Being a new attendee of Mass at a Society Chapel, I took an interest in what he had to say.  

The ultimate conclusion of Cardinal Raymond Burke and Father Z was that we are not to attend a Society Mass unless it was absolutely necessary.  But what condition could possibly justify that, then?  A zombie apocalypse, in which the only place the Sacrament is offered is at an SSPX chapel?

I threw my current perspective out there, and it's awaiting review by Fr. Z before being posted.  I will be curious to see how he or anyone else responds to it.  I'm not taking a hard line stance and defending Question #5.  That is not a battle I am choosing to fight.  It is not my calling, it is not my station, it is not of my interest.  However, I would like to know how others would respond to it.

Here is my comment post to Fr. Z.  I begin the comment by quoting him:
"Being mad at the priest… not liking the modern building… hating the music… these are not reasons to leave your parish and go to the SSPX.  Card. Burke says, “absolute necessity” which narrows it down quite a bit."
Okay, I'm not trying to be argumentative, here.  However, I have recently been taking the family to Society Mass.  This is largely due to scheduling; I am a third-shift worker, and there are no Latin Masses available at a later time, other than the one the Society offers.
Now, the Society would argue that the absolute necessity for going to an SSPX Mass is already there, since the Church has been in a state of emergency since Vatican II.  And they argue that we should stay away from the Novus Ordo Mass altogether, as it is "a liturgy for a modernist religion."  While I am not entirely comfortable with that idea, I can at least understand their arguments that the Novus Ordo Mass, while not invalid, can actually be a hazard to a person's faith.   
Already, this is a long comment post.  I will not post the entire section, but this argument comes from a book someone gave me, titled: Most Asked Questions About The Society of Saint Pius X.  The section that basically states this is page 21, Question 5: Why Should Catholics Have Nothing To Do With the Novus Ordo Missae.  (I found a link to this little section online: http://www.holycrossseminary.com/Most_Asked_Questions_Question_5.htm.)  And the section concludes with the following:
 If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one's Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).
I dunno.  It's a section from the book that's stuck with me, I suppose.  Especially when I perceive, more and more, an effeminate sense of things at the Novus Ordo Masses available to our family on the later Sunday evening hours.  In fact, the NO Mass really feels like some kind of a Lutheran insult when I attend it, and it feels as though it's an entire ceremony dedicated to opposing Catholicism itself--almost as if it is mocking the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

I will await his reply.  

Sunday, February 7, 2016

The Internet Wastes Our Time: Part 3

It's easy to get wrapped up in conversations and reading articles on forums, blogs, and news sites.  Lord knows, I've been learning this lesson for the past half-decade.  Of course, if you have a higher calling toward something that requires your focused thoughts, you will simply need to simplify your life.

I do try to simplify my life.  But, of course, I'll find some pet topic on one of the forums, and I'll read about it and talk about it, and it'll just consume my time.  I'll try to take a hiatus, but before I know it, I'm pulled into a conversation about some alt-right political topic, and that just gets the ball rolling.

So, once more, The Intellectual Life has red-meat advice for me, and all you other smart cats out there:

In order that everything in you should be directed towards your work, it is not enough to organize yourself within, definitely to settle your vocation and to make wise use of your powers; you must further arrange your exterior life, I mean in respect of its framework, its obligations, its contacts, its setting. 
One word suggests itself here before any other: you must simplify your life. You have a difficult journey before you-do not burden yourself with too much baggage. Perhaps you are not absolutely free to do this, and so you think there is no use laying down rules. That is a mistake. Given the same external circumstances, a desire for simplification can do much, and what one cannot get rid of outwardly, one can always remove from one's soul. 
"Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together" says the Law: wise and peaceful work must not be associated with the noisy and spasmodic interruptions of a life all on the outside. Under this form again a certain asceticism is the duty of the thinker. Contemplation, whether religious or secular, scientific, artistic, or literary, is not compatible with the complications and burdens of an excessively comfortable life. "Big men have little beds," notes Henri Lavedan. There is a luxury tax to be paid on intellectual greatness. Our talent will not be ruined by the ten per cent which is the price of our privilege. The tax is paid, rather, by our faults, and certainly by our temptations; and this brings us a double advantage. 
If you want to entertain knowledge as your guest, you do not need rare furniture, nor numerous servants. Much peace, a little beauty, certain conveniences that save time, are all that is necessary.
Slacken the tempo of your life. Receptions, visits that give rise to fresh obligations, formal intercourse with one's neighbors, all the complicated ritual of an artificial life that so many men of the world secretly detest-these things are not for a worker. Society life is fatal to study. Display and dissipation of mind are mortal enemies of thought. When one thinks of a man of genius, one does not imagine him dining out.
Do not let yourself get entangled in that mesh of occupations which little by little monopolizes time, thought, resources, powers. Conventions must not dictate to you. Be your own guide; obey your convictions, not mere custom; and the convictions of an intellectual must correspond to the goal at which he is aiming.
Vocation means concentration. The intellectual is consecrated; let him not scatter himself in exacting futilities. Let him throw all his resources into the fire of inspiration, as Bernard Palissy sacrificed his furniture. The work and the conditions that further it are the whole thing. Money and attention squandered on trifles would be much better spent in collecting a library, providing for instructive travel or restful holidays, going to hear music which rekindles inspiration, and so on.
Whatever furthers your work is always timely; what impedes it and entangles you is to be put away, for, besides the immediate drawbacks, you are thus driven to work for profit and you deflect your effort. The priest has the right to live by the altar and the man of study by his work; but one does not say Mass for money and one must not think and write for money.
Suppose you are of the number of those who have to earn their living otherwise than by the work they love, how will you preserve the few hours at your disposal if your life is over-full? You must reduce matter to the minimum, so as to lighten and liberate the spirit.

Well, I'd better stop wasting time here, and get back to what I was originally focused on.

Friday, February 5, 2016

The Decline, SVism's Schismatic, Forums are a Hobby

Stepping Back to Consider the Decline

This world is so messed up. I really don't think there's any kind of a positive future for the current state of affairs. There's absolutely nothing that we can do at this point, due to the fact that a big horrible monstrous robot machine has been turned on, and there is no turning it off. It's like the entire world is turning into a mob of zombies. All you can do is stay home, take care of the ones you love, and hide food and water. You cannot look to the future with hope that people will be any better than they are now. They will be worse. They will be more vicious, more savage, more desperate.

As a father, you've got to realize that you're going to have to raise your kids not to think that they can be just any silly thing in the world. Instead, you're going to have to train your kids to be hard, callous, and tougher than you were. They're going to have to deal with punks and scumbags. Sociopaths and ignoramuses. Their peers will be whores and drug aficionados. They'll have to have grit, and they'll have to be a few degrees more merciless to their enemies than you were if they are to protect themselves. 

They will not be able to safely walk to the store, or walk to the park so carefree as you once did. Your childhood neighborhood is gone. What is left is a balkanized war zone. The streets are littered with broken bottles and wadded up aluminum that a meth user tried to cook his drugs in. Our children will have to have a quick wit. They'll have to be switched on. They'll have to be able to draw their weapon fast. And most of all, they'll have to realize that the world is not a happy place where they can let their guard down all of the time. Instead, the world is a horrible place where most of the people in it want to eat them alive. People will want to tear your children into pieces, simply because your kids have something that they don't.   If our kids are ignorant of just how bad things have become, they'll be strangled to death.

I Still Think Sedevacantism Is Wrong

I really enjoy Brian McCall's article in the Remnant, which covers Fr. Cekada's recent criticism of a book he has not even read yet.  The article pretty much sums up in words what I have not yet said about the matter:
Rather than Traditionalists fearing Sedevacantism, it seems that those holding the opinion rather fear the complexity of the crisis God has willed to permit His Church undergo. Rather than the arduous work of sifting through the confusion that has been coming out of the Vatican and chanceries for decades and applying certain Catholic principles to make proper distinctions between legitimate commands and those that lack authority, the opinion of Sedevacantism proposes an alluring simple black and white solution that avoids this difficult work of discernment.

Like Conciliar Catholics who unthinkingly accept everything coming out of the Vatican press office, Sedevacantists take an analogous approach of accepting nothing. In different ways both avoid the more arduous path.

Traditionalists who hold fast to the principle of discernment have nothing to fear. If Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, they will render obedience when required, if he legitimately commands what is in harmony with higher law, and they will withhold obedience when he exceeds his authority. They will therefore not be led into erroneous actions.

If we learn from the Church someday that he was not a legitimate pope, then we still have nothing to fear. We will have only obeyed commands that are consistent with Divine and Natural Law and we will have made merely an error in factual judgment. We acknowledged a Man who has been accepted as the pope by Catholics throughout the world.

I couldn't agree more.  

So, just to sum up where I'm at these days, I feel that it is actually the Novus Ordo Mass that is illicit, and it is the Latin Mass that is licit.  Novus Ordo Mass is irregular, but the Tridentine Latin Mass is regular.  I heartily enjoy the fact that there exists diocesan Latin Mass, and I appreciate the FSSP.  Furthermore believe that the SSPX is not in schism with the Catholic Church, even though the Conciliarist clergy like to scoff at the Society and say it is in schism--or even irregular--when in fact, it is not. Recently, Bishop Athanasius Schneider has recently said of the Society that "the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days."  The Church has truly been in a state of emergency since 1968, and this has justified the emergency actions of the Society.  And finally, sedevacantism is schismatic.  

I am not on a quest to prove sedevacantism is schismatic. It is merely my publicly stated opinion on the matter.  If anyone is interested in knowing how sedevacantism is an error, there is always this book: True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors, by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.

But please, don't come lookin' to me to pick a fight on the matter.  I'm not a theologian, and it's not my calling to set out and disprove sedevacantism.  I've publicly proclaimed my thoughts on the matter because, basically, someone once asked me to have an opinion on it.  And now I have.  

Which leads me to my final thought for the evening:

Forums and Blogs Are Not My Calling

Yes, believe it or not, I have a life outside of the scribbles and chats I have with you people.  Most people in our circles don't know much about me, which I prefer.  I've other interests and projects that I put a majority of my energies towards.  The writing and participation in the online Catholic community, however, is not a part of those projects.  

Like you, I come online and talk for fun.  It is a hobby.  I enjoy exploring ideas.  I like to hear something new, talk about the news, state a case and try to argue for it, or learn that I was wrong on an issue.  Human beings are social creatures, and I am a human being.  Most of my day, I am not surrounded by a Catholic community.  That's one of the reasons the Internet has been such a blessedly useful tool in our modern age.  Having access to practicing Catholics across this country and the world has been a very nice thing.  

I am not out to market this blog, which is a mere extension of my online forum presence.  I am not out to market any books as of yet.  I've written one, but it was written a while ago, and I don't really push it much.  I am not out to prove a point, such as proving that sedevacantism is schismatic.  It is not my calling.  My calling is elsewhere, and my attention is directed towards other things in real life.  

I do not spread myself out too thinly, if I can help it.  I prefer to stay focused, if possible.  Consider this advice from The Intellectual Life, by A.D. Sertillanges, O.P.:
It is a painful thing to say to oneself: by choosing one road I am turning my back on a thousand others. Everything is interesting; everything might be useful; everything attracts and charms a noble mind; but death is before us; mind and matter make their demands; willy-nilly we must submit and rest content as to the things that time and wisdom deny us, with a glance of sympathy which is another act of homage to the truth.
I definitely think that everything is interesting.  But time is limited, and I'm not going to live forever. 

I'm not called by the Almighty to convince the Online Catholic Community of any particular thing.  I'll leave that kind of work to Steve Skojec, Ann Barnhardt and others.  Sure, I've had my little pet projects where I've tried to break through to the community about one idea or another.  And yes, I have my little "missions" and convictions to inform people about something.  But look where it's gotten me; I'm an outsider.  

Besides, most people are TL;DR, SWPL Blue Pills who can't make it to the end of a medium quantity of written text.  Most people can't hold their attention long enough, and most people can't even process what they are reading.  So, really, why bother to truly reach out at all?  

I'm just here.  Take it or leave it.