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...

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Blogging Anonymity: It's A Good Thing

The totally unanonymous David L. Gray has come out to put down all you mean evil anonymous bloggers out there.  He's telling all you people out there to either come out, or shut up!  His reasoning?  He'll argue "I'm out in the open, I can't get a job because of what I say. I'm a hero. You're anonymous, so you're a coward."

I couldn't disagree more.  But before I state my reasons, let's read a little more of what he has to tell us:
"You know what it costs me?  To have a blog and a website with my name on it?  A Facebook page with my name on it?  A Youtube channel with my name on it?  A Twitter account with my name on it?  And I'm not really all that radical.  At least not as radical as I was a few years ago.  Right?  But you know what it costs me?  
It means that when someone doesn't like what I said on my website, or they didn't like a video that I posted on Youtube, they call my pastor.  They call the parish.  They call the rectory.  Talk to a priest.  True story.  That's what it means.  It means that, of all the jobs that I've ever interviewed for, that have in any way been associated with the Catholic Church--in all of them, in either the first interview or the second, or somewhere down the line, early on, in the process of working there (I'm speaking of one job in particular, called The Academy)--it wasn't mentioned in the first interview, but it came up later after one of the other teachers  told the administrator of what I wrote, and I was called into a meeting.
But in every interview, either my blog or my Youtube channel has come up.  That's what it means to not be anonymous.  It also means I don't get those jobs, either.  In every one of those jobs, in which my blog or my Youtube videos came up in the interview process.  I'm never getting those jobs.  RCIA director, RCIA coordinator, high school theology teacher--hell, if I apply to be a janitor in a Catholic church, I'm assured my blog will come up in the interview.  I mean, if they're dumb enough not to google me before they set up the interview, right? 
How brave.  How fantastic for you.  Clearly, you are at peace with the decisions that you are making, in spite of the various temporal penalties that you are willing to unnecessarily endure.

Pure malarkey, all of it.  Steve Skojec chimes in for the second half of this audio hour, but Gray messed up Skojec's audio portion.  So it's likely we'll never know what, exactly, Skojec had to say.  But I am aware that Skojec was in agreement with Gray.  

We are in a culture war.  And if it's one thing our side is really really great at, it's throwing ourselves on our own swords, taking unnecessary blows, shooting each other in the back of the head.  Team Red is really great at losing, and I'm amazed we haven't been thrown in camps yet, we are so ignorant.

War, I said.  Culture war.

I'm not buying anything that David L. Gray has said.  If you feel compelled to rush out there with your bayonet and stab as many of the enemy as you can, wearing no armor whatsoever, you go right ahead.  I'll do my best to snipe the bastards that come at you up until your last gasp.

In the meantime, since we're in a war, how about we read a professional.  Ever hear of Sun Tzu?
-The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him. 
-Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.  
-In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack – the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle – you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?
Our enemies are numerous, and we are a small force.  If we have some shock troops who wanna go barreling into the fray naked, armed with only a spear, that's fine by me.  It'll unnerve the opposition.  But when you are a small force in war, it is your job to appear as a bigger force than you actually are.  Sort of like how the Mongols would burn many campfires, so that their enemies thought that there were actually more of them than there actually were.

I defer to what Vox Day has to say on precisely this matter:
"But anonymity is an absolute necessity for every non-combatant who dares to stand in the way of the pinkshirts, which of course is why they are desperate to eliminate it in the belief that everyone will cower obediently before them once they are stripped naked and forced to choose between submission and being unable to make a living. They don't realize that there are millions who will embrace the ISIS model before submitting to them. Their triumphalism is not merely foolish, it is insanely suicidal."
I will let God judge me as to whether or not I've acted heroic in this life.  I am disinterested in winning the acclaim of David L. Gray for being a hero.  This is a war of attrition for both Team Red and Team Blue, and there are many roles for many different types of fighters.  If a handful of us choose to become cannon fodder, then great.  Diversion tactics always help.

As for the rest of us bloggers, combox denizens, and forum lurkers, we'll be just fine, thank you very much.  We remember how Old Hickory and his Dirty Shirts blew the formations of the Redcoats to living hell in the swamps of New Orleans in 1812.  Andrew Jackson and his men weren't standing there, waiting for their enemy in a neat set of boxed rows, guns pointed and ready.  No.  The Battle of New Orleans was won by a ragtag team of militia men, frontiersmen, slaves, Indians and pirates.

We are at the stage in our cultural decline that such battles are the brand of the day.  Our cultural "leaders" have sold out.  Our priests and bishops are silent.  The laity, the everyman--we are all that is left, now.  And we will not pretend that the Geneva Convention applies to us when it never did for the liberals who attack us.

Our ideas will stand for themselves.

-Laramie Hirsch
Toxic Trad, and Vile Faceless Minion
      

Sunday, May 29, 2016

The Holy Virgin Mary Really Liked Pope John Paul II

So, my fellow Traditionalist Catholics!  Guess what!  The Holy Mother, Mary, is a fan of St. Pope John Paul II.  Yup.  It's true.  For her, St. JPII was the bees knees.  She liked him, and Jesus Christ liked him, and they apparently loved his papacy.

You may ask: "Why do you say this, Laramie?  How do you know?"

Simple.  Think back to 1983 through 1990.  What were you doing?  Watching He-Man?  Going to see the first Batman movie?  Were you skateboarding?  Rollerblading?  Building up your cassette tape music collection, or starting your CD collection?  Were you voting for Reagan, and later, George Bush I?   Did you vote for Pat Buchanan in the Republican primary?  Were you snorting cocaine off of a hooker?

Whatever you were doing in the 1980s, apparently a housewife in Argentina was being visited by our Holy Mother, with occasional visits from her Son.  We will recognize this apparition as Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas. Mrs. Gladys Quiroga de Motta would be in her room praying the rosary, and there appeared the Holy Mother.

The Medal of Mary of the Rosary of San Nicolas.  Note on the right, the symbol for the trinity, adorned with seven stars, representing the seven graces that are to be given to those who wear the medal.  

Our Lady told Gladys over 1800 messages.  Amidst those messages are the following statements about the pope of that decade: St. Pope John Paul II.  Emphasis is mine.
July 12, 1986       Message # 917
Offer this Novena to the Lord, praying for the Pope, my most chosen son, given in body and soul to the Lord and to Mary Mother of Christ. John Paul II walks with his cross, taking Christ's peace and hope to all countries. Conscious of the dangers to which he is exposed, he continues humbly founding My Son's Church. Eternal Glory be to God.

October 27, 1986      Message # 1,005  (Ecumenical meeting of the Pope in Assisi)
My dear daughter, today, prayer will grow generously on this day on which the Pope, knowing what the Lord expects of him, fights for peace, that much desired peace that the world needs so. My beloved children, the priests must follow the Pope, walking with him, as it is to walk with Christ Himself!

John Paul II is faithful and consecrated to the Mother's Heart, fears nothing, goes where the Mother calls him, overcoming every obstacle. He trusts the Mother and feels sure that in the most difficult moments, the Mother is with him. His heart, so often pierced by Christ's adversaries, continues to be strengthened by Christ.
 Glory be to the Lord eternally.

October 28, 1986     Message # 1,006

I pray for the Pope. I see Her and She says to me: Daughter, he is a little child who has gradually grown and is growing in the Heart of Mary. His frail body is strengthened with the fortitude that my love gives him. His spirit, completely healthy, whole and pure, is yielded to the Lord. John Paul, humble servant! His heart overflows with love for all, his transparent eyes allow his clean soul to be seen. On his shoulders, he bears the great responsibility of the Church and mankind in general. He presents it to Christ and places it in Christ's hands. The world needs peace and the world needs love. Christ gives it, Christ offers it. Amen, Amen.

April 12, 1987     Message # 1,149

My daughter, this will be a new Holy Week to be started by my children, to whom I say: Live it in great depth connected to me, and you will understand together with the Mother of Christ, the love of Christ Himself for the world. Go to meet the Mother who waits. Love She who loves, and live waiting with her for He Who lives. Glory be to the Lord. You must make it known! Today, the flame of love in my Heart livens; it shines with more intensity. The Pope, the mild, the good, allows the Blessed Trinity to work in him for the Glory of God. I lead him along the ineffaceable path.

June 29, 1987     Message # 1,212
Pray, my daughter, for the Successor of Peter, the Pope!  What grief my dear Son keeps in his heart! He bears many attacks on the Church and on his own person. He is wrapped in the brightness of my light. He receives from Me the necessary protection to go ahead. Today, when everything seems to be a time of suffering and agony, the Great Hope arises, it is Christ Jesus, arriving with His Grace. It is the Mother who returns for the work of the Son to become a reality. Amen.

October 8, 1987     Message # 1,273
Your Mother says: In this Novena, pray for the Word of God to be known universally. All the earth must become imbued with His Word and every Christian must live according to that Word. You are all part of the Mystical Body which is the Church, and of which, Christ is the Head. On the earth, my the Vicar of my Son is responsible for that body to continue standing. Therefore, continue beside your Pope, following his teaching which is, in final instance, the teaching of Christ. May the Will of my Son be done. Amen, amen.

January 9, 1988     Message # 1,334
My children, in this Novena may all pray for this Marian year, that it may be fruitful in prayer and reflection on the Word. Pray with your Pope, that chosen son who so loves his Heavenly Mother. Pray children, and I invite you to consecrate your heart to the Heart of this Mother. By trusting it, you will be renewed and purified by it, for the Glory of my Son. Amen, amen. May My message be known to all the universe!

April 25, 1988     Message # 1,403
Gladys, this Universal Marian Year, requested by my most beloved son, the Pope, can be of benefit for many souls. Oh, my daughter, if the hearts that are closed to the Lord were to open; if they should wish His Light! The Lord would go into them and then, certainly, the Lord would have Mercy on the world and the world would be saved. May my children pray for the souls that do not pray; may my children pray, because prayer is also Light for the world. Preach, preach to all your brethren. Glory be to God.

July 10, 1988      Message # 1,460
In this month's Novena, pray for the Holy Church. My Heart is wounded because it is often attacked, daily its Light is blurred. As Mother of the Church, I suffer the most unbearable pain; my suffering joins that of the Pope, because his sorrow is my sorrow. The most intense Light of Christ will rise again. As at the Calvary, after the Crucifixion and death came the Resurrection, the Church will also be reborn by the strength of Love. Amen, Amen. You must make this known!

March 26, 1989 (Easter Sunday)      Message # 1,635
Gladys, today is a day for Rejoicing, a day of Peace in the heart, a day of the deepest encounter with the Lord. Place your prayer in Christ, together with the Pope, my most beloved son; he, who bears his cross with love and courage and who allows the Heavenly Mother to wrap him in her love. My children, let God reach your heart through the Mother; do not set Him aside. Glory be to the Lord. Make it known.

July 7, 1989       Message # 1,678
Gladys: In this Novena, may your prayer be for you to be united to the Pope and to the Truth of Christ, proclaimed by him. Surrender, like this most beloved son, to this Motherly Heart. Pray, in the certainty that with prayer you are giving love to him and to the Holy Church, which he defends so valiantly. The Vicar of Jesus loves the T, lives by the Truth. There are many who slide toward a very dangerous slope, which is to be out of Christ.  The Light is there for those who seek it, for those who truly love it. Listen to my voice.  All Glory be to the Lord. You must make it known. I announce the Novena early for it to reach the furthermost corners of the earth.

So, there you have it.  And, to top it all off, this is an approved apparition as of this year. On May 22, just last Sunday, Bishop Hector Cardelli approved the apparitions.  He stated that the apparitions are of a "supernatural character" and are worthy of belief.  

So, I do realize that most Trads dislike St. Pope John Paul II very much.  So, if our Holy Mother is saying these things about a pope who has been wrong when it comes to affairs in the Church, then I have to ask: are we wrong about something?  

If anyone comes up with an idea, let me know.





Saturday, May 28, 2016

"American Resolve," Cucks, The Alt-Right, Masonic Roosh, James & The Real Ghostbusters

So, let's roll out a few spare thoughts for the day.  Starting with...


"...for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them..."
The United States government has become more of a nanny state than merry ol' England ever was during the times of colonial America.  Fortunately for the political class, most Americans these days are cowards who are too afraid to do what their forefathers did, and they're too fat, dumb, and hedonistic to care.


More Insight on Cuckservatives

The thing that upsets the cuckservatives the most is that their brand has lost its monopoly of the Right.


I'm Alt-Right Right Now

The alt-Right is going to either continue remaining the big tent for the various minds on the Right, or it is going to tear itself apart, National Review-style.

There are two issues on Red Team that attract impassioned discussion: talk of miscegenation, and talk against/for religion, specifically Catholicism.  For a fiery back and forth, mention either of these, and you'll draw out strong opinions.

For now, I'm able to identify with the alt-Right on a lot of issues.  The movement has not, yet, pushed out the Catholics.  Time will tell.  Should that happen, I suppose I'll start limiting myself to being called a paleoconservative again.

But what's most frightening to me is the stubborn tendency of the alt-Right to fall back on the U.S. Constitution and separation of church and state.  Advocating Catholic Monarchy is understandably far beyond the comprehension of most folks under this tent.  And, in fact, mere mention of it only invites ridicule from such intellectually-challenged people.

Nevertheless, this will be a world of monarchs again.  Mark my words, this era of republics and parliaments is a temporary novelty that will earn sideways glances in the history classes of the future.

If it is impossible to imagine the latter scenario, the problem is with you.


Roosh Admires Freemasons

Alarming, I know.  It seems recently, Roosh has been rather taken with the methods employed by the most evil organization of our time, Freemasonry.  This secret sect--denounced even by the Virgin Mary--is responsible for more destruction in the past two centuries than any other institution in existence.

However, even a broken watch is right twice a day, as Roosh notes:

This book was an informative reminder that if you want to create a force multiplier among men who share the same beliefs, the best way to do it is organize and swear oaths of both secrecy and loyalty. If your beliefs go against those of the most elite members of your society, you may not have any other choice. I had to learn the hard way when I tried to organize rather innocent happy hours for me and my followers. Multiple institutions that back the ruling establishment made it clear that that wouldn’t be allowed. This book confirmed to me that operating in secret will be essential.

I think I can agree with Roosh on this.  Sometimes, secrecy is necessary.  After all, who can forget the first two rules of Fight Club?

The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club.


James Rolfe Once Loved Ghostbusters

It's a shame that James Rolfe is being attacked by liberal social justice warriors for his unwillingness to review the Ghostbusters reboot.  He's a completely apolitical entity who was merely depressed about the unfixable mangling of a cherished franchise.  A group of feminist-minded know-nothings came along, took beloved source material, and they turned it into their own personal liberal experiment--all in the name of making a rebellious, Leftist, sardonic statement.  

Pat and Ian do a nice job discussing the unfortunate incident, as they know James personally.  I'll never forget how I first latched onto Rolfe.  It was when, out of curiosity, I stumbled upon Rolfe's first review of Castlevania II on the Nintendo.  I could tell he was genuinely frustrated with the game--as could millions of other viewers--culminating in the eventual new role as the Angry Videogame Nerd.  



For some great insight into the Ghostbusters reboot fiasco, check out Midnight's Edge.  They are always insightful when it comes to these horrific movie studio fiascoes.


 
"Feig's specialty is subversive parody movies...Instead of making a legitimate Ghostbusters movie, it would appear that Paul Feig has made a 'Paul Feig' style parody of one."

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Forums, "Ride On," Cuckservatives, Duterte, Postmodern Jukebox, Barnhardt

A lot of reaction for the last post.  That FSSP vs SSPX post.  It deserves a follow-up, to be sure.  I expected the types of reactions it received.  Both parties acted in predictable fashion.  One side denying the facts of the other, doing their utmost to disqualify the messenger--all of it foreseeable.  The two surprises that caught me off guard were the sheer volume of responders, and that conversation of the topic arose in unexpected quarters.


Echo Chamber

Seems they kicked out Cassini today.  Pathetic.  How dare he mention geocentricism!  It seems to me that squelching discussion on a discussion forum would be an unwise thing to do if you were a moderator.

I highly doubt that anyone will raise their heads in protest.  Not that anyone hates Cassini.  No.  They just don't want to attract negative moderator attention upon themselves.


Sewing Circle

Oh goodie!  Tracy has singled me out as a Toxic Trad who must be curtailed.  No need to link to her comment on her forum.  I'll just say, it's hilarious to discover that she's using Fr. Rosica's latest ramblings against Traditional Catholics (bloggers in particular) as ammunition for her case against us nasty non-feminist Trads.

It's so hilarious to see her become the liberal Mark Shea/CAF-type of Catholic.  She used to mock those types of snooty, haughty Catholics.  But now she is one of them.  Her latest article on TumblarHouse could be turned right around and aimed right back at her.  But, as I said to a friend earlier this month: "I KNOW for a fact that Tracy could care less about me or anything I say. She'll gladly wrap up in ignorance and use Rosica's--or anyone's--spin if it makes her feel more like the Internet's Catholic Teacher."


Castalia House Promoting Westerns

I think it's great that Castalia House is now promoting westerns.  And though Michael Hearing's book, Ride On, is not exactly a western (it's a rodeo novel), it's close enough to the genre to be a success.

In any event, I still heartily recommend that you readers out there check out the book for yourselves and give it a good weekend read.  It's available on Kindle.


Cuckservatives 

So, a colleague who I used to respect came onto my Facebook recently, stating:
Hey.  Chump.  We aren't voting for either New York Democrat.  Get it?  Nominate a pimp and you will crash and burn.  Now go get cucked.
This colleague and I have engaged in a tit-for-tat earlier this year, just before the results of the GOP primary were announced.  He'd cast out his nasty-toned opinion, and most of his friends who disagreed with him were quiet and would not raise their heads in any severe opposition, for fear of rocking his boat.  Not me.  I threw his crap right back at him.

Trouble is, cuckservative, NeverTrump Cruz supporters are unable to take the same shit that they throw at you.  This fellow was arrogant as hell, right up to the decisive Indiana primary that he thought Cruz would win.  When Cruz lost, and Trump obviously had it in the bag, I laid it on my colleague just as hard as he laid it on us Trump supporters who were in his circle.

Ultimately, he plugged up his ears.  The last statement from him to me on his page: "There's nothing left to say.  Stay off my page."  He's been hostile ever since.  I've done what I could to find a middle ground with him.  But there's no getting through.  It's a one-sided olive branch.  

Embittered people such as this are what you call, as Mike Cernovich says it, a crybully. "He insults others and then cries when he is hit back."  This is a damned shame.  I do not want my colleague to be this way.  I do not even think he's been able to catch onto the irony I put out there for him.  I extend my hand, but he bites it.  As Cernovich later states: "Under the rules of being a man, when someone reaches out to you, he’s being the “bigger man.” If you act catty in response, you lose."  It's just awful to see this.

A commenter, Mike_76, observes that the shitlibs and cuckservatives are morphing into the same creature.  I fear that he is onto something.

Speaking of supporting Trump...


Duterte 

This is the new president of the Philippines.  At first, I really liked him.  He was a hardliner in his tone.  He spoke about coming down hard on crime, and he has had a great reputation for getting Davao under control.  (The death penalty is not evil, by the way.  It is necessary and good for society.)  The Philippines is an emasculated cesspool of lukewarm Catholicism--ignorant of the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.  Transvestites and sodomy are common.  The people grow more and more materialistic by the year.  I say this in sorrow.

So, naturally the country has grown soft in its growing secularism.  One would think that a wild card like Duterte would be just what the doctor ordered.

Unfortunately, there shall now be buyer's remorse.  Among believing Catholics, at least.

The man is willing to create a 3-child policy, he approves of same-sex marriage, and he favors medical marijuana use.  Oh, and he's called the bishops of his country whores, and he states that "the most hypocritical institution is the Catholic Church."  So, he's not attacking particular clergy, but the entire Catholic Church.

One is left with the question: Are we going to see a Freemasonic-styled war against the Christeros in the Philippines?  A filipino-styled French Revolution?  This man, a fan of Hilary Clinton, seems to not be too interested in restoring his country's Catholicism.  He's interested in throwing it out.  Sadly, I believe that he will have that chance, because like Duterte, the people have become lukewarm enough to agree to throw out the Church, just so long as they get their comfort on.

This is the risk you take with a wild card.  They can work out very well.  Or they can morph into a huge disappointment.  Unfortunately, this world has become so corrupt that wild cards are the only real choices that we have left, now.  The people see where "status quo" will lead them, and they're tired of it.  They're tired of the suicide their cultures are taking.  And for that reason, we are seeing the rise of Nationalism and the Hard Right across the globe.

This global rise of strong men is a manifested reaction against the soft cowardly liberalism of the past generation.  Unfortunately, when working with volatile chemicals, you will get volatile reactions.  Not all of them will be bad, however.

Will Trump prove to be another Duterte?  Time will tell.  He was a wildcard, as I keep saying.  Vox Day said it best in late February:
It doesn't matter what your national policies are if you don't have a nation... Does that mean Trump can be trusted to build a wall, to deport all the illegal immigrants, and severely reduce the flow of immigration? No. But a) he's the only candidate who might, and b) he's the Republican nominee.

Postmodern Jukebox

Puddles the Clown

Anyone else hear about Postmodern Jukebox?  These guys are great.  Known about them for a few years, now.  They basically pick up where Richard Cheese left off.  I can still vaguely remember an interview with the latter:  "Say, Richard, what kind of music do you play?"  Richard Cheese: "Crap.  I play crap."  Hilarious.  You know you're living in a sad time when one of the few current novelties available to you is to dress up out-dated crap and filth from a previous decade.

Nevertheless.  Postmodern Jukebox does it well.  I'm including their bluegrass rendition of Blurred Lines, although another of my favorites is when they bring in Puddles the Clown for Chandelier.



Barnhardt

One more quick thing.  Please check out Ann Barnhardt's latest and final documentary discussing Narcissism.  She's awesome, and it's a well-thought out exposition.  The liberal thought-police at Youtube have been trying to silence her.  So for now, access her video through her post here.

This reminds me of how Youtube was acting against Aurini earlier this year, and they clipped his videos for no good reason whatsoever.  Aurini:
What YouTube is trying to do, is turn it into the Disney Channel. So, if you want to talk garbage about the Kardassians, or Paris Hilton, or if you want to, you know, review the latest Avengers movie, that stuff's all okay. But as soon as you want to have an actual conversation...it's turning into the corporate world. The corporation is taking over the entire world. These speech guidelines that you're expected to obey at work are becoming the standards for everyone everywhere.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

The FSSP harbors aggressive resentment towards the SSPX

Here, on the eve of a possible reconciliation with Rome, May 2016, at this moment, it can still be said that the FSSP inherently and demonstrably harbors an aggressive, if not passive-aggressive resentment towards the Society of Saint Pius X.  

Tonight, I will take a better look at how the Fraternity has treated the Society, ever since it's creation in 1988.

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter

First-hand Observations

I am not a strict adherent to the SSPX.  Nor the FSSP.  Nor diocesan Tridentine Latin Masses.  I'm unsure if I have any skin in the game when it comes to defending or attacking either of these groups.  I've attended them all, I will continue to use each of them interchangeably, and I have no problem with that.

So when I come along and state that the FSSP harbors aggressive resentment towards the SSPX, know that I say this having indifferently sampled the entire platter.

Furthermore, I like the FSSP.  I like going to Mass at their chapels.  I like listening to Fraternity priest sermons on Youtube.  I cherish, what appears to be, their devotion to strong morals and Tradition.

However, the FSSP--at its core--does not like what the SSPX does.  They do not like it when you go to SSPX chapels.  They do not like you listening to Society priest sermons.  And they think that trusting the SSPX's devotion to morals and Tradition is misplaced.

Father Chad Ripperger, formerly of the FSSP, has told me outright and in person that priests in the Society are committing a mortal sin when they hold a Mass.  I have heard this with my own ears, thus I, Laramie Hirsch, am an original source for this information.  Furthermore, according to Fr. Ripperger, if you as a parishioner are attending an SSPX Mass, you are contributing to that priest's mortal sin, and you are complicit in that priest's sin.  Indeed, Fr. Ripperger states that every single time a consecration of the Eucharist is performed 'outside of the Church,' it gravely offends God.  His words, not mine.  Though he is now an exorcist for the diocese of Tulsa, Chad Ripperger's previous membership in the Fraternity is without dispute.

If you think that I am making an assertion with no evidence, then follow the hyperlink in the previous paragraph.  It will take you to an EWTN page, containing seven minutes of Father Chad Ripperger stating this FSSP-brand opinion.


Second-Hand Observations

To be sure, there are plenty of vague accounts of FSSP aggression out there in Internet Land.  These second-hand accounts are the weakest evidence in this presentation.  But there is such a great amount of observation among laity that the culminating volume of the accounts, surely one would think, ought to count for something.

Many people will argue that FSSP tends to set up shop around SSPX chapels, in the hopes of draining members from the latter.  So states Michelle, straight from CMTV's comment box.  (Ironically enough, ChurchMilitantTV was running an article titled SSPX Poachers, claiming the reverse was occurring.)
I don't know. My experience is contrary to this article. For many years I would only attend SSPX chapels to near exclusivity. Where the SSPX was thriving, THEN the ICKSP or FSSP came in, As an answer to the SSPX entry into the diocese. During my last foray into the SSPX before I was slapped into reality thanks to a dear friend -- was in Milwaukee. It is abysmal there. Weakland and then Dolan were head of the Diocese. Those that love God and wished to serve Him were obviously very attracted to the SSPX chapel in Mukwonago. It wasn't until about 4 years ago -decades after the SSPX came to town finally ICKSP came, St. Stanislaus off Historic Mitchell Rd. Last time I was at the diocesan TLM offered by the ICKSP they have a vibrant, beautiful, growing community. It is truly lovely to see after the near annihilation of the Faith in that city.
Frankly, I'm amazed that CMTV didn't scrub her comment.  Perhaps they will, once they take a gander at the fact that I feature her opinion here.  I imagine that CMTV kept up her comment because, although she was contradicting their article, she ultimately favored the diocese over the Society by the end of her comment.

The Fraternity was set up quickly within the Catholic Church in order to respond to the SSPX's very existence.  No religious order is set up so rapidly in the same way as the FSSP.  It was clearly an emergency measure to counter the Society.  An aggressive emergency measure.  The Society was an invading foreign body to the Conciliar Catholic Church, and so, therefore, the Vatican sent out its very special leukocytes, the priests of the FSSP.

However, enough of these third-party observations.  Time to cut to the chase.

Testimony From the Victim

When there is a bully and a victim, usually the victim is the only one who knows what is happening to them.  It is rare and difficult for outsiders to be able to witness the bullying that takes place. For this reason, many people are bullied for a very long time, and nothing is ever done about it, and no one will believe them.  Another great example is workplace harassment.  Often, at a job, an individual can be harassed either directly or indirectly--for years--without a single co-worker noticing the phenomenon.

This is life.  This is how it has always been with people.  And this is the case with the SSPX.  They have many bullies, but today, I am focusing on the institution that is the FSSP.

Last week, my colleague, Heinrich, argued that he's never seen the FSSP being a bully to the SSPX.  Never heard of it.  Never even read about any such bullying in the FSSP publications!
I have attended FSSP Masses for over tens years now. Met many priests. Read their publications. Never, ever have I heard them say what you allege.
Okay, Heinrich.  Just as you've never read a bad thing coming out of the FSSP, neither do we read any letters or books about how Pope Francis wants to transform the Catholic Church into a liberal if-it-makes-you-feel-good-do-it Church, drenched in Marxism, and quite open to various sexual sins-that-are-no-longer-sins.  And in spite of the fact that Pope Francis doesn't outright say or publish his intention, a great amount of Catholics have taken notice that is exactly what Pope Francis has been doing this entire time.  He may waffle and speak in such a confusing way, as to throw out our ability to rely upon him for anything solid whatsoever.  Yet, we can see his fruits and the company he keeps, and we Traditionalists come to our mutual conclusions about him.  

Imagine someone coming along and saying: I've been going to Novus Ordo Church for ten years, and I've met many priests.  I read Vatican publications.  Never have I heard them state that Pope Francis favors Liberation Theology Marxism!  Yet, you've seen otherwise.  You consider such a man to be a Pollyanna.  You've been the butt of antagonism, and you've gotten the crap end of the stick for noting your observations publicly.  But Mr. Pollyanna never noticed this happening to you, so he's indifferent to what you endure.  

Well, it's hard to be indifferent when you're the victim.  And the SSPX is definitely not indifferent to the historical treatment it's received from the FSSP.  The Society of Saint Pius X has something to say about the Fraternity of St. Peter.  

Now, the FSSP will broadly claim to have been founded "in response to the Holy Father's call to ecclesial unity and the new evangelization."  As of today, that is the only historical detail you'll find on the FSSP homepage.  

The Society, however, has a bit more to say about how their antagonist came to be founded:
Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no religious society or congregation exclusive use of the older rites. Then on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the traditional Latin Mass.
Suddenly, within two days, Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what he had always refused the Archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this“good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).
   
Indeed, the narrative is a bit different when you talk to someone on the receiving end.  Looks like the FSSP left a bit out of the narrative.  

Some harsh words have been uttered by the FSSP against the SSPX.  When one priest or bishop is stating that Society priests are either schismatic or not even Catholic--that is harsh.  Especially considering that large chunks of the current Church hierarchy are changing their tone and even apologizing for stepping on the Society's toes.  The Society has always been Catholic.  They have always been in the right.  They are in this position because from the very beginning, Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society has been shafted.  They and their Masses have always been valid.

To deny these facts is a harsh insult to men who have given their lives to the priesthood.  But these insults have sprung forth, nonetheless.  To understand how FSSP priests and leadership can issue such insults, consider the ideals they were built upon:
The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:

1. It accepts that the Conciliar Church has the power:

  • to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this)
  • to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures)
  • to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." Ecclesia Dei Afflicata)
  • to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15;Unitatis Redintegratio §3).
2. In practice, the priests of the Fraternity, having recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates, they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion which is being installed:
  • they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their“spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,
  • they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and
  • note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church, acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy).
This is the nature of the FSSP, according to the SSPX.  The Society accuses them of "playing Traditionalist," so to speak, and in so doing, their sincerity rings hollow.  While, perhaps, the Fraternity may publicly appear to we waiting for the Society with outstretched arms, the reality is that the very foundation of the Fraternity is shallow, and therefore, it is easy for elements within the Fraternity to justify their aggressive and passive-aggressive insults of the Society.

Let's now observe some straight up aggression on the part of the FSSP.

Fr. Gouyaud, in a coference to seminarians before Christmas vacation, 1991: To participate at a Mass said by an SSPX priest is an abomination, because that is to take part in the destruction of the Mystical Body - which is schism.

According to Frs. Bisig and Baumann: To participate at a Mass of the SSPX for a seminarian is an adherence to the schism, and for the faithful as well, if this participation is habitual.  So that's nice to know.  Someone better get out there and inform all of the Traditional Catholics that they're guilty of schism.  Because clearly these FSSP superiors are referring to the SSPX as schismatic.  The Society takes this evidence (and more), and the SSPX concludes:
that the majority of members in the Fraternity of St. Peter reject the famous declaration of 1974 as a clearly schismatic tendency. Many are convinced that the refusal to submit to the suspensio a divinis is equally schismatic, while others think that the categoric refusal of the Novus Ordo Missae was the beginning of the "rupture with the Church."
The FSSP thinks that the Society is ruptured with the Church. The Fraternity is not talking about a teammate. They are talking about an antagonist and a divider.  This is ironic, considering that it has been the FSSP (as well as, of course, the Conciliar Church) who has acted as the clear antagonist towards Church Tradition, dividing Traditionalists from themselves.
"The problem with the Society of St. Pius X is the consecrations. We left because of the consecrations."  - Frs. Bisig, Baumann, Coiffet and Gouyaud to the faithful of the Fraternity of St. Peter.
You must clearly understand that the initial error of the Society of St. Pius X is not the consecration, but a schismatic attitude - to want to judge the Church (i.e. the ordinary Magisterium) which has been there from early on. The sin is one of arrogance, of a lack of humility, of elitism and Sectarianism." - Fr. Baumann to seminarians 1992-1993
The consecrations did nothing but make a schismatic situation evident, which in actuality already had existed for a long time. It would, therefore, be profoundly erroneous to see in the Fraternity of St. Peter, a continuation of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, since this work was fundamentally bad. -Fr. Gouyaud, then rector 1991-92
We, former members of [Society of] St. Pius X, we were greatly relieved by the agreement of 1988, of which the Fraternity of St. Peter is benefiting from, for while with St. Pius X, we never knew if we were within the Church or schismatics. -Fr. McCready, then 3rd year in a video cassette, Fraternity of St. Peter, largely circulated in the USA
Betrayal, claims of being schismatic, claiming that the Society exercises arrogance and elitism, and denouncing their work as "fundamentally bad" ...what is not aggressive and resentful about this kind of terminology?  This is not the language of friendship and collegiality.  This is the language of a competitor.

Consider that Fr. Herve Hygonnet, District Superior of the Fraternity of St. Peter for Belgium, circulated a letter in 2011 among the faithful after an Assisi ecumenical meeting.  He accuses Archbishop Lefebvre's priestly society of taking itself for "the Pope's censor," stated that it was led by a "non-Catholic spirit" and "infected with a virus." He accuses the SSPX of being in "a grave error," and that the Society is "usurping the Supreme Magisterium."

I said earlier that a victim of bullying is usually the only one who notices what is happening to them.  Therefore, it can be safe to say that the party who has the most evidence--the most experience--of being persecuted, is...the victim.  I am sure that the Society has plenty to say about its persecutors, and yet, it has not revealed every jot and tittle of insult that it's had to deal with.  However, returning to the expose, Sancte Petre...Quo vadis? Quid facis?, the SSPX has this tidbit of testimony to share about the FSSP:
We notice that for the Archbishop, a certain contempt, even a veritable hatred is permitted and sometimes even encouraged among seminarians. A number of them, not caring about their former superior, offered the opinion that the venerable prelate would certainly be in hell!
Often, when bullied, it is only the person bullied who sees what is going on. Outsiders often don't recognize any problems at all.  I'm willing to bet that there are parties out there who would deny having ever heard of these accusations being leveled at Archbishop Lefebvre.

Here is more bluster from Fr. Baumann:
Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated and schismatic - the judgment of the Church is certain. I pray for him, but I must insist on the gravity of his acts - even before 1988. In any case, a public Requiem Mass cannot be celebrated for such a person. Of course, a private Mass could be said even for the intention of Judas Iscariot or for Nero, and such a Mass could be said for the repose of the soul of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Sounds familiar.  I remember equating the rabble rousing Fr. Cekada, sedevacantist priest, with Judas and Martin Luther.  To this day, I still consider the comparison apt.  But I promise, I didn't steal that one from Fr. Baumann.

Father continues:
You know, heretics and schismatics were often good men, seen as St.ly men, but who sinned by arrogance and pride, preferring their own ideas and opinions to those of the Church. That is, by the way, the original sin of the Society of St. Pius X. 
Another character in this drama is an FSSP priest by the name of Fr. Bisig.  According to the SSPX, on several occasions, Fr. Bisig claimed to "know" that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist, and that he was hostile from the beginning in negotiations with Cardinal Ratzinger.  The SSPX further testifies that Frs. Bisg and Baumann have said the FSSP is NOT a continuation of Archbishop Lefebvre's work, "and does not exist merely to preserve Tradition, but only exists to give a greater liturgical wealth (according to the wishes of Cardinal Ratzinger's) and to sanctify its members, who feel a subjective need for 'these ancient forms of piety'."

How quaint.  Traditional Catholicism is just one of many treasures that some laity and clergy, apparently, seem to need for whatever reason.  How kind of the Conciliar Church to provide us with the FSSP.

Returning to the idea that the Fraternity's main purpose is primarily to drain the faithful out of the ranks of the Society, the SSPX has also noticed this tendency:
In fact, Rome only seems to see the Fraternity as a means of weakening the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. Fr. Bisig stated more than once that, to Rome (to Cardinal Ratzinger in particular), one finds the continuation of the Fraternity opportune in its goal of recuperation; and that Cardinal Innocenti has asked several times on the reason for the lack numbers of "Arrests, seminarians and faithful resuming from the Society of St. Pius X to the Church." In 1992-1993, not one seminarian entering the seminary that year could be said to be'returning to the Church' from the Society of St. Pius X - neither among the seminarians, nor among the priests formally incarnated into Wigratzbad. Neither were the faithful deserting or "coming back?" from the Society of St. Pius X.
The Superior General willingly accepts such reasons for the existence of his Fraternity. He recently congratulated himself in having brought back a group of traditionalists in Rapid City (USA). He praised Fr. Irwin for his practical approach and his tact in his contacts with "these old schismatics." Jokingly, he told of how he was invited by the faithful, who would show him with pride the photos of their weddings, blessed by priests of the Society of St. Pius X and how he couldn't find the courage to explain to them that "these marriages were invalid."

How sad.  Those poor un-married people.  Clearly, the FSSP holds themselves superior to the SSPX--even if they've sold out in 1988, they've become so much better than that collection of wackos at the Society.  The FSSP, apparently, does not hold the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass of the Ages, in a high enough regard as to claim it's utter supremacy and necessity as the only--and most universal--form of worship.  No.  For the Fraternity, the TLM is a quaint little gem--one treasure among many--that serves to enrich the Church.

In this regard, the FSSP has been duplicitous.  Consider the duplicity of FSSP leadership.  Blatantly stated, a desire for offering both the TLM and the Novus Ordo form of the Mass can be found within the structure of the FSSP.  But, as the SSPX states:
[T]he practice of the Novus Ordo and bi-ritualism remains forbidden in the Fraternity. Why? Not for objective or doctrinal reasons but for pragmatism. Fr. Bisig explained his conviction that on the practical side of things, bi-ritualism would be harmful as regards the survival of the Fraternity.
With this kind of behavior coming out of the FSSP, with this aggression that is tossed willy nilly at the SSPX, and with this duplicitous "loyalty" to the Mass of the Ages,
The only existing unity can be summed up as a sort of false charity resembling the spirit of ecumenism, where all differences, even illegitimate ones, as long as they are favorable to left wing, are tolerated. Such a charity is phony, of course, and it is as well - one of the reasons why the atmosphere there is extremely unhealthy and the spiritual life impossible. The discipline is dying, since the rector supports the most liberal wing. The liturgy, despised, always comes in last place. A worldly spirit prevails there, vulgarity is the rule (the overly familiar "tu" instead of "vous" as a form of address, for example); rudeness and indecent stories are, alas, all too common!

The victim knows the bully and his tendencies.  He knows the nature of the beast.  And knowing the personality of their persecutor, it is not hard for the Society to come to its conclusion:
Having read this letter, we are both consoled and saddened. Consoled that many were right in saying that the Fraternity of St. Peter was a "dead end" at the best, betrayal and cowardice at the worst. Saddened at the plight they have put themselves in. Today the Fraternity of St. Peter goes to Rome. Yet, like their patron, they will go to their death. Today's Rome is a merciless, a New Rome, with a new theology. To go naively to this New Rome, is to flee the Catholic Rome of old and the Faith. The Society of St. Pius X flees this New Rome in order to preserve the Faith of Peter. The Eternal Rome or the New Rome?
Testimony From Witnesses


There exists even further evidence that the FSSP harbors an aggressive resentment towards the SSPX.  If we browse the archives of Latin Mass Magazine, we will discover that in 2002, Christopher Ferrara beheld "some of the ugly" being launched at the Society by the FSSP.

Apparently, in the French FSSP Journal, Tu es Petrus, there is an article titled: "Can One Assist at Mass and Receive the Sacraments from a Priest of the Society of Saint Pius X?"  I do believe it's available for downloading, though, it's likely in French.  This article was written by Father Hugues de Montjoye.  It's pretty bad.  Ferrara, as usual, does a very nice summary of the FSSP drive-by sliming:
Unlike Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos or Monsignor Perl, Father de Montjoye unhesitatingly declares that all the priests as well as the bishops of the SSPX are both excommunicated and schismatic—a sentence the Vatican has never pronounced. Father de Montjoye further opines that SSPX clerics, both bishops and priests, are not even Catholics. He even goes so far as to claim that reception of Communion from an SSPX priest does violence to the sacrament, injures the Church, and transgresses divine law:
  • [T]o receive the sacraments from a non-Catholic minister—which is to say, one who is not in full communion with the Church, which is the case with the Society of Saint Pius X—is an injury to the Church, an offense to God and to the plan he [sic] established in the world.
  • To communicate [receive Holy Communion] at a Mass celebrated by a schismatic priest, outside of the extreme cases where the Church authorizes it, is to do violence to the sacrament.…
  • A non-Catholic minister does violence to the sacrament of the Eucharist in consecrating outside the communion of the Church…. They [our ancestors] were in horror of receiving communion from the hand of a schismatic.
  • [T]o receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers (which is the case with priests attached to the Society of Saint Pius X) it is necessary to fulfill the conditions fixed by the supreme authority and specified in the Code of Canon Law…
  • Note well that the enunciated conditions for exceptional cases where one can receive sacraments administered by non-Catholic ministers are cumulative conditions….
  • To accept a certain indifferentism and to communicate [receive Communion] from a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X thus places us in rebellion against divine law.
So, here we have a FSSP priest in France stating that SSPX priests and bishops are excommunicated, schismatic, and non-Catholic.  Is this supposed to be what "nice" looks like?  Is this what friendly brethren in Christ do for one another?  If there is no real difference between the SSPX and the FSSP, then why is it that the Fraternity is claiming that laity receiving the Eucharist from a priest of the former is going against the Law of God?

And, returning to the duplicitous nature of the FSSP, Latin Mass Magazine even published this 1999 article, titled The Semi-Traditionalists, by Thomas E. Woods Jr.  In it, we can witness discussions between the FSSP between softies who are very interested in concelebrating the Mass--using Latin as well as the Novus Ordo.  Fr. Bisig reappears in this article for us, showing his indifference support for some kind of a transition for FSSP priests.

Now, if the FSSP had sold out so hard on their principles as early as 1988, just how hard do you think it is for them to compromise on other ideals?  Most of all, if the FSSP demonstrates its weakness in upholding a TLM-only fraternity, and they show themselves to cave in to modernist novelties, is it not inconceivable that animosity towards the SSPX--the real deal that can deliver--is bound to eventually flourish within their fraternity?

Testimony From the Bully

Let's now take a look at what comes directly out of the FSSP and its allies.

Firstly, without argument, this is published on the Fraternity's webpage: Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" of Pope John-Paul II.  In this document, we can read that Pope John Paul II considered the ordinations of bishops within the SSPX to be schismatic and disobedient.  And yet, in a 2009 letter, we read that Pope Benedict XVI has recognized that the Society is not in schism, and that consecrating bishops without a papal mandate is not a schismatic act.  It raises the danger of schism, but it is not in and of itself schismatic.  And need I remind readers in this audience that the excommunications of those bishops was remitted?

This 2009 letter by Pope Benedict XVI is, of course, not on the FSSP site.  Any clarification as to the status of the Society is not published on the Fraternity's website, and so we are left with the impression that the SSPX is in schism with the Catholic Church.  The negligence to correct this error isn't, exactly, a kind and fraternal push towards the Society's recognition of any kind.

In the latest fiasco, we advance beyond the 1980s, the 90s, and straight on into the 21st Century, where this aggressive resentment has distilled and culminated into the ultimate horror show: ChurchMilitantTV.  Friend to the FSSP, Michael Voris went on a tirade against the Society of Saint Pius X as recently as last year.  The week-long bonanza captivated the Traditionalist Catholic community in a frozen gasp of shock, stirring a great amount of dissatisfaction against Voris' media company.

Voris' tirade against the society lasted all week, and culminated in a Friday "CMTV FBI" special that went in-depth about ChurchMilitantTV's objections to the Society.  It was this very week, of all weeks, that the wife and I were trying to decide whether or not we should attend a Society chapel.  And so, when CMTV's Michael Voris came along to denounce the entire organization, we were given pause.  The entire week was filled with careful consideration, as we did not yet know all of the facts, and a careful examination of the Society's history was in order.

If anyone is interested in reading up on my observations from that week, the list is below:

ChurchMilitantTV: Late to the Party
Bad Timing, Coming Into the SSPX, Hearing Them Out
Reporting In: Voris' Assault is Driven Back

Suffice to say, we were unconvinced.  In fact, Michael Voris' tirade actually helped to convince us to attend the Society.  The level of energy that CMTV poured into the attack either meant that CMTV was very right or very wrong.  As the week-long bombardment proceeded apace, we took a careful look at the facts of the Society.  The history of the SSPX is one of disenfranchisement, being snubbed, and put off to the side repeatedly.  

So, from where was CMTV drawing their inspiration?  Who could possibly be misinforming Voris and company about the Society?  Was it Father Paul Nicholson, who abruptly denounced Voris once he learned of Voris' homosexual past?  

Various sources, including this one, revealed that CMTV was being largely sponsored by a backer who attended Mater Dei parish.  And there, at that time at the Mater Dei parish, this backer would hear the stormy sermons of Fr. Philip Wolfe, FSSP.  Father Wolfe did not like the SSPX one bit, and it so happens that CMTV was using a large part of one of Father Wolfe's sermons in their September 15th attack piece: Schismatics Before God.

At first, Voris was taking quotations from Fr. Wolfe without attribution.  However, after it was revealed that CMTV was using a particular sermon by Father Wolfe, they were forced to recognize this sermon at the end of their Vortex episode.


Today, a click on that link, however, will now only take you to a list of many sermons, and it is unclear which one--if any of them--are Fr. Wolfe's sermon.  

Nevertheless, CMTV welcomes Fr. Wolfe's anti-SSPX statements, and they quote him wholeheartedly, and without hesitation.  

Another priest who CMTV has trumped out is Fr. John Emerson, in an article titled: Fr. John Emerson, FSSP: The Break With the SSPX.  In this article--which actually is an interview in the magazine, The Wanderer, FSSP priest Fr. Emerson goes on to repeat that the 1988 consecration of bishops was an act of schism, and that the Society is attempting to set up a parallel Church. 

Fr. Emerson discussed the rapid push to create the FSSP:
So, the actual erection of the Society came exactly three months later on Oct. 18, and as I said [again in earlier conversation] it normally takes 20, 30, 40 years for a new order to reach that status. We got it in three months. Again, that is proof Rome is behind us.
As is clear by his account, the powers that be were in a big hurry to create the FSSP.  It was a rapid mobilization on the part of the Vatican to aggressively counter the SSPX.  They were not being friendly to Archbishop Lefebvre's organization--which, might I add, was approved from the very beginning.  No, instead, the goal was to neutralize the SSPX as quickly as possible.  

Furthermore, in this interview, Fr. Emerson, FSSP priest, states that Ecclesia Dei's purpose is to provide an alternative to the SSPX:
The Pope set up Ecclesia Dei [i.e., the Commission] to deal with all traditionalist groups or even individuals who wish to reconcile themselves with Rome fully and not to follow Archbishop Lefebvre into schism.
So, again, all of this movement--Ecclesia Dei, the FSSP--it's all polarized around and AGAINST the SSPX.  Without SSPX, none of this would have happened.  The FSSP would not have happened.  The Society of Saint Pius X is the fulcrum of the entire apparatus.  

Conclusion

Finding out-and-out direct hostility from the FSSP against the SSPX is a tricky kind of hunt.  Usually such actions take place when no one is looking and when it cannot be documented.  For example, if a FSSP priest is going to rail against the SSPX from the pulpit during a sermon, it is rarely recorded for posterity.  

However, this phenomenon has been witnessed enough by so many parties, that it is an established fact.  The FSSP and the SSPX have history.  It is undeniable.  It is not friendly.  It is not cordial.  And furthermore, I believe that if the Society does become reconciled with Rome soon--even if that happens--there will still be bad blood coming out of the Fraternity.  And when those flare ups occur, pinning them down officially will be just as tricky as catching any bully picking on his victim.

All this being said, myself, I still have no hostility towards the FSSP.  Believe it or not, this is true.  I've always been the kind of guy who tries to get along with everybody.  But I'm also the kind of guy who will call a spade a spade.  

Do I think that the various priests have been right in their condemnations?  No.  But being the sophisticated guy that I am, I have the ability to put that aside and accept their better qualities.  Call me a cafeteria Catholic, or whatever.  I will not claim to know exactly what a good Traditional Catholic should think in this day and age.  But spotting a bully, for me, is easy.  And though other's can't see it, I can.  I've done my best to point this out to interested people.  I hope this post will serve as an adequate resource for such individuals in the future.
  

Sunday, May 15, 2016

The Alt-Right is Figuring Out Feminist Ruination of Christianity


A couple of gems today.  This, from Aurini's latest video, Transgendered Bathroom Laws Are Hilarious!  From 7:12
"How many of you [feminists] are mouthing off to your bishop or to your pastor in church? How many of you are demanding that we twist religion so that you can lecture men? "



Positively great. It's a comfort to know that people on the outside of "Churchian" circles are seeing the same thing that we, the conservative minority of our religion, have been observing all this time.  The Church has been infiltrated by feminists.  Among others.

But there's more.  Return of Kings featured this article by Rick Moser:  Women Must Be Excluded From Priesthood To Save Christianity.  Emphasis mine. 

Feminists love to preach their non-scriptural philosophies to the masses, so it is no surprise that they strive to occupy the church pulpit. They love the glory and image of superiority. You hear the same sermons in newspapers, television media, classrooms, and social media.

Very cool piece, from Return of Kings.  I particularly liked his picture of a 5th Century priestess accidentally burning down the temple of Hera at Argos.

Let's hope that, should the day come when the alt-Right comes to Christianity to lend it a hand, they don't come to us and find us squabbling over trifles to such a degree, that we'll be deaf to the alt-Right's interest.

Here's a video of Stefan Molyneux lamenting the irrational hate that atheists hold for Christianity, barring anyone from ever having true and sincere dialogue with them.  






UPDATE:  Have some RamzPaul, too.





Saturday, May 14, 2016

The Internet Wastes Our Time: Part 4


Ah, Internet.  I love thee.  I hate thee.  You're here when I need you, and you're here when I really don't need you at all.

The internet wastes your time, folks.  The internet isn't even a tangible thing.  It is, at most, light photons coming from your screens that tell you information about the world.  Do you truly need to know that information so much of the time?

Fr. Sertillanges would argue no.  He would instruct you "to withdraw from all else," to "open up one's being to truth," and "take a ticket for a different world."  If you're going to do intellectual work, then that is what your time is to be used for.  We are to secure, preserve, and guard our time, putting it on a stable basis.
Whatever decision you have made, the chosen moments must be carefully secured, and you must take all personal precautions so as to use them to the fullest. You must see to it beforehand that nothing happens to crowd up, waste, shorten, or interfere with this precious time. You want it to be a time of plentitude; then shut remote preparation out of it; make all the necessary arrangements beforehand; know what you want to do and how you want to do it; gather your materials, your notes, your books; avoid having to interrupt your work for trifles.

Do not interrupt your work for trifles.  For the online news.  For the latest silver price.  For the latest Facebook feed.  Do not even open up the forum you belong to, that you may check and see how people have responded to your latest musing.  Save those trifles for a designated time.  You must work.  
Further, in order to keep this time for your work and to keep it really free, rise punctually and promptly; breakfast lightly; avoid futile conversations, useless calls, limit your correspondence to what is strictly necessary; gag the newspapers! These rules, which we have given as a general safeguard for the life of study, apply most of all to its intense hours.
Gag those newspapers.  Turn down the volume.  Stop checking into the DrudgeReport or the Huffington Post every thirty minutes.  Do your e-mail correspondences later.  Do not become sidetracked.  
If you have so foreseen and settled everything, you can get straight at your work; you will be able to plunge deep into it, to get absorbed and to make progress; your attention will not be distracted, your effort scattered.  Avoid half-work more than anything.  Do not imitate those people who sit long at their desks but let their minds wander.  It is better to shorten the time and use it intensely, to increase its value, which is all that counts.  
Do not let your mind wander.  Do not let your time on the computer wander, either.  Stop falling for the click bait.  The information this world has to offer you is limitless--you must stop yourself at some point.  You must control what you feed your mind.  You cannot internalize every bit of trivia from the Internet.  The Internet wastes time.  
Normal workers estimate at from two to six hours the time that can be steadily used with fruitful results.  The principal question does not lie in the number of hours; but in their use and in the mind.
Sometimes, you only have an hour and a half.  Perhaps you've got a handful of kids.  Perhaps you can only squeeze in your intellectual work during brief moments in between physically demanding tasks.  Such is life.  Do your best.  A human being is meant to be spent wisely, not coddled, preserved, and hidden away.  Your life is short, so use those precious moments wisely. 
Many people are the dupe of appearances, of vague and muddle-headed intentions, talk all the time and never work.  
Stop putting on airs.  Put up or shut up.  You can't be marketing yourself all of the time if you have no product to offer.  What do you have to offer?  Stop telling people about how wonderful you're going to be, and just get down to it.  

The Internet wastes your time.  


*Excerpts from Father Sertillanges' book, The Intellectual Life.


Humor from the Echo Chamber and the Sewing Circle

KK expounded upon his benevolence recently over at KK-Land, having banned an atheist from his forum for seven days:
Maybe I'm too nice to people. Perhaps I should become Tyrantkopf...
...I'd rather let the atheists (and other non-Catholic posters) see patience, charity, and care out of a traditional Catholic moderator than an instant ban-hammer the second someone steps gingerly outside strictly-defined parameters of permissible thought.
Quite funny, considering his intolerance of those who dare to bring up the boring subject of evangelizing atheists.  Something even funnier?  Remember this little episode from December 2013?  The man, an atheist, made five posts, when suddenly:
If you're an atheist troll, get a job and get the hell off my forum. You people are a scourge and have no interest in honest discussion or debate.
Honest discussion or debate, eh?  It brings a smile to my face.  The hypocrisy, that is.

And, in another bout of comedy, it seems Tracy of Fisheaters decided to tell the world about what a well balanced Catholic she is, drawing upon such a successful stint as a forum owner.  This, via a guest article on Tumblar House.  Nevermind the fact that she's either pushed out large swathes of posters or even simply outright banned them without any recourse.

Indeed, she considers herself "an online teacher of Catholicism" who has "seen so many self-professed Catholics turn the Holy Faith into something merely to debate about."  How noble of her!  On Facebook, Tumblar House states:
"In this special guest column, Tracy Tucciarone, founder of Fish Eaters, explains how trads can overcome the common pitfalls of their trad nature--through acts of charity."
As is her style, she's provided a great amount of material in her article.  An official response is definitely warranted, I do believe.  Though, I very much doubt she'll care about what one of her purged former members has to say.  

Maybe when I get some time.  

In other news, I was a member of the Trad Cath Forum for a minute.


Thursday, May 12, 2016

A Thought on Amoris Laetitia

I typically don't really comment much about the specific politics of the Catholic Church, frankly, because I already know the direction of the Church.  I'll talk about broad policies, perhaps a headliner that comes along--but I don't go into an in-depth exploration of what Pope Francis' actions mean, nor do I go into what I think should or will happen in the future of this Church.  I already know what's going to happen.  I know where we're all speeding along in this mad race.  American politics, on the other hand, is much more of a variable.  It's off the chart, off the map, and who knows what can happen with it.  But Church politics?  It's very very clear what's happening and what will happen next.

But okay.  Do I have an opinion on the Synod?  And do I have anything to say about Amoris Laetitia, which I frequently refer to as Amoris Liberace?

Liberace

Prophecy is the main thought that keeps entering my head, when I delve into Amoris Liberace.  Specifically, Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser.  The underlined emphasis is mine.
During this period, many men will abuse of the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude the Apostle spoke when he said, ‘These men blaspheme whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do… They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.’
During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh…
They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and. nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at. all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretation, modification, and delimitation by man…
These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities.. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their. duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses.

This crap has been foretold.  Heaven has informed the saints, in detail, as to what direction the Catholic Church will be taking in the years ahead.  What do I think of Amoris Liberace?  I think it is a big sideshow of senseless questions and elaborate arguments, whose purpose is to cloud Holy Canons and religious dogmas.

Will things be made better?  Do I think that someone will step up, be a hero, and reverse this cannibalistic carnage taking place in the Catholic Church?  No.  That will not happen.  I expect this current pontiff and the gang who put him into power to allow the Church to become such a laughing stock, that an invasion of Vatican City is inevitable.  The point of complete weakness on the part of the leader of the Christians will create a vacuum, and in that hole will pour a multitude of revolutionary-minded people filled with disrespect and hate.  An angry mob will charge into our parishes--into the Vatican itself, and they will rip the Church apart.  This will happen because the fear of God has been removed from the people by the likes of Pope Francis and his handlers.

With that in mind, consider the rest of Holzhauser's prophecy:
But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything.
So, there you go.  I expect the Vatican to be sacked later on in this papacy.  Sticking with what approved Catholic prophecy warns us about, I also expect clear and open persecution of Catholics within the next decade.  After the sacking of the Vatican, the pope will be led out of Rome and later killed.  After which point, I fully expect that we'll see a cross in the sky, and shortly thereafter we'll finally bear witness to The Day of the Lord.  


Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Not So Sure I Support Voris

Only days after Michael Voris' confession to having a homosexual past, colleagues on various Catholic forums have been picking apart the meaning and implications of Michael Voris' past.

My argument has been to compare Voris to St. Paul.  St. Paul, one day, was killing Christians.  The next day, he was preaching to them.  And I simply must give a man an opportunity to be repentant.  I cannot just disregard a person forever.  If they say they're repenting, I've got to hope they're serious.  

But Croixalist, over at Cathinfo, has given me pause. He speculated about Voris' orientation as early as February of 2015.  You can find Croixalist's comment about Voris in my first post about Voris' coming out.  However, I've found his speculations compelling:
He was a planted time-bomb within the traditionalist community and is most likely a very active homosexual whose services are in high demand from the satanic gay-sex cult currently operating under the guise of the Catholic Church. Ever wondered how traditionalists must seem to the Satanic Elite? Here is their facsimile of one!
This is either a horrible thing to say, or it is true.  I mean, I really want to give Michael Voris the benefit of the doubt.  I want to believe that the man is truly regretful and repentant for his previous lifestyle.  It is the timeline that Croixalist provides that gives me pause:
1981-1991: Slept around with untold numbers of men and women.

1991-2001: "Confused" about sexuality, but sure enough to live with gay men. Confused about how to split the rent probably.

2001-2004: Goes to Novus Ordo Mass but still sinning. Not yet abhorring sins against God and his own body.

2003: Begins doing speaking engagements as a traditionalist Catholic before ending his career as a sodomite. He has admitted to spotty Mass attendance as "increasingly frequent" during this time.

2004-2006: Stops having sex with men after his mother's death. He is 43 years old! Decides to start his own traditionalist Catholic show and website complete with logo and tag line and thousands of dollars in equipment.. in Detroit.

2006-2013: Falsely presents himself as a formerly lukewarm Catholic, who just wants to defend the traditional Faith now.  Snuggles up to every traditionalist personality he can get his hands on, culminating in his appearance at the 2013 Catholic Identity Conference.

2014-2016: Five months after the 2013 conference and seven months ahead of the 2014 Synod of the Family, he makes an about face and slams all of his previous trad buds from the previous years. All the original links to CMTV's website are dead, but you can be assured it happened! One reaction to it is here.  Gets exclusive access to Q&A sessions at the Vatican during the 2014 synod.  Also happens to get access to Archbishop Dolan about the gay parade on St. Patrick's day 2015.
2016-????: Two weeks after Amoris Laetitia is released, he comes out as a former homosexual yet currently repentant man in order to circumvent the actions of the Archdiocese of New York. Catholics and bloggers everywhere call him courageous and that his past doesn't matter! Ingenious!

First of all, I am completely open to any corrections to this timeline.  But, given what I've read and seen, this seems to be a legitimate and accurate timeline.  Does the tone reek of judgementalism?  Yes.  But how can Croixalist not be harsh about this man, who has basically stabbed most Traditionalists in the back with his anti-SSPX carnival and his Pollyanna, rose-colored glasses in regards to Pope Francis?

More?  Okay.  Voris has some weird associations.  Per Croixalist, "Wikipedia mentions a video he made in 1997 with a certain Jonathan Fitzgerald Mola called "Double Trouble." There are no copies out there that we know about and that's probably for the best."

Double Trouble.  Okay.  But this was before Voris' repentance, right?  However, St. Michael's Media has, in the past, employed Anthony Perlas, a strange sort of soft porn photographer that even Steve Skojec has warned the Traditionalist community about.  Another one?  Simon Rafe, it was discovered in 2011, served at St. Michael's Media as a staff apologist and program host.  This man, Rafe, is responsible for writing the “adult” role-playing game “Castle Dracula,” and fan-fiction depicting homosexuality in the Star Wars universe.

How can I ignore these points?  This is all public--including Voris' confessed homosexual lifestyle--which, by the way, no one asked him to confess to.  Furthermore, the Archdiocese of New York continues to deny that they had it out for him.  And how, on Earth, can I ignore the reasonable questions of Croixalist when he asks:
Why do people assume he's telling the truth about giving up that "lifestyle"? He lied about being a regular Joe-Novus-Ordo Catholic, he lied about being a traditional Catholic, and the timing of his public stances are aligned with major actions from the Vatican.
This is all objectively true.  It's as though Michael Voris is setting some kind of a tone for how Traditionalist Catholics "should be."  My responses to Croixalist have been that I've got to be able to believe that someone can come from that kind of a lifestyle and successfully repent.  However, I also ask myself: "Laramie, when have you ever seen someone do 'Life' right? When have you ever seen someone come through and be a true blue successful genuine article? Once?"

The fires of suspicion have only been fueled by fellow Traditionalist colleagues.  Unlike Croixalist, Steve Skojec hasn't come out to state that ChurchMilitantTV is a sham that sets out to fool naive Traditionalist Catholics.  However, the occasion has compelled him to ponder on CMTV's cultish behavior:
I am not accusing Church Militant of any impropriety, which I want to make entirely clear. But my experiences cause me to reflect on what I see, and that is a danger in their current trajectory. Any organization that quashes respectful disagreement or engages willfully in an “us vs. them” mentality with anyone not perfectly aligned with their vision opens the door to undesirable influences and results. Fr. Nicholson’s sudden and vitriolic departure seems to provide evidence that this was, to some extent, already happening.
Steve Skojec's double-take helped all the more to serve as a wakeup call.  When it comes to the staff of CMTV...they're not angels. If anything, CMTV is cult-like. From their knee-jerk requirement of not questioning authority, to the slamming of their competitors, to their scrubbing of comments in their own website's com boxes. Cult-like, all of it.

Fr. Paul Nicholson, former friend to CMTV.


Greg, over at Te Deum also had a thing or to to say to me and my "give-him-the-benefit-of-the-doubt" hopes.  I was arguing with my British colleague that "perhaps [Voris] was full of zeal, post repentance.  I cannot fault him for that."  On the other hand, perhaps I've been caught up in the excitement and emotion of Voris' sensational, and very public, confession.  Greg argued that repentance needs humility more than it needs zeal:
If you are a sodomite for 15+ years, you hardly want a career in media. It's full of sodomites, liberals and vain people who care about their appearance. A terrible choice. Who was his spiritual director? Caitlin Upton?
There are a million and one other things to do. And if you do stay in the media then why on earth would you take a starring role? Why not find a hetrosexual father of 3 or better still a Catholic priest or Monk and make them the star of the show with some conservative bishop's permission. Run the advertising department or be the CEO in the background.
Besides, I really don't see how he Voris is qualified to comment of matters of Church discipline, liturgy, canon law and doctrine. When did he have the chance to study that before launching the media station? You can't just read a few Michael Davis books and the Baltimore Catechism and be an expert on these issues. It's arrogant in the extreme to think you can.
Given the number of queers who would have known him in the late 80s and through the 90s he was very lucky that they didn't expose him until now.
Reasonable words from Greg, as usual--harsh, though they may be.  He is right, however.  Why get before a camera, front and center, and become the star of a Traditionalist Catholic show when you're trying to leave behind a life that pretty much was a wasteland?

Furthermore, looking upon a past RealCatholicTV video (CMTV's original name), Michael Voris even seems to think highly of himself as a formerly gay man.  As if he is some sort of special chosen messenger from God.  Voris says the following:
"I do not know, but I suspect that some point in their lives many such souls actually come to the intuition that God has specially chosen them to be instruments a Salvation like few others have been chosen and as a result they actually glory in their cross."
Voris, I don't know about this, man.  I don't know about how you're sounding here.  When I step back and look at the bigger picture, you really sound manipulative when I hear you say something like this.  This video takes place before he betrays the Traditionalist Catholic community, by the way.  

There is still more.  Chris Ferarra, an excellent author and lawyer, commented over at Steve's blog during that eventful week.  His insight, as always, is mind-opening.  Skojec stated that Voris was being transparent with his public confession about an active sexual gay past.  Ferarra disagreed that it was transparent at all:
Transparency triggered by someone else threatening to reveal your past is not transparency. It's a PR tactic called "getting ahead of the story."  
Real transparency is nothing being hidden from the beginning, especially something as horrendous as this. Had Voris come clean at the outset and had made it his theme that homosexuality is not an "orientation" but a disorder from which one can recover with God's grace, then we could speak of transparency. But had he made that admission at the outset, I rather doubt he could have achieved any prominence as a member of the Catholic Internet commentariat.
My question is how does someone with a past like this, even if he is right with God today, get to be a public commentator issuing judgments against the likes of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?
My view is that the only appropriate response to Voris's revelations is an embarrassed silence, and certainly not a ringing defense of his "transparency," of which there was really none.

Yes.  What would Voris' apostolate resemble if, from the beginning, he were a professed former gay man?  I imagine that RealCatholicTV/CMTV would pretty much resemble the Sewing Circle, aka Fisheaters, which everyone leaves once they discover that other, more heterosexual and less feminist forums exist. 

After these things have been stated, I simply cannot return to viewing The Vortex or any other ChurchMilitantTV program with the same naive, hopeful ignorance that I possessed when I first started watching Michael Voris six years ago.  There is too much going on, and I simply do not trust their organization any longer--particularly with their cult-like policy of shutting down all conversation in their comment boxes, Opus Dei-style non-questioning of Pope Francis, and FSSP-styled resentment and aggression towards the Society.  

Ferarra's brilliant words are a perfect summary of my thoughts and feelings on this matter, so I'll end with his words:
I agree the bottom of this story has yet to be reached.

Let me say this about Voris and his investigations. In the midst of the worst crisis in Church history---Amoris latetitia is the most horrific papal document in Church history---a massive investigation of how a "gay" monsignor in the Bronx spent a lot of money on himself and his boy toy while the Archdiocese tried to cover it up doesn't strike me as groundbreaking work. That story can be repeated in practically every diocese in the Western Church. Take your pick. Investigate them all. You will find such scandals in just about every one of them.

Church Militant seems to be dedicated to the proposition that we must never examine the cause of the ecclesial disease, which lies in Rome, but rather ignore it completely while demanding endless outrage over whatever symptoms Voris and his band of cub reporters are pointing at, and jumping up and down over, this week.

And perhaps you saw his ludicrous back-tracking on washing the feet of women, which he blasted as absolutely intolerable a few years back, but now finds a way to justify because Francis has patented the abuse?

The whole show from the warehouse in Detroit strikes me as a massive distraction.