31 October 2021

A Ghoul, a Ghost and a Grisly Murder: The Legend of Dr. Joseph McDowell

 McDowell put cannon on his building to fend off the Jesuits!

In Antebellum St Louis, Dr Joseph Nash McDowell was, to put it mildly, an eccentric, whose legendary reputation included body snatching, artillery, demagoguery, ghosts, a live bear, and murder most foul. He is said to have inspired a character in one of America’s most famous works of fiction.

Review: The St. Gallen Mafia – Exposing the Secret Reformist Group Within the Church by Julia Meloni.

I bought this book immediately after reading Father's review! I've started it and it looks to be fascinating, going into the very depths of the Sankt Gallen Mafia.

From Fr Z's Blog

I’m reading

THE ST. GALLEN MAFIA – Exposing the Secret Reformist Group Within the Church by Julia Meloni.


It is published by TAN Books.

In a nutshell, a group of cardinals were meeting already in the 90’s with the purpose of undermining Joseph Card. Ratzinger and, later, Benedict XVI, while raising up a contrast Pope in the figure of Card. Martini and, later, Card. Bergoglio.

The group was active for awhile and then went dormant, to be revived at the time of the 2013 conclave that elected Bergoglio.

Meloni’s book connects a lot of data points, much as we do when we complete a jigsaw puzzle, looking for corners and straight edges, sorting for colors and filling in blanks.

She is quite thorough.

One section that caught my close attention was a later chapter on the patience of the machinations and the individuals, wherein there popped in an important name: Yves Congar, an powerful influence at the Second Vatican Council and part of the Concilium group.

Why does that name trigger me? Because when Francis opened the recent Synod (“walking together) about Synods (“walking together”) he quoted Congar, saying:

“We must not makeanotherChurch,we must make a different Church”(Vera e falsa riforma nella Chiesa,Milan 1994, 193). And that’s the challenge. For a “different Church”, open to the newness that God wants to suggest to her, let us invoke the Spirit with greater strength and frequency and humbly listen to him, walking together, as he, creator of communion and mission, desires, that is, with docility and courage.

As Meloni points out, Congar “was obsessed by time”.

Congar wanted a patient transformation of the Church without rushing, causing breaks or schisms, moving in stages, patiently waiting through delays.

For his part, Francis has several guiding principles that he laid out in Evangelii gaudium which he in turn took from an Argentinian caudillo.  One of those principles was “time is greater than space”.   It sounds vacuous, but it in essence means, “patience overcomes resistence”.

In this section, Meloni connects the influence of Card. Martini with the projects of Francis.  They line up.

I am reminded of the patience that certain groups such as Masons, Communists, and Homosexualists had over decades of slow but steady infiltration of the Church at many levels, keeping relatively quite until the “tipping point” was finally attained.  We are seeing the results now being played out before our horrified eyes.

I haven’t seen lib reactions to this book yet, but surely they will devolve into the usual sniffery about “conspiracy theorists”, as if that will automatically deny the veracity of the content.   The problem is that facts are stubborn.  Meloni provides citations.

This is a hard book to read, much as an autopsy is hard to watch.  They are simultaneously fascinating and repulsive.


As far as lib reactions are concerned, I tried something.  At the beginning of the book, Meloni describes Card. Martini watching Card. Ratzinger preach the famous homily before the conclave, how for a moment Martini glared at Ratzinger.  She provided the link to the video with the time point.

The video is now “unavailable”.

At least at that link.

It might be a good idea for people to gather onto their own hard disks some of the online references for future consultation.

BTW… the obvious companion to Meloni’s book is The Dictator Pope (revised and updated) – (US HERE – UK HERE) – highly critical of Pope Francis and those around him, originally was published under the pen name of “Marcantonio Colonna”.

COVID Passports and Secret Ordinations

Mr Kokx has some follow-up thoughts on Dr Kwasnieski's Clandestine Ordinations Against Church Law: Lessons from Cardinal Wojtyła and Cardinal Slipyj.

From One Peter Five

By  Stephen Kokx 

International travel regulations are heading in a direction that may mean individuals won’t be able to enter or leave a given country without proof of having received the COVID shot. If that comes true, it could imperil the future of the Catholic faith.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewksi recently penned an article for OnePeterFive arguing that papally-unapproved ordinations may have to take place in the years ahead given the proliferation of Liberalism and Modernism in the church.

His essay makes a comparison between the actions of French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 — when he consecrated four bishops against the wishes of John Paul II — and other instances of clergy acting without the pope’s support.

Kwasniewski mentions, in particular, Ukrainian Cardinal Josyf Slipyj and Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, both of whom clandestinely passed on holy orders behind the Iron Curtain seemingly against the wishes of pope Paul VI during the middle part of the 20th century.

What’s interesting about Kwasniewski’s article is that when read in light of vaccine passports and COVID lockdowns, it should remind Catholics that we’re on the precipice of not just another “Iron Curtain” situation — where a handful of countries are shrouded in spiritual darkness — but a planetary blackout that could leave entire continents without the true faith.

Take Germany for instance. Arguably the most dissident group of bishops in the Latin church, German clerics are witnessing the faith practically disappear in their land. Who will ordain the next generation of orthodox priests? Cardinal Marx?

One could also look at the sad state of Catholicism in Ireland. As LifeSiteNews has previously reported, St. Patrick’s Seminary in Maynooth has announced that only four men have joined the country’s only diocesan seminary in 2021. That’s believed to be the lowest number since the seminary’s foundation in 1795. The light of Catholicism has all but gone out in the land of St. Patrick.

It’s not difficult to foresee a situation in the near future where countries begin to ban “outsider,” non-vaxxed bishops like Athanasius Schneider from entering to perform ordinations. If that happens, entire countries will effectively become spiritual concentration camps with only the priests and bishops inside the camp to rely on. If those places don’t have bishops willing to pass on holy orders to solidly formed, traditional priests, then the real Catholic faith in those nations may be in great danger.

Of course, it goes without saying that God will not be stopped, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But, Scripture does warn that when Christ returns it’s questionable as to whether or not He’ll find any faith left. Satan, in other words, will not eradicate Catholicism from existence, but that doesn’t mean international Freemasonry can’t successfully stamp out the Church’s presence from entire continents for a duration of time.

To Whom Shall Catholics Go?

Catholics need to ask themselves the following question: how many orthodox Cardinals and bishops are there left in the Church? I myself think the number is extremely low. Maybe even less than a dozen or so. I agree with Archbishop Vigano’s assessment that the true Church is being eclipsed by a “conciliar” imposter, a sort of New World Order spiritual vassal state in service of global elites working to bring about the Great Reset and lay the foundations for the coming of the anti-Christ.

No doubt there are bishops across the world who are “friendly” with groups like the FSSP, ICKSP, and others who want to pass on the traditional liturgy. But if the Modernist usurpers in Rome are going to use Traditionis Custodes to stifle those communities, as it appears they will, the future of the faith could get pretty bleak for loyal Catholics in countries where those priests reside and where leftist bishops occupy the positions of power. They’ll simply refuse to ordain and consecrate traditional candidates.

Some might think that the SSPX will always be there for traditional Catholics to fall back on, and that if things get bad enough, diocesan priests and laity will just jump ship and join with them. Well, right now the SSPX has three bishops in the entire world, and 700 or so priests. Three bishops, the youngest of whom is 63, is simply not enough to service the worldwide traditional Catholic community, which has grown exponentially since Lefebvre’s ’88 consecrations. Moreover, what if one of them succumbs to old age or sickness, or is prevented from leaving Europe because they don’t have a Green Pass? What will happen then to the traditional community across the world?

I think it’s safe to say that history will have a high regard for those Catholics that are and have been taking actions to ensure the survival of Tradition in as many places of the world as possible. The enemies of Christ who run this planet are undoubtedly scheming to put an end to the true Catholic faith. COVID passports are a strong weapon in that fight right now.

Catholics need to take precautions immediately and make sure they’re living in a country and/or state not far from those bishops who are willing to take Dr. Kwasniewski’s advice and pass on holy orders without Vatican approval. It may be the only way they’ll have access to the sacraments in the years ahead.

Archbishop Vigano Sums up Francis' Pontificate of Disunity, Division, and Scandal in One Paragraph

The School Sisters of Christ the King (bottom photo) are a Diocese of Lincoln foundation, founded after the Council!

From Les Femmes

By Mary Ann Kreitzer

From the Remnant article:

After years of this pontificate, we have all understood that the reasons given by Bergoglio for declining a meeting with a Prelate, a politician or a conservative intellectual do not apply to the molester Cardinal, the heretic Bishop, the abortionist politician, or the globalist intellectual. In short, there is a blatant difference in behavior, from which one can grasp the partiality and partisanship of Francis in favor of any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic. Anything that even only vaguely evokes anything Catholic seems to arouse in the tenant of Santa Marta an aversion that is disconcerting to say the least, if only in virtue of the Throne on which he is seated. Many have noted this dissociation, this sort of bipolarity of a pope who does not behave like a Pope and does not speak like a Pope. The problem is that we are not faced with a sort of inaction from the Papacy, as could happen with a sick or very old Pontiff; but rather with a constant action that is organized and planned in a sense diametrically opposed to the very essence of the Papacy. Not only does Bergoglio not condemn the errors of the present time by strongly reaffirming the Truth of the Catholic Faith – he has never done this! – but he actively seeks to disseminate these errors, to promote them, to encourage their supporters, to spread them to the greatest possible extent and to host events promoting them in the Vatican, simultaneously silencing those who denounce these same errors. Not only does he not punish fornicating Prelates, but he even promotes and defends them by lying, while he removes conservative Bishops and does not hide his annoyance with the heartfelt appeals of Cardinals not aligned with the new course. Not only does he not condemn abortionist politicians who proclaim themselves Catholics, but he intervenes to prevent the Episcopal Conference from pronouncing on this matter, contradicting that synodal path which conversely allows him to use a minority of ultra-progressives to impose his will on the majority of the Synod Fathers.

When will the true shepherds resist this man to his face? The sins of St. Peter, publicly condemned by St. Paul, are nothing compared to what Francis has done to the Bride of Christ and to her spiritual sons. It is high time for faithful shepherds who love the Church to join together to publicly condemn his demolition of the Church. Abandoning the USCCB would be a good start. Imitate the women religious who left the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious) in 1992 to form the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious. Unlike their aging sisters of the LCWR whose ideology is anything but Catholic, who abandoned their habits and their integrity years ago (If they had any integrity they would have left to join the various Protestant sects that ordain women and promote abortion.), the sisters of the CMSWR joyfully embrace both their habits and their rules. Almost 40% of their sisters are under 50. Want a laugh? Compare the photos below, then ask yourself where the future of women religious lies. The orders in LCWR continue their steep decline. The orders in CMSWR are expanding their facilities. 

The faces of the LCWR 
The Nuns on the Bus who shill for progressive politics including abortion!

School Sisters of Christ the King who teach the faith to our children.

To see all the member communities affiliated with CMSWR go here. Let this be a reminder that God is faithful to his faithful people. The Nuns on the Bus are a metaphor. They are on the bus C.S. Lewis describes in The Great Divorce. Pray for their conversion. But take heart in seeing more and more nuns back in the classroom with our children. The future belongs to those who love God and refuse to trade their vocation for a bowl of rotting soup passed out by the "progressives."

Francis, Congar, and The Case of Archbishop Lefebvre

Remember, then Fr Ratzinger was his buddy at the Council and John Paul II made him a Cardinal. The rot goes very deep!

From The Remnant

By Robert Morrison

In his October 9, 2021 address to open the Synod, Francis put the Church and world on notice that he intended to change the Church, invoking the pseudo-Catholic inspiration of Yves Congar: 

“Father Congar, of blessed memory, once said: ‘There is no need to create another Church, but to create a different Church.’  That is the challenge. For a ‘different Church,’ a Church open to the newness that God wants to suggest, let us with greater fervour and frequency invoke the Holy Spirit and humbly listen to him, journeying together as he, the source of communion and mission, desires: with docility and courage.”

Although Congar was one of the most influential people at Vatican II (and was eventually made a cardinal by Pope John Paul II), we may be inclined to dismiss his writing on the basis that he was so clearly wrong that no serious Catholic could actually trust him. He was, as Fr. Dominique Bourmaud expressed in his One Hundred Years of Modernism, a true destroyer of the Faith:

“Like the child who takes a perverse pleasure in destroying, it seems that Congar had no greater joy in life than that of witnessing the dilapidation of the treasure of the Church and the destruction of the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ.”

Unfortunately, Francis shares Congar’s “perverse pleasure in destroying” the Faith and, indeed, uses the same instruments of demolition. Thus, it would not matter if every sensible person in the entire world knew that Congar was a blind guide — the fact that Francis allows him to posthumously guide the barque of Peter means we ought to acquaint ourselves with how Congar navigated souls through hostile waters to ports of apostasy.

In his They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre dedicated a subchapter to Yves Congar.

“Fr. Congar is not one of my friends. A periti at the Council, he was, with Karl Rahner, the principal author of the errors that I have not ceased combatting. He wrote, among others, a little book entitled Archbishop Lefebvre and the Crisis in the Church.”

This small book on Archbishop Lefebvre from 1976 — Challenge to the Church: The Case of Archbishop Lefebvre (English version) — showcases Yves Congar’s fight against Archbishop Lefebvre and traditional Catholicism, a fight that continues today through their respective spiritual and theological descendants. With his arrogance and gratuitous sophistry, Congar comes across like a comic book villain who, as Fr. Bourmaud described, “takes a perverse pleasure in destroying.” On closer inspection, we can see that Francis has adopted many of the same ideas, particularly in connection with the new Synod. In his book against Archbishop Lefebvre, Congar shows us how he advocated for replacing Catholic tradition with non-Catholic ideas through a democratic process (e.g., endless synods) which the innovators would erroneously claim to be guided by the Holy Ghost:

Tradition. For Congar, Archbishop Lefebvre represented the face of Catholic tradition in opposition to the novelties of Vatican II:

“Here we come to a decisive point. Mgr Lefebvre never stops invoking tradition. He said to the Pope, ‘Allow us simply to use the experience of tradition.’ If the only meaning of that was ‘Allow us to train priests according to the tried and tested rules of bygone days, but accepting the Council and the reforms which it got under way,’ there would be no problem.”

Congar’s mention of the Council and “the reforms which it got under way” is quite telling. Although Congar cites a number of Vatican II’s shortcomings in the book, he nonetheless insists that Archbishop Lefebvre must accept not only the specific documents of the Council but all that it set in motion. He writes that this acceptance of the post-conciliar reforms is necessary to live “in the Church’s communion”:

“What is at issue is not the use of Latin, nor the wearing of the clerical cassock, nor the regime of life at the seminary of Econe. . . . What is at issue is the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, and its sixteen documents, signed by the whole of the Catholic episcopacy, and approved and promulgated by the Holy Father; and then the acceptance of reforms — particularly the liturgical ones — which were undertaken by the Council, formulated in Rome or worked out in detail by the pastoral authorities of each country, and approved by the Pope. Such an acceptance is necessary in order to live fully, effectively and concretely in the Church’s communion today.”

Thanks to Francis’s Traditionis Custodes, we now know that we have to choose between tradition (i.e., Catholicism) and the reforms of Vatican II, but Congar was savvy enough to understand that he had to argue (disingenuously of course) that one could reconcile tradition with that which apparently contradicts it:

“The Church is tradition, the handing-down of what has been given once and for all: revelation, sacraments and ministry. It’s therefore easy to understand that a sincere and faithful body of Catholics is attached to one form or another of tradition. Those who are in sympathy with categorical, trenchant declarations will give pride of place to the forms which reflect this need. But the great river of tradition is wider than a straight canal with cemented parapets. The tradition of the Fathers is richer than the tradition whose content was fixed in the face of the Reformation by the ‘Holy Council of Trent.’”

So his first approach to the problem is to argue that those attached to tradition need to consider that tradition is much broader than they envision.

Elsewhere he takes a somewhat different approach, arguing that tradition encompasses incessant innovations:

“Tradition isn’t the past, it isn’t old habits kept up by the espirit de corps. Tradition is actuality, simultaneously handing on, receiving and creating. Tradition is the presence of a principle at every moment of its development. We don’t accept the break. The Church never stops innovating, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but she always takes from the roots and makes use of the sap which comes from them.”

So whatever we think of “tradition,” Congar wants us to know that we cannot let it lead us to reject the innovations of Vatican II. As we will see later, Congar frequently claims that the Holy Spirit guides these innovations. First, though, we must see where Congar will seek truth if not from Catholic tradition.

Alternative Sources of Truth. In the last two verses of the Gospel of St. Matthew we have proof that the Catholic Church has the fullness of religious truth that Jesus Christ chose to impart:

“Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Without a doubt, we can all advance in knowledge and understanding of the Catholic Faith; but we know that our religion contains all of the religious truths that we can and should know this side of Heaven. Like so many other nominally Catholic thinkers, though, Congar looked outside the Church for religious truth:

“I want to gather up every small fragment of truth, wherever it is to be found, with the same care that I would use in picking up a tiny piece of a consecrated host. . . . And who could deny that the Protestants might possess small fragments or elements of truth? Who would pretend that we have nothing to gain or discover?”

Here we have typical Congar sophistry. Obviously Protestants possess elements of truth — after all, they believe many truths of Catholicism. But because those elements of truth in Protestant religions come from the Catholic Church, there is no sense in which we would need to look to the Protestants to discover Christian truth. We do indeed have more to “gain or discover” but that will come if we make it to Heaven, not if we make it to the local Protestant church.

For Congar (like Francis), another rich source of “truth” was condemned error:

“It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864 . . . But among other things, the Syllabus was trying to defend a temporal power which, taking into account the new situation, the papacy renounced in 1929. The historico-social context within which the Church is called to live and to speak has changed, and lessons had been learnt from circumstances.”

In his They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Lefebvre responded to this passage with his characteristic strength and Catholic precision:

“Unfortunately for Father Congar, these ‘Catholics’ are none other than the liberal Catholics condemned by the Popes; and the teaching of the Syllabus, far from being dependent on fleeting historical circumstances, constitutes a mass of truths logically deduced from revelation and as immutable as the faith!”

How could it be otherwise? If Congar was correct in thinking that the Syllabus was superseded by the same innovations condemned by the Syllabus then why would we believe anything on the basis of the Church’s authority, which could reverse its previous anathemas on the whims of those in power?

Finally, Congar looked to the “modern world” as a new source of truth:

“By the Declaration on Religious Liberty, by the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, On the Church in the Modern World, — a significant title, this! — the Church of Vatican II has openly placed herself in the pluralist world of today; and, without disowning anything great that there may have been, has cut the ropes which were mooring her to the banks of the Middle Ages. You cannot stay stuck at a particular moment of history.”

So, unmoored from tradition, the Church is now free to search for truth in the hostile waters of Protestantism, condemned errors, and the pluralist world we find today. Indeed, we can look for truth anywhere other than in the traditions of the Church!

Democratic Process. Having abandoned the protections of Catholic tradition and embarked on a voyage to seek truth in hitherto forbidden places, what would guarantee the success of the Council and its subsequent reforms? Congar answers with a description of the Council’s “authenticity”:

“Vatican II wasn’t perfect, in the eyes either of the ‘conservative’ elements or of the ‘progressive’ elements; but, more than any other ecumenical council in history, it had all the guarantees of authenticity. Like no other, it brought the whole Church together in the person of its pastors. It was far more heedful of the minority which was conservative, than Vatican I had been. . . . The Holy Father did everything he could, even going so far as to run the risk of unpopularity, to create conditions in which the anxieties of the minority would be calmed and the final vote of the assembly would be as nearly unanimous as possible.”

Instead of a guarantee of authority or infallibility based on the protection of the Holy Ghost, Congar speaks of a guarantee of authenticity on the basis of principles of democratic process. Certainly there would have been no inherent incompatibility between the protection of the Holy Ghost and the agreement of the assembled Council Fathers. But the fact that the “progressive elements” of the Council proceeded by means of deception, intentionally abandoned the traditional protections of the Faith, and explicitly refused to define anything new, vitiates claims that the novelties of Vatican II enjoy authority or infallibility.

So, Congar makes a few appeals to the results of the democratic process to counter Archbishop Lefebvre’s misgivings about the Council and its reforms:

“Mgr Lefebvre actually wrote to the Abbe G. De Nantes on 19 March 1975: ‘I would have you know that, if a bishop does break away from Rome, it won’t be me.’ By that he understands faithful (according to his lights) Rome, ‘Eternal Rome,’ not the Rome of Vatican II or the Rome of the Missal of Paul VI. But how can one claim to be right and claim to conduct oneself as part of a whole when one objects to the Eucharist that 700,000,000 Catholics, 400,000 priests and 2,550 bishops celebrate in union with the successor of Peter?”

“In dialogue, I would accept a discussion . . . so long as my fellow-debaters did not exclude in advance a possibility which is actually the conviction of 2,500 bishops, 400,000 priests and hundreds of millions of the faithful.”

Innovators like Congar point to these numbers as a guarantee of the “authenticity” of Vatican II’s reforms and then think nothing of seeing those numbers decimated over the years as an unmistakable fruit of Vatican II’s reforms!

If we wonder why Congar defends Vatican II on the basis of its resemblance to a democratic process rather than its standing as an ecumenical council of the Church, we find our answer in his advocacy for the Council’s innovations regarding collegiality:

“Mgr Lefebvre is not the only one to have drawn attention to the existence of a danger: that the personal exercise of authority will be diminished because of conferences, commissions, centralized organizations, national chaplaincies, etc. It really does not appear that collegiality and setting up of synods have overshadowed papal authority.”

Congar and others wanted collegiality — as expressed in synods for example — to supplant the Church’s traditional exercise of authority, so we can appreciate his motivation to characterize Vatican II as having more “guarantees of authenticity” than any other council because it was more democratic.

Congar goes on to mock skeptics of collegiality as conservative, paternalistic, and apparently critical of the French Revolution and Russian Revolution:

“Men imbued with a conservative and paternalistic spirit have a kind of ‘gut repulsion’ for words like ‘grass-roots,’ ‘the people,’ ‘democracy’ . . . . This repulsion is a reaction governed by temperament and political persuasion. But the Church has its own order of things, and its essential nature — communion — goes back more than seventeen centuries before the time of the French Revolution and nineteen centuries before the Russian Revolution.”

Of course collegiality was not the ultimate goal for Congar. As we see from the following plea to those who might oppose democracy in politics, he merely wants us all to give “the Gospel a transcendence and freedom” to operate in the Church:

“A Catholic may certainly be opposed to democracy as a political regime, provided he uses his intelligence in adopting this position. He may be ‘of the Right’ with the same proviso, and also on the condition that he is prepared to let a living sense of the Church and a lively sense of the Gospel govern his group reflexes. . . . I ask only that a person should be clear about himself, intelligently critical concerning his conditioning; and I ask this from the point of view of an ideology which mingles with our most strongly-held beliefs — that in the final analysis we should allow the Gospel a transcendence and a freedom of which the Lord Jesus is forever the example and the source.”

To borrow an expression Francis has given to the Church and world, Congar effectively asked that we all be open to a god of surprises who will manifest itself when we set aside the settled truths and let the world, flesh, and the devil guide us.

Movement of the Spirit. One of the most instrumental and offensive aspects of the Vatican II reforms has been the blasphemous blaming of the Holy Ghost for these adulterations of the true Faith. For Congar, the “spirit” is in the “heart of all,” which explains (for him) why the democratic process allows the Church to remain “authentic” while it seeks its tradition in previously condemned sources:

“The Church is in fact a communion: a spiritual communion through the faith and love that the Holy Spirit, the one and the same spirit, places in the heart of all.”

“The Church is the love that the Spirit of God puts into our hearts — a love which seeks reconciliation and unity; an active love, inventive in initiatives of service; a deep love which in the compassion of God takes upon itself the pains of men by prayer and intercession. . . . And the Church is mission — which is not the same as propaganda or proselytizing.”

It is of course true that faithful Catholics are guided by the Holy Ghost to do God’s will but it is preposterous to believe that the Holy Ghost is given to us for the sake of changing the Faith into something radically incompatible with what it has always been.

Congar himself acknowledges that this so-called guidance of the spirit leads to results that diverge from historical Catholic teaching. Writing specifically about the ecumenical movement that would eventually give us the Prayer Meeting at Assisi, Congar blames the Holy Spirit for his own open-minded acceptance of attitudes that would have been disapproved in the past:

“Anyone who has become involved with the ecumenical movement, who has encountered serious and committed Christians there, cannot but believe that in our century, so problematical regarding the faith, God has raised up this movement like a huge tide that proclaims the attraction of a supreme heavenly body, the Holy Spirit, the ‘Unknown beyond the Word’, whose nature it is to concentrate together people, energies, and initiatives which do not even know each others’ existence. . . . something comes from God: its the fact of the Holy Spirit, setting my open-mindedness in motion, who justifies my having a different attitude towards non-catholics from the attitude approved and practiced in the past, even by authorities whom I revere.”

Using this reasoning, Congar and so many innovators like him have managed to cajole well-meaning but gullible Catholics into believing that the Holy Ghost really has caused the Church to adopt beliefs and practices that are absolutely inimical to what the Church has taught for nearly two-thousand years.

And it is this same mentality and process that Francis is deploying with his new Synod. As he said to open the Synod, he is following Congar’s inspiration to develop a different religion. Archbishop Lefebvre’s words about Congar apply to Francis and his collaborators: “We are dealing with people who have no idea of truth, no concept of what can be an immutable truth.”

Faithful Catholics, especially those in positions of leadership, must defend the Catholic Faith assiduously against everything Congar and Francis represent in the Church. While Francis and his fellow destroyers take inspiration from Congar, we can find our own inspiration in the closing words of Archbishop Lefebvre’s They Have Uncrowned Him:

“As for me, I will not resign; I will not content myself with being present, my arms dangling, at the death-throes of my Mother the Holy Church. . . . In spite of everything I am not a pessimist. The Holy Virgin will have the victory. She will triumph over the great apostasy, the fruit of Liberalism. One more reason not to twiddle our thumbs! We have to fight more than ever for the social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Our Father, Thy Kingdom come! Long live Christ the King! Holy Ghost, fill the hearts of Thy faithful! O Mary, be our Queen, we belong to Thee!”

All Hallows' Eve

Fr Hunwicke with some thoughts on the abolition of the Vigil of All Saints, not by the VII 'reformers' but by Bugnini and Pius XII.

From Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment

A lovely day, the day before All Saints, in which the Roman Liturgy, with its beautiful Mass of the Eve, or Vigil, of All Saints, sets up a big marker against the heathen puerilities of "Hallow Een". And carries forward the themes of the Social Kingship of Christ. I am sure that both clergy and devout laity will enjoy the texts of this Mass.

Except that they won't. What a shame that Vatican II abolished it. Just another example of all that has been wrong since the 1960s.

Except that the Vigil of All Saints was not abolished by Vatican II.

Because, as everybody knows, it was abolished by the undoubted vandals who, in the decade after the Council, certainly did use "Vatican II" as a thoroughly dishonest excuse to ignore what the Council did actually mandate. Shockers, the lot of them.

Er ... No; wrong again. This lovely Vigil was abolished by Pius XII, hero-pope of a certain sort of Traddy!!

Pius XII it was who employed Hannibal Bugnini and began the deformation of the Roman Rite, years before Papa Roncalli had any notion whatsoever of summoning a Council. They began by interfering with the rites of Holy Week. And the Vigil of All Saints, they felt, had to go.

If, in a second-hand bookshop, you spot an old pre-1950 Missal going cheap, snaffle it up!

According to the pre-Pacelli Roman Rite, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, in a year like this one, when November 1, All Saints, comes on a Monday, you are ordered to anticipate this Vigil on Saturday October 30.

If, following the complicated current usages of the modern English Catholic Church, you observe All Saints, this year, on Sunday, it will still be mighty suitable to celebrate the Vigil on Saturday ... wo'n't it?

The only people, I imagine, who really do carefully observe this and other such traditional Vigils are Anglicans who belong to "the Prayer Book Society" (led, I believe, by dear Prince Charles and the former Mrs Parker Bowles); and those American sedevacantists who (used to???) follow the S Lawrence Press Ordo


Have members of those two last-named highly-principled organisations inherited any megatraditional dietary customs about special 'vigil' observances? A modest Lobster Thermidor, perhaps, for breakfast? A penitential Bouillabaisse for lunch? [Native British home-shucked] Oysters for those in-between snacks? I don't wish to encroach upon Fr Zed's mouthwatering culinary posts, but perhaps this is a field in which my own readers who have appropriate Traddy contacts can make a modest contribution to edifying and recatholicising the Wider Church.

Brave New World: It's Here

Frightening! Our Masters have made the decision. Are we men or sheeple?

From Everyday For Life Canada

The dystopian novel A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is no longer fiction. We're presently experiencing, in reality, the book's predicted technological suffering and social engineering. There is more evidence that most of the injustice, fear and the push for vaccination during this pandemic has been manufactured. A "Newly uncovered video shows Anthony Fauci and other HHS officials discussing how a new virus from China could be used to enforce universal vaccination." Sounds familiar? And that was stated way back in October of 2019. Watch the video as One America's Pearson Sharp provides the details. The sad rest is history.

With the current pandemic bringing a devolution to countries around the world, Huxley must be rolling in his grave. The novel's title comes from Shakespeare's play The Tempest, from a speech given by Miranda who ironically fails to see the human capacity to do evil. Like Miranda we should not let our innocence and naivete betray us from facing the truth.

"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't."

There should be a proper investigation of the pandemic. Every human being has a God given dignity and sanctity. Nobody has the right to take that away. To do so is a crime against humanity and God's creation. Those who are responsible for what has happened must he help accountable.

A Comment on 'You Can Argue With a Marxist, but Not With a Catholic Progressive.'

This was posted on FishEaters Forum as a comment on Fr Zed's post You Can Argue With a Marxist, but Not With a Catholic Progressive. A good read!


I've tried to talk to progressive (read: modernist) Catholics before. It usually goes something like this:

Prog: The Catholic Church needs to change her teaching on [a social issue]!
Me: Why?
Prog: People are leaving the Church because of her teaching on [a social issue].
Me: And? Truth isn't determined by majority vote.
Prog: Well, anyway, it's [homophobic, bigoted, or some other snarl word modernists use].
Me: That doesn't mean it isn't Truth. Since when do Catholics base what we believe off what other people think about our beliefs?
Prog: Well, uh... the Church needs to move with the times. Are you a trad or something?
Me: Yes, I'm a traditionalist Catholic. Why do you ask?
Prog: Oh, so you're one of those crazy fundies that hate Pope Francis and Vatican II.
Me: We aren't here to talk about Vatican II, we're here to talk about [a social issue]. Can I show you what the Church Fathers had to say about [a social issue]?
Prog: The Church Fathers were old white men and had patriarchal interpretations of Christianity. You need to decolonise your religion.
Me: Wait, what? St Cyril of Alexandria and St Augustine, who I'm quoting here, were both Africans. Besides, hating white people is still racism.
Prog: If you're so obsessed with "tradition" and "Church Fathers", anyway, why don't you look at what [a random heretical sect] thought about [a social issue]?
Me: Because Catholics from that era, like St Epiphanius of Salamis, said that [a random heretical sect] were heretics.
Prog: You need to stop using terms like "heretics", they promote Christian supremacy.
Me: What? Extra Ecclesiam nulli salus is dogma in any case.
Prog: You need to have more love for other spiritualities and to stop being such a bigot. Remember that Jesus said not to judge.
Me: Yes, but He said that when he was criticising the Pharisees' hypocrisy. If you want to look at what the Bible says about [a social issue], look at these verses.
Prog: Those verses were mistranslated.
Me: No, they weren't.
Prog: Well, things have changed in society since the time of the Bible.
Me: If you don't accept the Bible's teachings and if you don't accept the Church Fathers' teachings, what teachings do you accept?
Prog: My conscience, of course! My conscience tells me that every Catholic before 1960 was wrong about [a social issue] and only Fr James Martin knows what she should really teach. Besides, I'm going to block you. I don't talk to bigots.

These are all arguments I've heard from self-described "liberal", "reformist" or "progressive" Catholics throughout the years. More often than not, you can't argue with them because they are so set in their belief that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong and only their fellow modernists are right.

Judas Received Communion – Should Biden?

When Our Lord gave Judas Holy Communion, he followed it up by calling him the 'Son of Perdition' and saying 'It would have been better for that one not to have been born'!

From The Catholic Thing

By David G Bonagura, Jr.

It’s time to cease creating dubious excuses in defense of President Biden and his Catholic practice. The smiles and photo-ops that will occur in Rome when Biden meets Pope Francis cannot hide the truth: the president has betrayed the Lord in using his office to enable the destruction and death of innocent children in the womb. And it’s clear that even his defenders know it by the form their excuses take.

“Jesus gave Communion to Judas at the Last Supper,” runs one argument for allowing the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other abortion-enabling politicians to receive the Eucharist at Mass. “Jesus was inclusive of Judas. So the bishops should follow Jesus’ example and not prohibit politicians from receiving Communion.”

The absurdity of comparing anyone to Judas aside, in good faith consider: In giving Judas the Eucharist, shortly after the rebellious apostle had sold his master for thirty coins, was Jesus signaling to His apostles that there should be no rules governing the wondrous sacrament He just instituted and entrusted to them? That all are welcome at His table, at all times, no matter what one has done? Are bishops, then, with their rules for receiving the sacrament, like the Pharisees, whom Jesus denounced since “they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders”? (Matt 23:4)

Jesus instituted the Eucharist – the sacrament of His own body and blood – at the Last Supper. This event, like every healing and teaching of His, could not be fully understood until after He suffered, died, and rose. What could the apostles have been thinking when Jesus handed them the bread and declared it His body? Or, more peculiarly, when he passed the chalice, calling the wine in it “my blood of the covenant” that is poured out – present tense – for the forgiveness of sins? What covenant and whose sins? And that they should “do this in remembrance of me”?

The Crucifixion of the Son of God on Good Friday, at the very hour when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple nearby, helps us interpret the supper ritual of Holy Thursday. Jesus is the new Passover, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. He sacrificed His body and poured out His blood for our salvation; this is the new and eternal covenant. He commanded that the Eucharist be perpetuated so His salvation would remain accessible until the end of time.

Only then did the Last Supper – and what Jesus said a year earlier at the Sea of Tiberias – make sense: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:54)

Judas, through his mortal sin, is the ignoble link between the Last Supper and the Cross. He betrayed Jesus Christ. He arranged that Jesus’ body might be taken and His blood poured out. He cloaked his betrayal in an act of friendship: the fatal kiss. Even in doing that, he might have called himself a devout follower of Jesus.

In giving Judas the Eucharist, Jesus was not including him out of love nor “weaponizing” the freshly instituted sacrament for ulterior motives. No. Judas deceived Jesus; his heart turned against Him. Jesus allowed for Judas’ reception to be an outward sign of the dead soul within him.

By taking the Eucharist, Judas teaches the extreme gravity of receiving our Lord’s body in a state of sin – it leads to destruction and death. The bread of life becomes a path of death.

Jesus, the model Pastor, did not call Judas a wayward soul needing gentle correction. He called Him “lost,” the “Son of Perdition.” (John 17:12) Jesus added, in the most harrowing lines of Scripture, “Woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” (Matt 26:24)

Those are hardly words of sentimental love and inclusion.

Nor was Jesus, unlike some today, interested in perpetual dialogue with His betrayer: “What you are going to do, do quickly.” (John 13:27)

Judas teaches us that to receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is to betray the Lord Himself. Jesus was not playing “gotcha” with Judas in giving him Communion in a state of sin. As with Jesus submitting to John’s baptism, in the eyes of Providence Judas’ reception, as a lesson for all of us, was “fitting to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matt 3:15)

To keep a hard heart, decade after decade, in support of abortion – and, most recently, to allow the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, to consent to the House passing the Women’s Health Protection Act, to sue to overturn Texas’s law prohibiting abortion – is not comparable either to the betrayal of another apostle on Holy Thursday: Peter. The fisherman fell in a moment of weakness and immediately acknowledged his sin by weeping over it. The president, by contrast, has dug his heels in deeper in defiance of the bishops, the successors of the apostles whom Jesus ordained to perpetuate – and to protect – the Eucharist.

Judas, unlike Peter, never asked for forgiveness, which is why he was “lost.” But in an irony fit for today’s controversy, Judas at least had the humility to see what the president cares not to: “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” (Matt 27:4)

So there are reasons to compare Judas’ reception of Communion with President Biden’s – reasons why Biden ought not to receive, and why he should be admonished if he insists.

St. Paul may well have had the Son of Perdition in mind when he wrote these words within two decades of the Eucharist’s institution: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27) We ought to have the president – and the salvation of his soul – in mind as we read those words today.

/Satire/ When Emperor Nero Met St Peter /satire/

Eccles has some seriocomic fun with Biden's meeting with Francis.

From Eccles is Saved

Rome, AD 66 (approx.)

St Luke, Reporter for EWTN, writes:

1. O Theophilus, it is indeed wearisome to write my words in numbered verses, but as you know, all writers of this day and age are doing so, and I shall not rebel.

2. It came to pass that Pope Peter and the Emperor Nero met in Rome, and spent five and seventy minutes together. Nero dozed for sixty minutes, and they spake for fifteen.

Pope Francis and Joe Biden
Where Peter is. And Nero.

3. Alas, I was not permitted to be present, and no official account of the meeting was released, so we cannot be sure what was said.

4. However, the Emperor Nero Josephus Robinetticus Bidenicus hath given some account of his words with Pope Peter, and no man dareth doubt their truth.

5. After greeting Peter, and sniffing his hair, Nero discussed weighty matters with him, such as his plans for a climate change conference in Pompeii thirteen years hence.

6. According to reports, the question of Nero's morals did not arise: the Great Fire of Rome, at which Nero played the Martius Haugenus anthem "Gather us in" on his lyre, causing terror among the populace, was not mentioned.

7. Likewise, the subsequent burning of Christians did not arise as a question that needed to be discussed.

Nero fiddles
"Build Back Better." In this picture we see a lyre.

8. However, in the words of Nero himself, whom all must believe: "Pope Peter told me that I was a good Catholic, and that I should keep receiving Communion."

9. Indeed it is true that Peter's Letter to the Amoral Laetitians hath said that mass murder should not be a bar to receiving the Lord.

10. All we can say is that, following his meeting with Pope Peter, the President Nero hath redoubled his persecution of Christians, Chinese, Afghans, babies, etc. etc.

11. Indeed, Peter himself hath been crucified, Paul is on the "wanted" list, and I too am in deep trouble.

Written from the Catacombs.

“White People, You Are the Problem”

At&T has joined the 'woke' racists. Are there any big corporation CEOs who retain their sanity? I'm beginning to doubt it!

From City Journal

By Christopher F. Rufo

AT&T’s new racial reeducation program promotes the idea that “racism is a uniquely white trait.”

AT&T Corporation has created a racial reeducation program that promotes the idea that “American racism is a uniquely white trait” and boosts left-wing causes such as “reparations,” “defund police,” and “trans activism.”

I have obtained a cache of internal documents about the company’s initiative, called Listen Understand Act, which is based on the core principles of critical race theory, including “intersectionality,” “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” and “white fragility.” CEO John Stankey launched the program last year and, subsequently, has told employees that private corporations such as AT&T have an “obligation to engage on this issue of racial injustice” and push for “systemic reforms in police departments across the country.”

According to a senior employee, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, managers at AT&T are now assessed annually on diversity issues, with mandatory participation in programs such as discussion groups, book clubs, mentorship programs, and race reeducation exercises. White employees, the source said, are tacitly expected to confess their complicity in “white privilege” and “systemic racism,” or they will be penalized in their performance reviews. As part of the overall initiative, employees are asked to sign a loyalty pledge to “keep pushing for change,” with suggested “intentions” such as “reading more about systemic racism” and “challenging others’ language that is hateful.” “If you don’t do it,” the senior employee says, “you’re [considered] a racist.” AT&T did not respond when asked for comment.

On the first page of AT&T’s Listen Understand Act internal portal, the company encourages employees to study a resource called “White America, if you want to know who’s responsible for racism, look in the mirror.” The article claims that the United States is a “racist society” and lays out its thesis plainly: “White people, you are the problem. Regardless of how much you say you detest racism, you are the sole reason it has flourished for centuries.” The author, Dahleen Glanton, writes that “American racism is a uniquely white trait” and that “Black people cannot be racist.” White women, she claims, “have been telling lies on black men since they were first brought to America in chains,” and, along with their white male counterparts, “enjoy the opportunities and privileges that white supremacy affords [them].”

Another resource included in the program argues that “COVID-19 may have actually helped prepare us to confront in a deeper, more meaningful way the many faces of racism and how entrenched it is in society.” According to the article, written by Andrés Tapia of the consulting firm Korn Ferry, the pandemic has created a “brooding sense of always feeling vulnerable” for white Americans, which has forced them to fear imminent death, which “many Blacks live with every day.” Furthermore, as millions of Americans have lost their jobs and secured unemployment benefits, they “have more time” to attend street protests, which provided “a way to feel like one could have an impact.” As a result, Tapia argues, the pandemic established the conditions for a sense of “shared helplessness” that has resulted in political activism.

In the “Act” section of the training program, AT&T encourages employees to participate in a “21-Day Racial Equity Habit Challenge” that relies on the concepts of “whiteness,” “white privilege,” and “white supremacy.” The program instructs AT&T employees to “do one action [per day for 21 days] to further [their] understanding of power, privilege, supremacy, oppression, and equity.” The challenge begins with a series of lessons on “whiteness,” which claims, among other things, that “white supremacy [is] baked into our country’s foundation,” that “Whiteness is one of the biggest and most long-running scams ever perpetrated,” and that the “weaponization of whiteness” creates a “constant barrage of harm” for minorities. The 21-Day Challenge also directs employees to articles and videos promoting fashionable left-wing causes, including “reparations,” “defund police,” and “trans activism,” with further instruction to “follow, quote, repost, and retweet” organizations including the Transgender Training Institute and the National Center for Transgender Equality.

AT&T is another Fortune 100 company that has succumbed to the latest fad: corporate “diversity and inclusion” programming that traffics in the ugly concepts of race essentialism and collective guilt. The company has publicly pledged itself to a set of principles that include, “When we make a mistake, we have the character and courage to make it right and learn from it.” If that commitment is genuine, CEO John Stankey should immediately scrap Listen Understand Act, apologize to his workers and customers, and develop a program that does not vilify certain racial groups and promote divisive and destructive ideas.